Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||Using Quantitative Aspects of Alignment Generation for Argumentation on Mappings|
|Authors: ||Isaac, Antoine|
|Issue Date: ||Oct-2008|
|Abstract: ||State-of-the art mappers articulate several techniques using diﬀerent sources of knowledge in an uniﬁed process. An important issue of ontology mapping is to ﬁnd ways of choosing among many techniques and their variations, and then combining their results. For this, an innovative and promising option is to use frameworks dealing with arguments for or against correspondences. In this paper, we re-use an argumentation framework that considers the conﬁdence levels of mapping arguments. We also propose new frameworks that use voting as a way to cope with various degrees of consensus among arguments. We compare these frameworks by evaluating their application to a range of individual mappers, in the context of a real-world library case.|
|Appears in Collections:||INF - Artigos em Livros de Actas/Proceedings|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.