Using quantitative aspects of alignment generation for argumentation on mappings

Antoine Isaac*, Cássia Trojahn, Shenghui Wang, Paulo Quaresma

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademicpeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)
22 Downloads (Pure)


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.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationOM'08 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Ontology Matching
Number of pages12
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2008
Externally publishedYes
Event3rd International Workshop on Ontology Matching, OM-2008 - Karlsruhe, Germany
Duration: 26 Oct 200826 Oct 2008

Publication series

NameCEUR workshop proceedings
PublisherRheinisch Westfälische Technische Hochschule
ISSN (Print)1613-0073


Conference3rd International Workshop on Ontology Matching, OM-2008
Abbreviated titleOM 2008
OtherCollocated with the 7th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC-2008


Dive into the research topics of 'Using quantitative aspects of alignment generation for argumentation on mappings'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this