dialogues for ﬁnding correspondences between partially ... · dialogues for ﬁnding...

Dialogues for finding Correspondences between partially disclosed Ontologies

Terry Payne & Valentina Tamma(in collaboration with Ernesto Jimenez-Ruez & Alessandro Solimando)

Gabrielle Santos, Valentina Tamma, Terry Payne & Floriana Grasso

Dialogue-Based Meaning Negotiation

UK Ontology Network, Newcastle, 14th April 2016Terry PayneUniversity of Liverpool

Using Dialogues to find Alignments

• Different Systems (sensors, devices, services) can assume different ontological models

• Many approaches exist, producing different alignments • But what if fragments of the ontological space are confidential, or

commercially sensitive?

• Agents can exchange knowledge about mappings to find a mutually acceptable alignment.

• Agents disclose preferences on correspondences, terms, axioms • Allows agents to reason with different types of information

2


Approaches to negotiating mappings

3

Aggregating different mappings• Agents selectively identify

what mappings should be disclosed • Strategic choice to avoid undesired

exposure of private knowledge

• Adapts mappings in an evolving environment

Discovering novel mappings• Offer limited ontological

knowledge of seed entities • Agents selectively share

conceptual knowledge to identify localised structural similarity

• Bootstraps the process of aligning different data systems

I know it all! I know nothing!

UK Ontology Network, Newcastle, 14th April 2016Terry PayneUniversity of Liverpool 4

Jimenez-Ruiz E., Payne T.R., Solimando A. and Tamma, V. (2016) Limiting Logical Violations in Ontology Alignment Through Negotiation. In: 15th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. (KR’16), Cape Town.

Payne T.R., and Tamma, V. (2014) A Dialectical Approach to Selectively Reusing Ontological Correspondences. In: 19th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW2014), Linköping, Sweden

I know stuff…

Terry Payne & Valentina Tamma(in collaboration with Ernesto Jimenez-Ruez & Alessandro Solimando)

Dialogues for finding Correspondences between partially disclosed Ontologies

But your stuff breaks my stuff!


• Formal Inquiry Dialogue that…• Allows two agents to exchange knowledge

about known mappings

• Aligns only those entities in each agents’ working fragments, without disclosing the ontologies, or all known mappings

• Allows agents to suggest repairs if a mapping introduces a conservatively violation

Extending the Correspondence Inclusion Dialogue (CID)

5

assertrejectCac

ceptC

repair

acceptR

Alice5A

Bob8B

Alice3A

Bob4B

Alice7A

Bob6B

rejectR

assert

rejectCac

ceptC

repair

acceptR

rejectR

join

matched-close

join

Bob2B

Alice1A

matched-close

close

close

D

e

fi

n

i

t

i

o

n

:

T

h

e

m

o

v

e

m

s

= assert for senderx

h

a

s

t

h

e

s

y

n

t

a

x

hx, assert,�,nili, wheret

h

e

f

o

l

l

o

w

i

n

g

c

o

n

d

i

t

i

o

n

s

h

o

l

d

:

• P

r

e

-

c

o

n

d

i

t

i

o

n

s

1

.

x

6= ⇢

2

.

m

o

v

e

t

y

p

e

(ms

�1) 2 {join, endassert, close}

3

.

9� 2 �x

,

s

.

t

.

(

a

)

�

/2 J

B

x

(

b

)

8�0 2 �x

,

i

f

�

0/2 J

B

x

,

d

e

g

r

e

e

(�0) d

e

g

r

e

e

(�)

(

c

)

g

r

o

u

n

d

e

d

(�,Wx)

(

d

)

j

o

i

n

t

e

s

t

(corr(�)) � ✏

• P

o

s

t

-

c

o

n

d

i

t

i

o

n

s

1

.

J

B

x

0= {�} [ J

B

x; J

B

x̂

0= {�} [ J

B

x̂

2

.

x̂

u

p

p

e

r

= d

e

g

r

e

e

(�)

3

.

A

g

0 = A

g

[ {hcorr(�), jointest(�)i}

4

.

⇢

= x


Selecting a subset of possible mappings

• Alignments typically consist of one-to-one mappings• Combining mappings from different alignment fragments can result

in one-to-many mappings; i.e. ambiguity

• Which of these should be selected?• Could it be resolved though objections within the dialogue? • What if the inclusion of a candidate causes a violation?

6

publication article author

submittedPaper reviewedPaper paper editor


• Through the dialogue each agent extends their ontology by including correspondences• however the integrated ontology should not

introduce any change at least in the hierarchy of • Incomplete knowledge about the other agent means the agents

only assess the changes introduced by

• Modify the repair mechanism by Solimando et al. to incrementally check for violations as new correspondences are proposed

Repairs with incomplete knowledge

7

Ox � A � Ox̂

Ox

Ox � A


Example Dialogue

8

Public Knowledge

Private Knowledge

Bob discovers a conservatively violation!!!

b v a

c v a

Ontologyx ⌘ y

z v y

w

Ontologyha,w,⌘i

Alicec = 0.25

ha, x,⌘i

Alicec = 0.9

hb, x,⌘i

Alicec = 0.55

hb, y,⌘i

Alicec = 0.4

hb, z,⌘i

Alicec = 0.6

Correspondence Store �


ha,w,⌘i

Bob

c

= 0.3

ha, x,⌘i

Bob

c

= 0.85

hb, x,⌘i

Bob

c

= 0.5

hb, y,⌘i

Bob

c

= 0.55

hb, z,⌘i

Bob

c

= 0.575

Commitment Store CS

Alice

ha,x,⌘i = 0.9 joint

ha,x,⌘i = 0.85

Bob

hb,y,⌘i = 0.7 joint

hb,y,⌘i = 0.55

Public Knowledge

Private Knowledge

Commitment Store CS

Alice


ha,x,⌘i = 0.85

Bob


hb,y,⌘i = 0.55

a

b c

ax

w

bc y

z

x y

zw

≣≣⊑⊑ ⊑

≣hAlice, assert, hb, z,⌘i, 0.6,?i

As Bob has the axiom z v y, the

inclusion of b ⌘ y and b ⌘ z would

infer: y v z (similarly for x v z)

ax

w

bc y

z

≣≣


Example Dialogue

9

Public Knowledge

Private Knowledge

Bob suggests a repair by weakening the alignment between b and y

b v a

c v a

Ontologyx ⌘ y

z v y

w

Ontologyha,w,⌘i

Alicec = 0.25

ha, x,⌘i

Alicec = 0.9

hb, x,⌘i

Alicec = 0.55

hb, y,⌘i

Alicec = 0.4

hb, z,⌘i

Alicec = 0.6



ha,w,⌘i

Bob

c

= 0.3

ha, x,⌘i

Bob

c

= 0.85

hb, x,⌘i

Bob

c

= 0.5

hb, y,⌘i

Bob

c

= 0.55

hb, z,⌘i

Bob

c

= 0.575

Commitment Store CS

Alice


ha,x,⌘i = 0.85

Bob


hb,y,⌘i = 0.55

Public Knowledge

Private Knowledge

Commitment Store CS

Alice


ha,x,⌘i = 0.85

Bob


hb,y,⌘i = 0.55

a

b c

ax

w

bc y

z

x y

zw

≣≣⊑⊑ ⊑

≣hBob, repair , hb, z,⌘i, 0.575, {hb, y,wi}i

ax

w

bc y

z

≣≣

Either b ⌘ y or b ⌘ z should be weakened!

As joint

hb,y,⌘i < joint

hb,z,⌘i, Bob suggests a repair

that weakens b ⌘ y by removing b w y,leaving the correspondence b v y

UK Ontology Network, Newcastle, 14th April 2016Terry PayneUniversity of Liverpool 10

I don’t know any mappings

Well ask me a question…

Gabrielle Santos, Valentina Tamma, Terry Payne & Floriana Grasso

Dialogue-Based Meaning Negotiation

Santos G., Tamma, V., Payne T.R., and Grasso, F. (2016) A Dialogue Protocol to Support Meaning Negotiation. In: 15th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. (AAMAS’16), Singapore.

Santos G., Tamma, V., Payne T.R., and Grasso, F. (2015) Dialogue Based Meaning Negotiation. In: 15th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2015), Bertinoro, Italy


Meaning-based Dialogue

• Explores a cognitive approach to reaching consensus over possible correspondences…• Agents identify possible concepts that may be ontologically

equivalent in their respective ontologies • Each then seeks further evidence over the locality of each concept to

verify if these are structurally similar. • Both agents have the opportunity to ask questions • Correspondences only accepted if both agents accept the same

underlying support

11


Cognitive Approach

12

Open

Propose

Close

Confirm

Agent initiates the dialogue • Identify the name of the entity to be aligned. • Opponent can chose to offer a candidate

corresponding entity, or reject the dialogue

Alice3A

Bob2B

Alice1A

Bob4B

Alice6A

Alice8A

Bob5B

Bob7B

fail

initiate

rejectC

propose

rejectC

justify

testify

justify

justify

assert

rejectS

justify

testify

assertrejectS

accept

accept

Alice3A

Bob2B

Alice1A

Bob4B

Alice6A

Alice8A

Bob5B

Bob7B

fail

initiate

rejectC

propose

rejectC

justify

testify

justify

justify

assert

rejectS

justify

testify

assertrejectS

accept

accept


Propose

13

Open

Propose

Close

Confirm

Allows agent to gather supporting evidence in favour of a correspondence

• Asks for triples representing the entities locality • Attempts to match this to its own triples

If sufficient support found, then it can assert a correspondence

Alice3A

Bob2B

Alice1A

Bob4B

Alice6A

Alice8A

Bob5B

Bob7B

fail

initiate

rejectC

propose

rejectC

justify

testify

justify

justify

assert

rejectS

justify

testify

assertrejectS

accept

accept

Alice3A

Bob2B

Alice1A

Bob4B

Alice6A

Alice8A

Bob5B

Bob7B

fail

initiate

rejectC

propose

rejectC

justify

testify

justify

justify

assert

rejectS

justify

testify

assertrejectS

accept

accept


Confirm

14

Open

Propose

Close

Confirm

Opponent verifies the support for the correspondence

• Can accept the correspondence • May ascertain its own evidence to augment the

support (i.e returning to the propose phase)

Alice3A

Bob2B

Alice1A

Bob4B

Alice6A

Alice8A

Bob5B

Bob7B

fail

initiate

rejectC

propose

rejectC

justify

testify

justify

justify

assert

rejectS

justify

testify

assertrejectS

accept

accept

Alice3A

Bob2B

Alice1A

Bob4B

Alice6A

Alice8A

Bob5B

Bob7B

fail

initiate

rejectC

propose

rejectC

justify

testify

justify

justify

assert

rejectS

justify

testify

assertrejectS

accept

accept


Close

15

Open

Propose

Close

ConfirmAlice3A

Bob2B

Alice1A

Bob4B

Alice6A

Alice8A

Bob5B

Bob7B

fail

initiate

rejectC

propose

rejectC

justify

testify

justify

justify

assert

rejectS

justify

testify

assertrejectS

accept

accept

Alice3A

Bob2B

Alice1A

Bob4B

Alice6A

Alice8A

Bob5B

Bob7B

fail

initiate

rejectC

propose

rejectC

justify

testify

justify

justify

assert

rejectS

justify

testify

assertrejectS

accept

accept

Dialogue fragment terminates if • Both agents accept the correspondence • No support can be found that is acceptable to

both agents


Conclusions• Dialogue mechanisms can support anytime computing of alignments

• Agents can selectively disclose private correspondences given their perceived correctness.

• Extensions allow incremental check/repair for conservativity violations• A modified notion of mutually acceptable repairs mitigate problems due to an agents’

incomplete knowledge about the other agent’s ontology

• A cognitive approach explores possible mappings through asking questions

• mappings are proposed with supporting evidence

• CID Dialogue has been empirically evaluated using OAEI datasets• results have been published at various conferences, and journal versions in progress…

16

http://cgi.csc.liv.ac.uk/~trp/Knowledge-Based-Agents.html

http://cgi.csc.liv.ac.uk/~trp/Knowledge-Based-Agents.html

dialogues for ﬁnding correspondences between partially ... · dialogues for ﬁnding...

Documents