Bibliography on IST-Knowledgeweb (2017-06-06)

After years of research on ontology matching, it is reasonable to consider several questions: is the field of ontology matching still making progress? Is this progress significant enough to pursue some further research? If so, what are the particularly promising directions? To answer these questions, we review the state of the art of ontology matching and analyze the results of recent ontology matching evaluations. These results show a measurable improvement in the field, the speed of which is albeit slowing down. We conjecture that significant improvements can be obtained only by addressing important challenges for ontology matching. We present such challenges with insights on how to approach them, thereby aiming to direct research into the most promising tracks and to facilitate the progress of the field.

Alignments represent correspondences between entities of two ontologies. They are produced from the ontologies by ontology matchers. In order for matchers to exchange alignments and for applications to manipulate matchers and alignments, a minimal agreement is necessary. The Alignment API provides abstractions for the notions of network of ontologies, alignments and correspondences as well as building blocks for manipulating them such as matchers, evaluators, renderers and parsers. We recall the building blocks of this API and present here the version 4 of the Alignment API through some of its new features: ontology proxys, the expressive alignment language EDOAL and evaluation primitives.

RDF is a knowledge representation language dedicated to the annotation of resources within the framework of the semantic web. Among the query languages for RDF, SPARQL allows querying RDF through graph patterns, i.e., RDF graphs involving variables. Other languages, inspired by the work in databases, use regular expressions for searching paths in RDF graphs. Each approach can express queries that are out of reach of the other one. Hence, we aim at combining these two approaches. For that purpose, we define a language, called PRDF (for "Path RDF") which extends RDF such that the arcs of a graph can be labeled by regular expression patterns. We provide PRDF with a semantics extending that of RDF, and propose a correct and complete algorithm which, by computing a particular graph homomorphism, decides the consequence between an RDF graph and a PRDF graph. We then define the PSPARQL query language, extending SPARQL with PRDF graph patterns and complying with RDF model theoretic semantics. PRDF thus offers both graph patterns and path expressions. We show that this extension does not increase the computational complexity of SPARQL and, based on the proposed algorithm, we have implemented a correct and complete PSPARQL query engine.

Les environnements d'intelligence ambiante servent d'interface entre les services et les utilisateurs. Les applications doivent prendre en compte le contexte dans lequel les utilisateurs évoluent (le lieu, la position sociale ou hiérarchique ou l'activité par exemple) pour adapter leur comportement. Il doit exister un flux d'informations de l'environnement vers les applications. Ces applications doivent pouvoir prendre en compte dynamiquement l'arrivée de nouveaux éléments dans l'environnement (utilisateurs ou dispositifs), et les informations de contexte en provenance de l'environnement doivent pouvoir parvenir aux applications entrantes; ces flux d'informations ne peuvent pas être déterminés à l'avance et doivent se construire pendant l'exécution. Les modèles de gestion de l'information de contexte existants ne traitent pas ou peu cet aspect dynamique de l'informatique diffuse. Nous proposons d'utiliser les technologies du web sémantique pour décrire et rechercher ces informations: l'information de contexte est exprimée en RDF et décrite par des ontologies OWL. Ces technologies, parce qu'elles sont fondées sur l'hypothèse du monde ouvert, assurent l'ouverture du système et la prise en compte de dispositifs hétérogènes. Nous montrons qu'à l'aide d'un protocole simple qui permet à chacun des dispositifs et applications d'exhiber sur le réseau un modèle des informations de contexte qu'il produit ou qu'il recherche et de s'identifier, toutes les applications de l'environnement satisfont leurs besoins en informations de contexte. De surcroît, l'ouverture des langages de description d'ontologies permet l'extension des descriptions de contexte à tout moment et les technologies d'alignement d'ontologies permettent l'utilisation d'ontologies développées indépendamment. Nous avons implémenté un composant pour la gestion de l'information de contexte fondé sur ce modèle. Puis nous avons développé une architecture distribuée où les dispositifs et les applications embarquent ce composant et exposent un modèle de l'information de contexte qu'ils recherchent ou produisent. Nous avons montré comment cette architecture permet d'accepter sans interruption de nouveaux composants.

This paper presents the results obtained by AROMA for its first participation to OAEI. AROMA is an hybrid, extensional and asymmetric ontology alignment method which makes use of the association paradigm and a statistical interstingness measure, the implication intensity.

L'alignement d'ontologies met en évidence les relations sémantiques entre les entités de deux ontologies à confronter. L'outil de choix pour l'alignement est une mesure de similarité sur les couples d'entités. Certaines méthodes d'alignement performantes font dépendre la similarité d'un couple de celles des couples voisins. La circularité dans les définitions résultantes est traitée par le calcul itératif d'un point fixe. Nous proposons un cadre unificateur, appelé alignement dirigé par la structure, qui permet de décrire ces méthodes en dépit de divergences d'ordre technique. Celui-ci combine l'appariement de graphes et le calcul matriciel. Nous présentons son application à la ré-implémentation de l'algorithme OLA, baptisée OLA2.

Relating ontologies is very important for many ontology-based applications and more important in open environments like the semantic web. The relations between ontology entities can be obtained by ontology matching and represented as alignments. Hence, alignments must be taken into account in ontology management. This chapter establishes the requirements for alignment management. After a brief introduction to matching and alignments, we justify the consideration of alignments as independent entities and provide the life cycle of alignments. We describe the important functions of editing, managing and exploiting alignments and illustrate them with existing components.

Pervasive computing aims at providing services for human beings that interact with their environment, encompassing objects and humans who reside in it. Applications must be able to take into account the context in which users evolve, e.g., physical location, social or hierarchical position, current tasks as well as related information. These applications have to deal with the dynamic integration in the environment of new, and sometimes unexpected, elements (users or devices). In turn, the environment has to provide context information to newly designed applications. We describe an architecture in which context information is distributed in the environment and context managers use semantic web technologies in order to identify and characterize available resources. The components in the environment maintain their own context expressed in RDF and described through OWL ontologies. They may communicate this information to other components, obeying a simple protocol for identifying them and determining the information they are capable to provide. We show how this architecture allows the introduction of new components and new applications without interrupting what is working. In particular, the openness of ontology description languages makes possible the extension of context descriptions and ontology matching helps dealing with independently developed ontologies.

Solving problems raised by heterogeneous ontologies can be achieved by matching the ontologies and processing the resulting alignments. This is typical of data mediation in which the data must be translated from one knowledge source to another. We propose to solve the data translation problem, i.e. the processing part, using the SPARQL query language. Indeed, such a language is particularly adequate for extracting data from one ontology and, through its CONSTRUCT statement, for generating new data. We present examples of such transformations, but we also present a set of example correspondences illustrating the needs for particular representation constructs, such as aggregates, value-generating built-in functions and paths, which are missing from SPARQL. Hence, we advocate the use of two SPARQL extensions providing these missing features.

Aligning ontologies is a crucial and tedious task. Matching algorithms and tools provide support to facilitate the task of the user in defining correspondences between ontologies entities. However, automatic matching is actually limited to the detection of simple one to one correspondences to be further refined by the user. We introduce in this paper Correspondence Patterns as a tool to assist the design of ontology alignments. Based on existing research on patterns in the fields of software and ontology engineering, we define a pattern template and use it to develop a correspondence patterns library. This library is published in RDF following the Alignment Ontology vocabulary.

On souhaite modéliser la sémantique d'un réseau de connaissances hétérogènes mises en correspondances. On suppose que ces réseaux sont représentés par un ensemble d'ontologies reliées entre elles par des alignements d'ontologies. Dans un contexte comme le Web ou certains réseaux pair-à-pair, diverses ontologies sont accessibles mais fortement hétérogènes en termes d'expressivité et de modélisation. Aussi, les systèmes d'inférence associés peuvent être indépendants les uns des autres. Je propose une sémantique générique pour ces réseaux, tolérante à l'hétérogénéité et permettant d'exploiter des systèmes existants sans les perturber. Cette sémantique garantie par ailleurs le principe de médiation, et permet une réutilisabilité des alignements et des ontologies. J'en propose quatre applications : les ontologies modulaires ; un langage d'alignement expressif distinct du langage d'ontologies ; un opérateur de composition d'alignements ; une procédure de raisonnement distribué.

Similarity has become a classical tool for ontology confrontation motivated by alignment, mapping or merging purposes. In the definition of an ontology-based measure one has the choice between covering a single facet (e.g., URIs, labels, instances of an entity, etc.), covering all of the facets or just a subset thereof. In our matching tool, OLA, we had opted for an integrated approach towards similarity, i.e., calculation of a unique score for all candidate pairs based on an aggregation of all facet-wise comparison results. Such a choice further requires effective means for the establishment of importance ratios for facets, or weights, as well as for extracting an alignment out of the ultimate similarity matrix. In previous editions of the competition OLA has relied on a graph representation of the ontologies to align, OL-graphs, that reflected faithfully the syntactic structure of the OWL descriptions. A pair of OL-graphs was exploited to form and solve a system of equations whose approximate solutions were taken as the similarity scores. OLA2 is a new version of OLA which comprises a less integrated yet more homogeneous graph representation that allows similarity to be expressed as graph matching and further computed through matrix multiplying. Although OLA2 lacks key optimization tools from the previous one, while a semantic grounding in the form of WORDNET engine is missing, its results in the competition, at least for the benchmark test suite, are perceivably better.

In order to evaluate ontology matching algorithms it is necessary to confront them with test ontologies and to compare the results with some reference. The most prominent comparison criteria are precision and recall originating from information retrieval. Precision and recall are thought of as some degree of correction and completeness of results. However, when the objects to compare are semantically defined, like ontologies and alignments, it can happen that a fully correct alignment has low precision. This is due to the restricted set-theoretic foundation of these measures. Drawing on previous syntactic generalizations of precision and recall, semantically justified measures that satisfy maximal precision and maximal recall for correct and complete alignments is proposed. These new measures are compatible with classical precision and recall and can be computed.

This deliverable provides the description of an alignment language which is both expressive and independent from ontology languages. It defines the language through its abstract syntax and semantics depending on ontology language semantics. It then describes two concrete syntax: an exchange syntax in RDF/XML and a surface syntax for human consumption. Finally, it presents the current implementation of this expressive language within the Alignment API taking advantage of the OMWG implementation.

We present the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2007 campaign as well as its results. The OAEI campaign aims at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test sets. OAEI-2007 builds over previous campaigns by having 4 tracks with 7 test sets followed by 17 participants. This is a major increase in the number of participants compared to the previous years. Also, the evaluation results demonstrate that more participants are at the forefront. The final and official results of the campaign are those published on the OAEI web site.

In order to support semantic interoperation in open environments, where agents can dynamically join or leave and no prior assumption can be made on the ontologies to align, the different agents involved need to agree on the semantics of the terms used during the interoperation. Reaching this agreement can only come through some sort of negotiation process. Indeed, agents will differ in the domain ontologies they commit to; and their perception of the world, and hence the choice of vocabulary used to represent concepts. We propose an approach for supporting the creation and exchange of different arguments, that support or reject possible correspondences. Each agent can decide, according to its preferences, whether to accept or refuse a candidate correspondence. The proposed framework considers arguments and propositions that are specific to the matching task and are based on the ontology semantics. This argumentation framework relies on a formal argument manipulation schema and on an encoding of the agents' preferences between particular kinds of arguments.

Dealing with heterogeneity requires finding correspondences between ontologies and using these correspondences for performing some action such as merging ontologies, transforming ontologies, translating data, mediating queries and reasoning with aligned ontologies. This deliverable considers this problem through the introduction of an alignment life cycle which also identifies the need for manipulating, storing and sharing the alignments before processing them. In particular, we also consider support for run time and design time alignment processing.

We propose a Description-Logics-based language that extends standard DL with distributed capabilities. More precisely, it offers the possibility to formally describe the semantic relations that exist between two ontologies in a networked knowledge-based system. Contrary to Distributed Description Logics, it is possible to compose correspondences (or bridge rules), while still being able to hide some of the discrepancies between ontologies. Moreover, when ontologies have no nominals, no A-Box axioms, and correspondences are restricted to cross-ontology subsumption, the satisfiability of a local ontology is not influenced by ontology alignments and other ontologies, i.e., local deduction is invariant to the change of the outer system. Although we do not have a complete reasoning procedure, we provide inference rules and semantic properties, and a discussion on reasoning in this formalism.

L'informatique pervasive a pour but d'offrir des services fondés sur la possibilité pour les humains d'interagir avec leur environnement (y compris les objets et autres humains qui l'occupent). Les applications dans ce domaine doivent être capable de considérer le contexte dans lequel les utilisateurs évoluent (qu'il s'agisse de leur localisation physique, leur position sociale ou hiérarchique ou leurs tâches courantes ainsi que des informations qui y sont liées). Ces applications doivent gérer dynamiquement l'irruption dans la scène de nouveaux éléments (utilisateurs ou appareils) même inconnus et produire de l'information de contexte utile à des applications non envisagées. Après avoir examiné les différents modèles de contexte étudiés en intelligence artificielle et en informatique pervasive, nous montrons en quoi ils ne répondent pas directement à ces besoins dynamiques. Nous décrivons une architecture dans laquelle les informations de contexte sont distribuées dans l'environnement et où les gestionnaires de contexte utilisent les technologies développées pour le web sémantique afin d'identifier et de caractériser les ressources disponibles. L'information de contexte est exprimée en RDF et décrite par des ontologies en OWL. Les dispositifs de l'environnement maintiennent leur propre contexte et peuvent communiquer cette information à d'autres dispositifs. Ils obéissent à un protocole simple permettant de les identifier et de déterminer quelles informations ils sont susceptibles d'apporter. Nous montrons en quoi une telle architecture permet d'ajouter de nouveaux dispositifs et de nouvelles applications sans interrompre ce qui fonctionne. En particulier, l'ouverture des langages de description d'ontologies permettent d'étendre les descriptions et l'alignement des ontologies permet de considérer des ontologies indépendantes.

In a pervasive computing environment, heterogeneous devices need to communicate in order to provide services adapted to the situation of users. So, they need to assess this situation as their context. We have developed an extensible context model using semantic web technologies and a context information management component that enable the interaction between context information producer devices and context information consumer devices and as well as their insertion in an open environment.

In a pervasive environment, heterogeneous devices need to communicate in order to provide services adapted to users. We have developed an extensible context model using semantic web technologies and a context information management component that enable the interaction between context information producer devices and context information consumer devices and as well as their insertion in an open environment.

We present the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2006 campaign as well as its results. The OAEI campaign aims at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test sets. OAEI-2006 built over previous campaigns by having 6 tracks followed by 10 participants. It shows clear improvements over previous results. The final and official results of the campaign are those published on the OAEI web site.

Choosing a matching tool adapted to a particular application can be very difficult. This document analyses the choice criteria from the application viewpoint and their fulfilment by the candidate matching systems. Different methods (paper analysis, questionnaire, empirical evaluation and decision making techniques) are used for assessing them. We evaluate how these criteria can be combined and how they can help particular users to decide in favour or against some matching system.

We have designed a three-layered model which involves the networks between people, the ontologies they use, and the concepts occurring in these ontologies. We propose how relationships in one network can be extracted from relationships in another one based on analysis techniques relying on this network specificity. For instance, similarity in the ontology layer can be extracted from a similarity measure on the concept layer.

We have been focusing on three-layered socialized semantic space, consisting of social, ontology, and concept layers. In this paper, we propose a new measurement of semantic centrality of people, meaning the power of semantic bridging, on this architecture. Thereby, the consensual ontologies are discovered by semantic alignment-based mining process in the ontology and concept layer. It is represented as the maximal semantic substructures among personal ontologies of semantically interlinked community. Finally, we have shown an example of semantic centrality applied to resource annotation on social network, and discussed our assumptions used in formulation of this measurement.

When agents communicate they do not necessarily use the same vocabulary or ontology. For them to interact successfully they must find correspondences between the terms used in their ontologies. While many proposals for matching two agent ontologies have been presented in the literature, the resulting alignment may not be satisfactory to both agents and can become the object of further negotiation between them. This paper describes our work constructing a formal framework for reaching agents' consensus on the terminology they use to communicate. In order to accomplish this, we adapt argument-based negotiation used in multi-agent systems to deal specifically with arguments that support or oppose candidate correspondences between ontologies. Each agent can decide according to its interests whether to accept or refuse the candidate correspondence. The proposed framework considers arguments and propositions that are specific to the matching task and related to the ontology semantics. This argumentation framework relies on a formal argument manipulation schema and on an encoding of the agents preferences between particular kinds of arguments. The former does not vary between agents, whereas the latter depends on the interests of each agent. Therefore, this work distinguishes clearly between the alignment rationales valid for all agents and those specific to a particular agent.

When agents communicate, they do not necessarily use the same vocabulary or ontology. For them to interact successfully, they must find correspondences (mappings) between the terms used in their respective ontologies. While many proposals for matching two agent ontologies have been presented in the literature, the resulting alignment may not be satisfactory to both agents, and thus may necessitate additional negotiation to identify a mutually agreeable set of correspondences. We propose an approach for supporting the creation and exchange of different arguments, that support or reject possible correspondences. Each agent can decide, according to its preferences, whether to accept or refuse a candidate correspondence. The proposed framework considers arguments and propositions that are specific to the matching task and are based on the ontology semantics. This argumentation framework relies on a formal argument manipulation schema and on an encoding of the agents' preferences between particular kinds of arguments. Whilst the former does not vary between agents, the latter depends on the interests of each agent. Thus, this approach distinguishes clearly between alignment rationales which are valid for all agents and those specific to a particular agent.

In open and dynamic environments, agents will usually differ in the domain ontologies they commit to and their perception of the world. The availability of Alignment Services, that are able to provide correspondences between two ontologies, is only a partial solution to achieving interoperability between agents, because any given candidate set of alignments is only suitable in certain contexts. For a given context, different agents might have different and inconsistent perspectives that reflect their differing interests and preferences on the acceptability of candidate mappings, each of which may be rationally acceptable. In this paper we introduce an argumentation-based negotiation framework over the terminology they use in order to communicate. This argumentation framework relies on a formal argument manipulation schema and on an encoding of the agents preferences between particular kinds of arguments. The former does not vary between agents, whereas the latter depends on the interests of each agent. Thus, this approach distinguishes clearly between the alignment rationales valid for all agents and those specific to a particular agent.

One of the main open issues in the ontology matching field is the selection of a current relevant and suitable matcher. The suitability of the given approaches is determined w.r.t the requirements of the application and with careful consideration of a number of factors. This work proposes a multilevel characteristic for matching approaches, which provides a basis for the comparison of different matchers and is used in the decision making process for selection the most appropriate algorithm.

An ontology alignment is the expression of relations between different ontologies. In order to view alignments independently from the language expressing ontologies and from the techniques used for finding the alignments, we use a category-theoretical model in which ontologies are the objects. We introduce a categorical structure, called V-alignment, made of a pair of morphisms with a common domain having the ontologies as codomain. This structure serves to design an algebra that describes formally what are ontology merging, alignment composition, union and intersection using categorical constructions. This enables combining alignments of various provenance. Although the desirable properties of this algebra make such abstract manipulation of V-alignments very simple, it is practically not well fitted for expressing complex alignments: expressing subsumption between entities of two different ontologies demands the definition of non-standard categories of ontologies. We consider two approaches to solve this problem. The first one extends the notion of V-alignments to a more complex structure called W-alignments: a formalization of alignments relying on "bridge axioms". The second one relies on an elaborate concrete category of ontologies that offers high expressive power. We show that these two extensions have different advantages that may be exploited in different contexts (viz., merging, composing, joining or meeting): the first one efficiently processes ontology merging thanks to the possible use of categorical institution theory, while the second one benefits from the simplicity of the algebra of V-alignments.

An ontology alignment explicitly describes the relations holding between two ontologies. A system composed of ontologies and alignments interconnecting them is herein called a distributed system. We give three different semantics of a distributed system, that do not interfere with the semantics of ontologies. Their advantages are compared, with respect to allowing consistent merge of ontologies, managing heterogeneity and complying with an alignment composition operation. We show that only the two first variants, which differ from other proposed semantics, can offer a sound composition operation.

Semantic consequence (entailment) in RDF is ususally computed using Pat Hayes Interpolation Lemma. In this paper, we reformulate this mechanism as a graph homomorphism known as projection in the conceptual graphs community. Though most of the paper is devoted to a detailed proof of this result, we discuss the immediate benefits of this reformulation: it is now easy to translate results from different communities (e.g. conceptual graphs, constraint programming,... ) to obtain new polynomial cases for the NP-complete RDF entailment problem, as well as numerous algorithmic optimizations.

In order to evaluate the performance of ontology matching algorithms it is necessary to confront them with test ontologies and to compare the results. The most prominent criteria are precision and recall originating from information retrieval. However, it can happen that an alignment be very close to the expected result and another quite remote from it, and they both share the same precision and recall. This is due to the inability of precision and recall to measure the closeness of the results. To overcome this problem, we present a framework for generalizing precision and recall. This framework is instantiated by three different measures and we show in a motivating example that the proposed measures are prone to solve the problem of rigidity of classical precision and recall.

We observe that the precision and recall measures are not able to discriminate between very bad and slightly out of target alignments. We propose to generalise these measures by determining the distance between the obtained alignment and the expected one. This generalisation is done so that precision and recall results are at least preserved. In addition, the measures keep some tolerance to errors, i.e., accounting for some correspondences that are close to the target instead of out of target.

Many different methods have been designed for aligning ontologies. These methods use such different techniques that they can hardly be compared theoretically. Hence, it is necessary to compare them on common tests. We present two initiatives that led to the definition and the performance of the evaluation of ontology alignments during 2004. We draw lessons from these two experiments and discuss future improvements.

Among the variety of alignment approaches (e.g., using machine learning, subsumption computation, formal concept analysis, etc.) similarity-based ones rely on a quantitative assessment of pair-wise likeness between entities. Our own alignment tool, OLA, features a similarity model rooted in principles such as: completeness on the ontology language features, weighting of different feature contributions and mutual influence between related ontology entities. The resulting similarities are recursively defined hence their values are calculated by a step-wise, fixed-point-bound approximation process. For the OAEI 2005 contest, OLA was provided with an additional mechanism for weight determination that increases the autonomy of the system.

This document presents solutions for agents using different ontologies, to negotiate the meaning of terms used. The described solutions are based on standard agent technologies as well as alignment techniques developed within Knowledge web. They can be applied for other interacting entities such as semantic web services.

This deliverable focusses on the definition of a delivery alignment format for tools producing alignments (mapping tools). It considers the many formats that are currently available for expressing alignments and evaluate them with regard to criteria that such formats would satisfy. It then proposes some improvements in order to produce a format satisfying more needs.

We take a general perspective on alignment in order to develop common theoretical foundations for the subject. The deliverable comprises a comparative study of different mapping languages by means of distributed first-order logic, and a study on category-theoretical modelling of alignment and merging by means of pushout-combinations.

Schema and ontology matching is a critical problem in many application domains, such as semantic web, schema/ontology integration, data warehouses, e-commerce, etc. Many different matching solutions have been proposed so far. In this paper we present a new classification of schema-based matching techniques that builds on the top of state of the art in both schema and ontology matching. Some innovations are in introducing new criteria which are based on (i) general properties of matching techniques, (ii) interpretation of input information, and (iii) the kind of input information. In particular, we distinguish between approximate and exact techniques at schema-level; and syntactic, semantic, and external techniques at element- and structure-level. Based on the classification proposed we overview some of the recent schema/ontology matching systems pointing which part of the solution space they cover. The proposed classification provides a common conceptual basis, and, hence, can be used for comparing different existing schema/ontology matching techniques and systems as well as for designing new ones, taking advantages of state of the art solutions.

This deliverable presents the evaluation campaign carried out in 2005 and the improvement participants to these campaign and others have to their systems. We draw lessons from this work and proposes improvements for future campaigns.

Interoperability of heterogeneous systems on the Web will be admittedly achieved through an agreement between the underlying ontologies. However, the richer the ontology description language, the more complex the agreement process, and hence the more sophisticated the required tools. Among current ontology alignment paradigms, similarity-based approaches are both powerful and flexible enough for aligning ontologies expressed in languages like OWL. We define a universal measure for comparing the entities of two ontologies that is based on a simple and homogeneous comparison principle: Similarity depends on the type of entity and involves all the features that make its definition (such as superclasses, properties, instances, etc.). One-to-many relationships and circularity in entity descriptions constitute the key difficulties in this context: These are dealt with through local matching of entity sets and iterative computation of recursively dependent similarities, respectively.

Using ontologies is the standard way to achieve interoperability of heterogeneous systems within the Semantic web. However, as the ontologies underlying two systems are not necessarily compatible, they may in turn need to be aligned. Similarity-based approaches to alignment seems to be both powerful and flexible enough to match the expressive power of languages like OWL. We present an alignment tool that follows the similarity-based paradigm, called OLA. OLA relies on a universal measure for comparing the entities of two ontologies that combines in a homogeneous way the entire amount of knowledge used in entity descriptions. The measure is computed by an iterative fixed-point-bound process producing subsequent approximations of the target solution. The alignments produce by OLA on the contest ontology pairs and the way they relate to the expected alignments is discussed and some preliminary conclusions about the relevance of the similarity-based approach as well as about the experimental settings of the contest are drawn.

Ontologies are seen as the solution to data heterogeneity on the web. However, the available ontologies are themselves source of heterogeneity. This can be overcome by aligning ontologies, or finding the correspondence between their components. These alignments deserve to be treated as objects: they can be referenced on the web as such, be completed by an algorithm that improves a particular alignment, be compared with other alignments and be transformed into a set of axioms or a translation program. We present here a format for expressing alignments in RDF, so that they can be published on the web. Then we propose an implementation of this format as an Alignment API, which can be seen as an extension of the OWL API and shares some design goals with it. We show how this API can be used for effectively aligning ontologies and completing partial alignments, thresholding alignments or generating axioms and transformations.

This document considers potential strategies for evaluating ontology alignment algorithms. It identifies various goals for such an evaluation. In the context of the Knowledge web network of excellence, the most important objective is the improvement of existing methods. We examine general evaluation strategies as well as efforts that have already been undergone in the specific field of ontology alignment. We then put forward some methodological and practical guidelines for running such an evaluation.

The semantic web and semantic web services are major efforts in order to spread and to integrate knowledge technology to the whole web. The Knowledge Web network of excellence aims at supporting their developments at the best and largest European level and supporting industry in adopting them. It especially investigates the solution of scalability, heterogeneity and dynamics obstacles to the full development of the semantic web. We explain how Knowledge Web results should benefit knowledge-enhanced multimedia applications.

In this deliverable, specification of knowledge acquisition and modeling of the process of consensus is provided.