1 / 24

Towards Fine-grained Service Matchmaking by Using Concept Similarity

Towards Fine-grained Service Matchmaking by Using Concept Similarity. Alberto Fernández, Axel Polleres, Sascha Ossowski {alberto.fernandez,sascha.ossowski}@urjc.es axel.polleres@deri.org University Rey Juan Carlos (Madrid - Spain) DERI, National University of Ireland, Galway.

iola
Download Presentation

Towards Fine-grained Service Matchmaking by Using Concept Similarity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Towards Fine-grained Service Matchmaking by Using Concept Similarity Alberto Fernández, Axel Polleres, Sascha Ossowski {alberto.fernandez,sascha.ossowski}@urjc.es axel.polleres@deri.org University Rey Juan Carlos (Madrid - Spain) DERI, National University of Ireland, Galway SMR2’07. ISWC, Busan. Nov. 11 – 15, 2007.

  2. Outline • Introduction • Concept Similarity • Matching Semantic Web Services • Towards a combined notion of similarity-based SM • Conclusions

  3. Outline • Introduction • Concept Similarity • Matching Semantic Web Services • Towards a combined notion of similarity-based SM • Conclusions

  4. Introduction • Location and selection of services in SOA • Service Descriptions • Provided services (advertisements) • Service requests • Both based on shared formal ontologies • Notions of match between advertisements and requests • Subsumption checking • Boolean (or several degrees of) match • Concept similarity • Numerical (fine grained) • Objective: • Unified framework: Notions of match + concept similarity

  5. Outline • Introduction • Concept Similarity • Matching Semantic Web Services • Towards a combined notion of similarity-based SM • Conclusions

  6. Concept Similarity • Semantic distance approaches • Rada et al.: Shortest path between two concepts in the taxonomy dist(c1, c2) = depth(c1) + depth(c2) − 2 × depth(lcs(c1, c2)) • Leacock & Chodorow • Fernandez et al.

  7. Concept Similarity • Semantic distance: taking depth into account • Wu & Palmer • Li et al.

  8. Concept Similarity • Feature-based approaches (Tversky) • Contrast model contrast(C,D) = f(ftrs(C) ftrs(D))−f(ftrs(C)\ftrs(D))−f(ftrs(D)\ftrs(C)) • f(·) is usually the count of features, ftrs(C) set of features in C • number of common minus the number of non-common features • Ratio model Which is commonly taken as

  9. Concept Similarity • Information Content approaches • pr(c) = probability of an individual being described by a specific concept c • Resnik sim(c1, c2) = IC(lcs(c1, c2)) = −log pr(lcs(c1, c2)) • Jiang & Conrath sim(c1, c2) = IC(c1) + IC(c2) − 2 × IC(lcs(c1, c2)) • Lin

  10. Concept Similarity • Description Logics approaches • Borgida et al. • Applyies distance, feature and information content models • Very simple DL (A): only conjunctions • Di Noia et al. • potential match (some requests in demand D are not specified in S): • the number of concepts names in D not in S, • the number of number restrictions of D not implied by those of S • add recursively rankPotential for each universal role quantification in D • Fanizzi & d’Amato • define a similarity measure between concepts in ALN DL. • decompose the normal form of the concept descriptions: • Primitive concepts: ratio of common individuals wrt. either conjunct. • Value restrictions: computed recursively, the average value is taken. • Numeric restrictions: ratio of overlap, the average value is taken

  11. Concept Similarity • Information Retrieval approaches • OWLS-MX (Klusch et al.) • logic-based reasoning is complemented by IR based similarity • four different token-based string metrics • the cosine • the loss of information • the extended Jacquard • Jensen-Shannon information divergence • applied to unfolded concepts: • (and C (and B (and A))) corresponds to the concept C (C  B  A).

  12. Concept Similarity: compound concepts • Rada et al. • Disjunction • Conjunction • Ehrig et al. (cosine) • = (sim(e, e1), sim(e, e2), . . . , sim(e, f1), sim(e, f2), . . .), • Sierra & Debenham

  13. Outline • Introduction • Concept Similarity • Matching Semantic Web Services • Towards a combined notion of similarity-based SM • Conclusions

  14. Matching SWS: notions of match • Paolucci et al. • An advertisement (S) matches a request (R) iff • for each output of R there is a matching output in S. • for each input of S there is a matching input in R. • Degree of match for outputs (inverse for inputs) • Exact: OUTR and OUTS are equivalent or OUTR subclass of OUTS • Plug In: OUTS subsumes OUTR • Subsumes: OUTR subsumes OUTS • Fail: no subsumption relation • If there are several outputs with different degree of match, the minimum degree is used • The set of service advertisements is sorted by comparing output matches first

  15. Matching SWS: notions of match • OWLS-MX • Hybrid: Logic based + Syntactic IR based similarity • Matching filters • Exact: INS INR: INS= INROUTR OUTS: OUTR= OUTS • Plug In: •  INS INR: INS INR OUTR OUTS: OUTSLSC(OUTR) • Subsumes: •  INS INR: INS INR OUTR OUTS : OUTROUTS • Subsumed-by: •  INS INR: INS INR OUTR OUTS: (OUTS= OUTR OUTSLGC(OUTR))  SIMIR(S,R)   • Logic-based fail: above logic based filters fail • Nearest-neighbour: • INSINR: INS INR OUTR OUTS: OUTROUTS SIMIR(S,R)   • Fail

  16. Matching SWS: notions of match • Li & Horrocks • One DL concept defines the inputs and one the outputs • Extend the degree levels proposed by Paolucci • Exact: if S = R • Plug In: if R  S • Subsume: if S  R • Intersection: if (S⊓R  ) • Disjoint: if S ⊓ R  

  17. Outline • Introduction • Concept Similarity • Matching Semantic Web Services • Towards a combined notion of similarity-based SM • Conclusions

  18. NoM NoSM sim exact 1 1 level1 level2 0 . . . leveln fail 0 Towards a combined notion of simil.-based SM • Notion of similarity match (NoSM) • Real number in [0..1] • Notion of match • Logic-based, coarse grained • Several levels of match • NoM  {exact, level1, level2, …, leveln, fail} • Refining with concept similarity (sim) • Real number in [0..1] • Aggregation • Compound concepts (e.g. set of inputs) • Components: Inputs, Outputs, Operations • Maintaining NoM (logic-based) semantic

  19. Outline • Introduction • Concept Similarity • Matching Semantic Web Services • Towards a combined notion of similarity-based SM • Conclusions

  20. Conclusions • Concept Similarity • Distance is commonly used … • Assumes equally distributed instances over concepts • Difficult to apply to DL • Adoption of canonical representation? Spanning tree of pre-classification, new atomic concept names for R.C, R.C, …

  21. Example

  22. Conclusions • Concept Similarity • Distance is commonly used … • Assumes equally distributed instances over concepts • Difficult to apply to DL • Adoption of canonical representation? Spanning tree of pre-classification, new atomic concept names for R.C, R.C, … • … but other approaches exist (features, IC, IR …) • Concept definitions vs instances • Matching SWS • Most current approaches based on inputs/outputs • Logic based reasoning: subsumption • Several (non-numerical) degrees of match

  23. Conclusions and further work • Notion of similarity-based service matching • Using concept similarity to refine notion of match • Fine-grained degree of match: facilitates service ranking • Open issues • Which service description framework to focus on? OWL-S, WSMO, etc, or a new one to which these approaches could be easily mapped? • Which concept similarity measure better fits our framework? Is there a single “best” measure? What are the conditions that it must fulfill? • How should values corresponding to different elements be combined? • Do different applications require the same framework or should it be adapted for each of them?

  24. Thanks!! Questions?

More Related