Abstract
In Description Logics (DLs), concept similarity measures (CSMs) aim at identifying a degree of commonality between two given concepts and are often regarded as a generalization of the classical reasoning problem of equivalence. That is, any two concepts are equivalent if their similarity degree is one, and vice versa. When two concepts are not quite equivalent but similar, nevertheless, a problem may arise as to which aspects of commonality should play more important role than others. This work presents the so-called preference profile, which is design guidelines for an agent’s preferences and points out to our preliminary developing stage of \(\mathsf {sim}^\pi \) [1], in which an agent’s preferences can influence the calculation of CSM in DL \(\mathcal {ELH}\).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Racharak, T., Suntisrivaraporn, B., Tojo, S.: Are Frog and TreeLizard similar? guidelines for concept similarity measures under an agent’s preferences in dls. Technical-Report BS2015-01, School of Information, Computer and Communication Technology, Sirinthorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasart University, Sirinthorn International Institute of Technology, Thailand (2015). http://ict.siit.tu.ac.th/~sun/dw/doku.php?id=reports
Son, T.C., Pontelli, E.: Planning with preferences using logic programming. In: Lifschitz, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) LPNMR 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2923, pp. 247–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P. (eds.): The Construction of Preference. Cambridge University Press, New York (2006)
Scherer, K.: What are emotions? and how can they be measured? Soc. Sci. Inf. 44(4), 693–727 (2005)
Suntisrivaraporn, B.: A similarity measure for the description logic el with unfoldable terminologies. In: INCoS, pp. 408–413 (2013)
Tongphu, S., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Algorithms for measuring similarity between elh concept descriptions: a case study on snomed ct. J. Comput. Inf. (2015). Accessed 7 May 2015 (to appear)
Racharak, T., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Similarity measures for FL0 concept descriptions from an automata-theoretic point of view. In: Proceedings of The 6th Annual International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Embedded Systems (ICICTES 2015) (2015)
Tongphu, S., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: A non-standard instance checking for the description logic ELH. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development (KEOD 2014) (2014)
Tongphu, S., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: On desirable properties of the structural subsumption-based similarity measure. In: Supnithi, T., Yamaguchi, T., Pan, J.Z., Wuwongse, V., Buranarach, M. (eds.) Semantic Technology. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), pp. 19–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)
Lehmann, K., Turhan, A.-Y.: A Framework for Semantic-Based Similarity Measures for elh-concepts. In: Cerro, L.F., Herzig, A., Mengin, J. (eds.) JELIA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7519, pp. 307–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Acknowledgments
This research is partially supported by Thammasart University Research Fund under the TU Research Scholar, Contract No. TOR POR 1/13/2558; the Center of Excellence in Intelligent Informatics, Speech and Language Technology, and Service Innovation (CILS), Thammasat University; and the JAIST-NECTEC-SIIT dual doctoral degree program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Racharak, T., Suntisrivaraporn, B., Tojo, S. (2016). Identifying an Agent’s Preferences Toward Similarity Measures in Description Logics. In: Qi, G., Kozaki, K., Pan, J., Yu, S. (eds) Semantic Technology. JIST 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9544. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31676-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31676-5_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31675-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31676-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)