1. Maurice Hermans

2.  Ontologies  Ontology Mapping  Research Question  String Similarities  Winkler Extension  Proposed Extension  Evaluation  Results  Conclusion 22-6-2012 2Bachelor Conference

3.  Provide a vocabulary of terms that describe a domain of interest  There are several ways in which ontologies can differ: ◦ Encoding ◦ Lexical ◦ Syntactic ◦ Semantic ◦ Semiotic 22-6-2012 3Bachelor Conference

4.  Knowledge systems used in the same domain can be built according to different specifications and requirements  This makes it very hard to exchange data between multiple knowledge systems which do not use the same ontology  Ontology mapping frameworks provide knowledge systems with the capacity to exchange information with other knowledge systems which use different ontologies. 22-6-2012 4Bachelor Conference

5. To what extend can string similarities, applied to concept names, be improved such that these are better suited for ontology mapping? 22-6-2012 5Bachelor Conference

6.  Levenshtein ◦ Uses the number of edit operations required to convert string one string to another  Jaro ◦ Uses the number of matching characters between two strings and their relative position  Jaccard ◦ Compares the sets of tokens of two strings  SoftTFIDF ◦ Includes tokens which are similar according to a secondary similarity function 22-6-2012 6Bachelor Conference

7. 22-6-2012 7Bachelor Conference

8. 22-6-2012 8Bachelor Conference

9. Two partial ontologies from the OAEI dataset 22-6-2012 9Bachelor Conference

10.  Two datasets are used: ◦ 2010 Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative ◦ Dataset created by Cohen et al. 2000  Similarities are evaluated using precision and recall values 22-6-2012 10Bachelor Conference

11. OAEICohen Optimal weight for both datasets is around 0.8 22-6-2012 11Bachelor Conference

12. OAEICohen 22-6-2012 12Bachelor Conference

13. OAEICohen 22-6-2012 13Bachelor Conference

14. OAEICohen 22-6-2012 14Bachelor Conference

15. 22-6-2012 15Bachelor Conference