Institut für Informatik Automatische Sprachverarbeitung The Impact of Semantic Handshakes TMRA 2006, Leipzig, 12.10.2006 Lutz Maicher, University of Leipzig

Institut für Informatik

AutomatischeSprachverarbeitung

The Impact of Semantic Handshakes

TMRA 2006, Leipzig, 12.10.2006

Lutz Maicher, University of [email protected]

2Lutz Maicher


The Impact of Semantic Handshakes AutomatischeSprachverarbeitung

Agenda

• The Integration Model of the TMDM• Semantic Handshakes and Interaction Protocols• Simulations• Result and Discussion

3Lutz Maicher



Preliminary Remark

• This presentation does only describe the impact of a phenomenon which is determined by the existence of– the integration model of the TMDM (Topic Maps Data Model)

– Topic Maps Communication Protocols like TMRAP, TMIP, etc

• This presentation does not propose any new issues– nor methodologies, technologies, paradigms or anything else

4Lutz Maicher



The Integration Model of the TMDM

5Lutz Maicher



The Integration Model of the TMDM

• Two Topic Items are equal if (TMDM 5.3.5):(they represent the same Subject)

– at least one equal string in their [subject identifiers] properties,

– at least one equal string in their [item identifiers] properties,

– at least one equal string in their [subject locators] properties,

– an equal string in the [subject identifiers] property of the one topic item and the [item identifiers] property of the other, or

– the same information item in their [reified] properties.

• Equal Topic Items A and B have to be merged into C (TMDM 6.2)

– ….

– Set C's [subject identifiers] property to the union of the values of A and B's [subject identifiers] properties.

– ….

6Lutz Maicher



The Integration Model of the TMDM in practice

[subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher}

A

[subject identifier] {ns2:MaicherLutz}

Bequality holds not(according TMDM)


A


B

In the case of terminological diversity….

7Lutz Maicher



The Integration Model of the TMDM in practice


A


Bequality holds(according TMDM)

C


merging(according TMDM)

In the case of terminologial alignment…. the PSI case

But who can enforce universal vocabularies?

8Lutz Maicher



Semantic Handshakes and Interaction Protocols

9Lutz Maicher



Semantic Handshake

[subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher, ns2:MaicherLutz}

A


Bequality holds(according TMDM)

C


merging(according TMDM)

The author of A has decided that both terms can be used to indicate Lutz Maicher

10

Lutz Maicher



Local Semantic Handshakes and Interaction Protocols


A

[subject identifier] {ns2:MaicherLutz, ns3:ML}

B

[subject identifier] {ns3:ML}

C

[subject identifier] {ns4:Lutz, ns3:ML}

D

Local Semantic Handshake Local Semantic Handshake

Local Semantic Handshake

TM1

TM3

TM2

TM4

All Topic Maps interacting using the existing protocols like TMRAP, TMIP …

11

Lutz Maicher





A


B


C


D

Request: Do you have a Topic Item with „ns1:LutzMaicher“ or „ns2:MaicherLutz“ in the property [subject identifier]? (Do you have information about the Subject Lutz Maicher?)

Step 1

12

Lutz Maicher





A


B


C


D

Request: Do you have a Topic Item with „ns1:LutzMaicher“ or „ns2:MaicherLutz“ in the property [subject identifier]? (Do you have information about the Subject Lutz Maicher?)

NO

NO

ns2:MaicherLutz, ns3:ML

ns2:MaicherLutz, ns1:LutzMaicher

Step 1

13

Lutz Maicher




[subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher, ns2:MaicherLutz,

ns3:ML}

A


ns3:ML}

B


C


D

Request: Do you have a Topic Item with „ns1:LutzMaicher“, „ns2:MaicherLutz“ or „ns3:ML“ in the property [subject identifier]?

Step 2

14

Lutz Maicher





ns3:ML}

A


ns3:ML}

B


C


D

Request: Do you have a Topic Item with „ns1:LutzMaicher“, „ns2:MaicherLutz“ or „ns3:ML“ in the property [subject identifier]?

ns1:LutzMaicher, ns3:ML,ns2:MaicherLutz

ns3:ML

ns4:Lutz, ns3:ML

ns1:LutzMaicher, ns3:ML,ns2:MaicherLutz,

Step 2

15

Lutz Maicher



Local Semantic Handshakes leads to Global Integration


ns3:ML, ns4:Lutz}

A


ns3:ML}

B


ns3:ML, ns4:Lutz}

C


ns3:ML, ns4:Lutz}

D

TM1

TM3

TM2

TM4

Global Integration through Local Semantic Handshakes.

16

Lutz Maicher



Hypothesis and Simulation Design

17

Lutz Maicher



Hypothesis

• Due to the existence of the TMDM and interaction protocols,terminological diversity will be resolved to global integration if the majority of Topics discloses one local Semantic Handshake

• Simulations for testing the Hypothesis …

18

Lutz Maicher



Simulation Design

Create Topics– Create a number (cardE) of Topics which are assumed to exist in the

world and representing the same Subject by definition– All Topics can always interact with each other Add Subject Identifiers randomly– Draw a number of Subject Identifieres (nbrOfDifferentII) which should

be assigend to the Topic according to a given distribution (distributionNbrOfII)

• if number is 1 no semantic handshake• if number is bigger than 1 semantic handshakes are done

– Draw for each Subject Identifier of a Topic an integer according to a given distribution (distributionII) in the range [1..nbrOfII]

Start Interaction between Topics– If two Topics have an identical number in their sets of Subject Identifiers

they become merged (the sets of Subject Identifiers of both Topics become the union of the origin sets)

19

Lutz Maicher



Definition of an Distribution

• Distributions are defined as follows:

<{0.8,1.0},6> is similar to the lottery– that 1,2,3 is drawn with the probability 80%

– that 1,2,3 is drawn with the probability 20%

<{0.8,0.9,0.97,1.0}, 100> is similar to the lottery– that a number in [1,25] is drawn with the probability 80%

– that a number in [26,50] is drawn with the probability 10%



20

Lutz Maicher



Analysis - Measures

• Measures of Interest (after some iterations)– Number of independet clusters (integration clouds)

• an integration cloud is a set of Topics which are equal

– Average size of the integration clouds

)()()( EcardTcardTcardEe

i

i

clouds(E) the lower the better

clouds(E) = 1 global integration

the higher the better

card(T) = card(E) global integration

clouds(E) = 3

card(T) = 33/9 = 3,7

clouds(E) = 2

card(T) = 41/9 = 4,6

21

Lutz Maicher



Experiment Series

22

Lutz Maicher



Simulation: Global Ontology the PSI Case

• No Simulation is necessary– each Topic has the same, globally unique Subject Identifier

– clouds(E)=1 (Global Integration)

– card(T) = card(E)

… but the enforcement of global ontologies is an overly optimistic premise!

23

Lutz Maicher



Simulation: Heterogenous World without Semantic Handshakes

Iteration of nbrOfDifferentII in [5,100]general parameter: card(E)=100, distributionNbrOfII=<{1.0},1>specific parameter exp01: distributionII=<{1.0},100>specific parameter exp02: distributionII=<{0.8,0.9,0.95,1.0},100> some terms are

more prominent

100 different terms willbe resolved less then 40 integrationclouds because some authors use the same term by chance(esp. the most prominent terms)

no Semantic Handshakes

24

Lutz Maicher



Simulation: The Impact of Semantic Handshakes

Iteration of a in distributionNbrOfII=<{a,1.0},2> in [0.0,1.0]general parameters: card=100, nbrOfDifferentII=100specific parameters exp03: distributionII=<{1.0}, 100>specific parameters exp04: distributionII=<{0.8,0.9,0.97,1.0}, 100>

no semantic handshakesalways a semantic handshake

some terms are more prominent

high terminological diversity

100 different terms willbe resolved to ten integrationclouds if only 55% of all Topicsdisclose a Semantic Handshake!

25

Lutz Maicher



Simulation: The Impact of the terminological diversity

Iteration of nbrOfDifferentII in [2,100]general parameters: cardE=100, distributionII=<{1.0},100>specific parameter exp05: distributionNbrOfII=<{0.2,1.0},2>specific parameter exp06: distributionNbrOfII=<{0.8,1.0},2>

high terminological diversitylow terminological diversity

semantic handshake by the minority

semantic handshake by the majority

50 different terms willbe resolved to global integration if 80% of all Topicsdisclose a Semantic Handshake!

26

Lutz Maicher



Result and Discussion

27

Lutz Maicher



Result

• Hypothesis is proofed: Global Integration will be reached if a significant number (majority) of Topics disclose one semantic handshake.– Remark

• the effect does only appear, if there exist interaction links between all topic maps

• the time point the effect appears depends on the interaction frequency

• The more prominent the used terms are, the lower the global number of semantic handshakes necessary for global integration.

• Design Recommendation:– Assign two (prominent) Subject Identifiers to each Topic you create.

(You don‘t have to be aware of all existing terms for your concept.)

28

Lutz Maicher



Discussion

• These findings include problems concerning– Wrong Semantic Handshakes (by mistake, by purpose)

• Homonymy (= the same term for different concepts)• Trust (Can I trust the local Semantic Handshakes?)

• … but they are implied by the existence of the– TMDM and

– Topic Maps Interaction Protocols

29

Lutz Maicher



Questions?!

Documents

Institut für Informatik Automatische Sprachverarbeitung The Impact of Semantic Handshakes TMRA 2006, Leipzig, 12.10.2006 Lutz Maicher, University of Leipzig