An argumentation framework for ontology mappings negotiation

To merge various mappings resulted from multiple ontology matchers, an argumentation framework is presented for ontology mapping negotiation. In this framework, arguments are built for mapping results while four argument relations such as support, disprove, unite and attack are used to reflect the impacts among mappings. By judging successful attack and computing preferred extension, the acceptable arguments, namely final mapping results, are obtained. Experiments show that the effect of mapping negotiation is improved, and a powerful tool for the cooperation of multiple ontology matchers is provided as well.