The Impact Of Semantic Handshakes

The Impact of Semantic Handshakes TMRA 2006, Leipzig, 12.10.2006 Lutz Maicher, University of Leipzig [email_address]

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

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

The Integration Model of the TMDM

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. … .

The Integration Model of the TMDM in practice equality holds not (according TMDM) In the case of terminological diversity…. [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher} A [subject identifier] {ns2:MaicherLutz} B [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher} A [subject identifier] {ns2:MaicherLutz} B

The Integration Model of the TMDM in practice equality holds (according TMDM) In the case of terminologial alignment…. the PSI case But who can enforce universal vocabularies? [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher} A [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher} B C [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher} merging (according TMDM)

Semantic Handshakes and Interaction Protocols

Semantic Handshake equality holds (according TMDM) The author of A has decided that both terms can be used to indicate Lutz Maicher [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher, ns2:MaicherLutz} A [subject identifier] {ns2:MaicherLutz} B C [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher, ns2:MaicherLutz} merging (according TMDM)

Local Semantic Handshakes and Interaction Protocols TM1 TM3 TM2 TM4 All Topic Maps interacting using the existing protocols like TMRAP, TMIP … [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher, ns2:MaicherLutz} 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

Local Semantic Handshakes and Interaction Protocols 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 [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher, ns2:MaicherLutz} A [subject identifier] {ns2:MaicherLutz, ns3:ML} B [subject identifier] {ns3:ML} C [subject identifier] {ns4:Lutz, ns3:ML} D

Local Semantic Handshakes and Interaction Protocols 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 [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher, ns2:MaicherLutz} A [subject identifier] {ns2:MaicherLutz, ns3:ML} B [subject identifier] {ns3:ML} C [subject identifier] {ns4:Lutz, ns3:ML} D NO NO ns2:MaicherLutz, ns3:ML ns2:MaicherLutz, ns1:LutzMaicher

Local Semantic Handshakes and Interaction Protocols Request: Do you have a Topic Item with „ns1:LutzMaicher“, „ns2:MaicherLutz“ or „ns3:ML“ in the property [subject identifier]? Step 2 [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher, ns2:MaicherLutz, ns3:ML} A [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher, ns2:MaicherLutz, ns3:ML} B [subject identifier] {ns3:ML} C [subject identifier] {ns4:Lutz, ns3:ML} D

Local Semantic Handshakes and Interaction Protocols Request: Do you have a Topic Item with „ns1:LutzMaicher“, „ns2:MaicherLutz“ or „ns3:ML“ in the property [subject identifier]? Step 2 [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher, ns2:MaicherLutz, ns3:ML} A [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher, ns2:MaicherLutz, ns3:ML} B [subject identifier] {ns3:ML} C [subject identifier] {ns4:Lutz, ns3:ML} D ns1:LutzMaicher, ns3:ML, ns2:MaicherLutz ns3:ML ns4:Lutz, ns3:ML ns1:LutzMaicher, ns3:ML, ns2:MaicherLutz,

Local Semantic Handshakes leads to Global Integration TM1 TM3 TM2 TM4 Global Integration through Local Semantic Handshakes. [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher, ns2:MaicherLutz, ns3:ML, ns4:Lutz} A [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher, ns2:MaicherLutz, ns3:ML} B [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher, ns2:MaicherLutz, ns3:ML, ns4:Lutz} C [subject identifier] {ns1:LutzMaicher, ns2:MaicherLutz, ns3:ML, ns4:Lutz} D

Hypothesis and Simulation Design

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 …

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)

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% that a number in [51,75] is drawn with the probability 7% that a number in [76,100] is drawn with the probability 3%

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 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

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!

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>  no Semantic Handshakes  some terms are more prominent 100 different terms will be resolved less then 40 integration clouds because some authors use the same term by chance (esp. the most prominent terms)

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 =100 specific parameters exp03: distributionII =<{1.0}, 100> specific parameters exp04: distributionII =<{0.8,0.9,0.97,1.0}, 100>  high terminological diversity no semantic handshakes always a semantic handshake  some terms are more prominent 100 different terms will be resolved to ten integration clouds if only 55% of all Topics disclose a Semantic Handshake!

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 diversity low terminological diversity semantic handshake  by the majority  semantic handshake by the minority 50 different terms will be resolved to global integration if 80% of all Topics disclose a Semantic Handshake!

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.)

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

The Impact Of Semantic Handshakes

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to The Impact Of Semantic Handshakes (20)

More from Lutz Maicher (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

The Impact Of Semantic Handshakes