The Impact of Semantic Handshakes

1
The Impact of Semantic Handshakes

• TMRA 2006, Leipzig, 12.10.2006
• Lutz Maicher, University of Leipzig
• maicher_at_informatik.uni-leipzig.de

2
Agenda

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

3
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

4
The Integration Model of the TMDM
5
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.
• .

6
The Integration Model of the TMDM in practice
In the case of terminological diversity.
equality holds not(according TMDM)
7
The Integration Model of the TMDM in practice
In the case of terminologial alignment. the PSI
case
equality holds(according TMDM)
But who can enforce universal vocabularies?
8
Semantic Handshakes and Interaction Protocols
9
Semantic Handshake
The author of A has decided that both terms can
be used to indicate Lutz Maicher
equality holds(according TMDM)
10
Local Semantic Handshakes and Interaction
Protocols
TM1
TM2
All Topic Maps interacting using the existing
protocols like TMRAP, TMIP
TM3
TM4
11
Local Semantic Handshakes and Interaction
Protocols
Step 1
Request Do you have a Topic Item with
ns1LutzMaicher or ns2MaicherLutz in the
property subject identifier? (Do you have
information about the Subject Lutz Maicher?)
12
Local Semantic Handshakes and Interaction
Protocols
Step 1
Request Do you have a Topic Item with
ns1LutzMaicher or ns2MaicherLutz in the
property subject identifier? (Do you have
information about the Subject Lutz Maicher?)
13
Local Semantic Handshakes and Interaction
Protocols
Step 2
Request Do you have a Topic Item with
ns1LutzMaicher, ns2MaicherLutz or ns3ML
in the property subject identifier?
14
Local Semantic Handshakes and Interaction
Protocols
Step 2
Request Do you have a Topic Item with
ns1LutzMaicher, ns2MaicherLutz or ns3ML
in the property subject identifier?
15
Local Semantic Handshakes leads to Global
Integration
TM1
TM2
Global Integration through Local Semantic
Handshakes.
TM3
TM4
16
Hypothesis and Simulation Design
17
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
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
Definition of an Distribution

• Distributions are defined as follows
• lt0.8,1.0,6gt 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
• lt0.8,0.9,0.97,1.0, 100gt 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

20
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)
21
Experiment Series
22
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
Simulation Heterogenous World without Semantic
Handshakes
Iteration of nbrOfDifferentII in 5,100general
parameter card(E)100, distributionNbrOfIIlt1.0
,1gtspecific parameter exp01 distributionIIlt1.0
,100gtspecific parameter exp02
distributionIIlt0.8,0.9,0.95,1.0,100gt
? no Semantic Handshakes
24
Simulation The Impact of Semantic Handshakes
Iteration of a in distributionNbrOfIIlta,1.0,2gt
in 0.0,1.0general parameters card100,
nbrOfDifferentII100specific parameters exp03
distributionIIlt1.0, 100gtspecific parameters
exp04 distributionIIlt0.8,0.9,0.97,1.0, 100gt
? high terminological diversity
25
Simulation The Impact of the terminological
diversity
Iteration of nbrOfDifferentII in 2,100general
parameters cardE100, distributionIIlt1.0,100gt
specific parameter exp05 distributionNbrOfIIlt0.
2,1.0,2gtspecific parameter exp06
distributionNbrOfIIlt0.8,1.0,2gt
semantic handshake ? by the majority
low terminological diversity
high terminological diversity
26
Result and Discussion
27
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 dont have to be
  aware of all existing terms for your concept.)

28
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
Questions?!