2006 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Services Computing (APSCC'06) 2006
DOI: 10.1109/apscc.2006.59
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

GAOM: Genetic Algorithm Based Ontology Matching

Abstract: Abstract

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
58
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 89 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
58
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The works described in [9] and [13] present an approach based on genetic algorithms to give an estimate of weights assigned to different strategies used.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The works described in [9] and [13] present an approach based on genetic algorithms to give an estimate of weights assigned to different strategies used.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the authors appear to have access to all information in the form of ontology term matching matrices. Other papers, such as [9,17], have used a GA to learn the weight of each matching algorithm for an operator like a weighted sum. Herein, an improved set of constraint preserving GA operators are put forth and more powerful non-linear aggregation operator, the FI, is investigated.…”
Section: Related Work In Ontologiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, not all existing tools are pure meta-matching tools. MaSiMe (Martinez-Gil & Aldana-Montes, 2009), GAOM (Wang et al, 2006), GOAL (Martinez-Gilet al, 2008), eTuner (Lee et al, 2007), APFEL , MatchPlanner (Duchateau et al, 2008), and YAM (Duchateau et al, 2009) could be considered pure tools, while other tools are considered because they implement ontology meta-matching in any of the steps which they follow to solve problems. It should also be taken into account that several tools like Automatch (George Mason University) (Berlin & Motro, 2002), GLUE (University of Washington) (Doan et al, 2003), SemInt (C&C/MITRE Corporation/Oracle) (Li & Clifton, 2000), and Rank Aggregation (Cornell University/Israel Institute of Technology) (Domshlak et al, 2007) can only process classic schemas, and will therefore not be considered in this in this overview.…”
Section: Existing Meta-matching Toolsmentioning
confidence: 99%