<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>I-Match and OntoIdea results for OAEI 2017</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Abderrahmane Khiat</string-name>
          <email>abderrahmane.khiat@fu-berlin.de</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Maximilian Mackeprang</string-name>
          <email>maximilian.mackeprang@fu-berlin.de</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Human-Centered Computing Lab, Freie Universita ̈t Berlin</institution>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Presenting a set of similar or diverse ideas during the idea generation process leads ideators to come-up with more creative and diverse ideas. However, to better assess the similarity between the ideas, we designed two matching systems, namely I-Match and OntoIdea. In the context of the idea generation process, each idea is represented by a set of instances from DBpedia describing the main concepts of the idea. Then, the developed matching systems are applied to compute the similarity between a set of instances that represent the ideas. The purpose of our participation at OAEI is to evaluate our designed instance matching algorithm in order to apply it to assess the similarity between ideas. The results obtained for the first participation of I-Match and OntoIdea systems at OAEI 2017, on different instance matching tracks are so far quite promising.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Collaborative Ideation</kwd>
        <kwd>Semantic Annotation</kwd>
        <kwd>Ontology</kwd>
        <kwd>Instance Matching</kwd>
        <kwd>OAEI</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>The idea generation process is the key part of innovation. This process aims to
generate ideas to solve problems and challenges. A promising approach for supporting such
process is the ”brainstorming method” [3]. This method seeks to increase the number
of ideas based on ideas of collaborating individuals while restricting criticism.</p>
      <p>
        In addition to leveraging the crowd [10], prior work has shown that generating ideas
that are both creative and diverse can be greatly enhanced through presenting
inspirational examples [6]. However, a major issue is ”how to find inspiring ideas from
hundreds” [9]. To overcome this challenge, research has shown three ways of selecting a set
of inspiring examples systematically [4, 5]: (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ) presenting diverse ideas, (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ) presenting
similar ideas and (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ) visualizing all ideas.
      </p>
      <p>Our work is in line with approaches that assess the diversity (i.e. low similarity
rating) of inspiring examples automatically [8]. However, assessing similarity between
ideas is challenging due to the form of the ideas, i.e. the ideas are described in a short
unstructured text.</p>
      <p>
        To solve this problem, we propose another strategy from our prior work proposed
in [2]. This strategy consists of two main parts: (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ) concepts annotation and (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ) an
instance matching mechanism. Firstly, we annotated the main concepts of an idea with
instances from DBpedia, a validation through user-based selection of images are
carried out in order to obtain the right meaning of the identified concepts. Secondly, these
annotated concepts with a set of instances are used as a support to calculate the
similarity between ideas using an instance matching system. Using our approach, we can
assess the similarity of two ideas, which can then be used further to select (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ) a set of
diverse ideas (low similarity rating), (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ) a set of similar ideas (high similarity rating)
that inspire the user to generate more creative ideas. Furthermore, we use the
similarity ratings obtained to provide a visualisation of the solution space to give ideators an
overview of the collaborative effort.
      </p>
      <p>In this paper, we focus on the matching part of the proposed solution by
describing our two instance matching systems I-Match and OntoIdea. The designed systems
implement an enhancing algorithm that we proposed in our previous work [1]. The
proposed algorithm extracts first all information about the two instances to be matched
and normalizes them using NLP. Then, it applies edit distance as a matcher to
calculate the similarities between the normalized information. Finally, the approach selects
the equivalent instances based on the maximum of shared information between the two
instances.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2 Instance Matching Algorithm</title>
      <p>We summarize the algorithm of our developed systems to provide a general idea of the
proposed solution. It consists of the following successive phases:
2.1</p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>Extraction and Normalization</title>
        <p>
          The system extracts from each individual Ii P1 m1; P2 m2,... a set of information m1,
m2, ... using different properties P1, P2, .... Then, NLP techniques are applied to
normalize these information. In particular, three pre-processing steps are performed: (
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
          )
case conversion (conversion of all words in same upper or lower case) (
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
          )
lemmatization stemming and (
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
          ) stop word elimination. Since String based algorithm is used to
calculate the similarities between information, these steps are necessary.
2.2
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>Similarity Calculation</title>
        <p>In this step, the system calculates the similarities between the normalized informations
using edit distance as string matcher. Our system selects the maximum similarity values
calculated between different informations by edit distance. If two informations are the
same (based on maximum similarity values) the counter is incremented to 1, etc.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-3">
        <title>2.3 Identification</title>
        <p>Finally, we apply a filter on maximum counter values in order to select the
correspondences which mean that the selected correspondences (equivalent individuals) are those
who share maximum informations.
3</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Experimentation</title>
      <p>The I-Match and Ontoidea systems participated only for instance matching tracks of
OAEI 2017 evaluation campaign. For the results Please refer to the following website:
http://oaei.ontologymatching.org/2017/results/index.html.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>In this paper, we have introduced I-Match and OntoIdea, two systems specially designed
to compute similarity between instances. The proposed algorithm is useful, especially
when the instances contain terminological information. The developed systems provide
a quite promising results, thus, we will be applied in the context of the idea generation
process to asses similarity between ideas.</p>
      <p>As future perspective, we attempt to apply enhance our instance matching algorithm
especially for DORUMUS track.</p>
      <p>Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Federal
Ministry of Education and Research of Germany in the framework of Ideas to
Market (project number 03IO1617).</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Khiat</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Benaissa</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M. A.</given-names>
            <surname>Belfdhal</surname>
          </string-name>
          , ”
          <article-title>STRIM results for OAEI 2015 instance matching evaluation”</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Ontology Matching colocated with the 14th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC</source>
          <year>2015</year>
          ), USA,
          <year>2015</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Khiat</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Mackeprang</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>C.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Mller-Birn, ”Semantic Annotation for Enhancing Collaborative Ideation”</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Semantics</source>
          <year>2017</year>
          , Netherlands.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Alex</surname>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Osborn</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>1963</year>
          .
          <article-title>Applied imagination; principles and procedures of creative problemsolving</article-title>
          . Scribner, NY,
          <year>1963</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Pao</given-names>
            <surname>Siangliulue</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Kenneth</given-names>
            <surname>Arnold</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Krzysztof Gajos and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Steven</given-names>
            <surname>Dow</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2015</year>
          .
          <article-title>Toward collaborative ideation at scale-leveraging ideas from others to generate more creative and diverse ideas”</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of CSCW</source>
          ,
          <year>2015</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Pao</given-names>
            <surname>Siangliulue</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Joel Chan, Steven Dow and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Krzysztof</given-names>
            <surname>Gajos</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2016</year>
          .
          <article-title>IdeaHound: improving large-scale collaborative ideation with crowd-powered real-time semantic modeling</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of UIST.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6. Richard Marsh, Joshua Landau and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Jason</given-names>
            <surname>Hicks</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>1996</year>
          .
          <article-title>How examples may (and may not) constrain creativity</article-title>
          .
          <source>Memory and Cognition</source>
          ,
          <volume>24</volume>
          (
          <issue>5</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>669</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>680</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Nicholas</given-names>
            <surname>Kohn</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Steven</given-names>
            <surname>Smith</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2011</year>
          .
          <article-title>Collaborative fixation: Effects of others' ideas on brainstorming</article-title>
          .
          <source>Applied Cognitive Psychology</source>
          <volume>25</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>359</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>371</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Joel</given-names>
            <surname>Chan</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Pao Siangliulue,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Denisa</surname>
            <given-names>McDonald</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Ruixue Liu, Reza Moradinezhad, Safa Aman, Erin Solovey, Krzysztof Gajos and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Steven</given-names>
            <surname>Dow</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2017</year>
          .
          <article-title>Semantically Far Inspirations Considered Harmful? Accounting for Cognitive States in Collaborative Ideation</article-title>
          . In Proceedings of C&amp; C'
          <fpage>17</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Elahe</given-names>
            <surname>Javadi</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Judith Gebauer and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Joseph</given-names>
            <surname>Mahoney</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2013</year>
          .
          <article-title>The impact of user interface design on idea integration in electronic brainstorming: an attention based view</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of AIS 14</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>21</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Victor</surname>
            <given-names>Girotto</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Erin Walker and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Winslow</given-names>
            <surname>Burleson</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2017</year>
          .
          <article-title>The effect of peripheral microtasks on crowd ideation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of CHI '17</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>1843</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1854</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Osvald</given-names>
            <surname>Bjelland</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Robert</given-names>
            <surname>Wood</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2008</year>
          .
          <article-title>An inside view of IBM's' innovation jam'”</article-title>
          .
          <source>MIT Sloan Management Review</source>
          <volume>50</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>32</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>40</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Joel</surname>
            <given-names>Chan</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Steven Dang and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Steven</given-names>
            <surname>Dow</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2016</year>
          .
          <article-title>IdeaGens: enabling expert facilitation of crowd brainstorming</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of CSCW</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>13</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>16</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>