Sharing data across disparate sources requires solving many problems of semantic integration, such as matching ontologies or schemas, detecting duplicate tuples, reconciling inconsistent data values, modeling complex relations between concepts in different sources, and reasoning with semantic mappings. This issue of AI Magazine includes papers that discuss various methods on establishing mappings between ontology elements or data fragments. The collection includes papers that discuss semantic-integration issues in such contexts as data integration and web services. The issue also includes a brief survey of semantic-integration research in the database community.

Semantic integration has been a long-standing challenge for the database community. It has received steady attention over the past two decades, and has now become a prominent area of database research. In this article, we first review database applications that require semantic integration and discuss the difficulties underlying the integration process. We then describe recent progress and identify open research issues. We focus in particular on schema matching, a topic that has received much attention in the database community, but also discuss data matching (for example, tuple deduplication) and open issues beyond the match discovery context (for example, reasoning with matches, match verification and repair, and reconciling inconsistent data values). For previous surveys of database research on semantic integration, see Rahm and Bernstein (2001); Ouksel and Seth (1999); and Batini, Lenzerini, and Navathe (1986).

Research on semantic web services promises greater interoperability among software agents and web services by enabling content-based automated service discovery and interaction and by utilizing . Although this is to be based on use of shared ontologies published on the semantic web, services produced and described by different developers may well use different, perhaps partly overlapping, sets of ontologies. Interoperability will depend on ontology mappings and architectures supporting the associated translation processes. The question we ask is, does the traditional approach of introducing mediator agents to translate messages between requestors and services work in such an open environment? This article reviews some of the processing assumptions that were made in the development of the semantic web service modeling ontology OWL-S and argues that, as a practical matter, the translation function cannot always be isolated in mediators. Ontology mappings need to be published on the semantic web just as ontologies themselves are. The translation for service discovery, service process model interpretation, task negotiation, service invocation, and response interpretation may then be distributed to various places in the architecture so that translation can be done in the specific goal-oriented informational contexts of the agents performing these processes. We present arguments for assigning translation responsibility to particular agents in the cases of service invocation, response translation, and matchmaking.

Data integration is the problem of combining data residing at different autonomous, heterogeneous sources and providing the client with a unified, reconciled global view of the data. We discuss dataintegration systems, taking the abstract viewpoint that the global view is an ontology expressed in a class-based formalism. We resort to an expressive description logic, ALCQI, that fully captures classbased representation formalisms, and we show that query answering in data integration, as well as all other relevant reasoning tasks, is decidable. However, when we have to deal with large amounts of data, the high computational complexity in the size of the data makes the use of a fullfledged expressive description logic infeasible in practice. This leads us to consider DL-Lite, a specifically tailored restriction of ALCQI that ensures tractability of query answering in data integration while keeping enough expressive power to capture the most relevant features of class-based formalisms.

We propose the use of application semantics to enhance the process of semantic reconciliation. Application semantics involves those elements of business reasoning that affect the way concepts are presented to users: their layout, and so on. In particular, we pursue in this article the notion of precedence, in which temporal constraints determine the order in which concepts are presented to the user. Existing matching algorithms use either syntactic means (such as term matching and domain matching) or model semantic means, the use of structural information that is provided by the specific data model to enhance the matching process. The novelty of our approach lies in proposing a class of matching techniques that takes advantage of ontological structures and application semantics. As an example, the use of precedence to reflect business rules has not been applied elsewhere, to the best of our knowledge. We have tested the process for a variety of web sites in domains such as car rentals and airline reservations, and we share our experiences with precedence and its limitations.

A semantics-preserving exchange of information between two software applications requires mappings between logically equivalent concepts in the ontology of each application. The challenge of semantic integration is therefore equivalent to the problem of generating such mappings, determining that they are correct, and providing a vehicle for executing the mappings, thus translating terms from one ontology into another. This article presents an approach toward this goal using techniques that exploit the model-theoretic structures underlying ontologies. With these as inputs, semiautomated and automated components may be used to create mappings between ontologies and perform translations.

(Niles and Pease 2001). Considering that tremendous scheduling that are robust in the face of realworld progress has been made in commonsense reasoning concerns like time zones, daylight savings in specialized topics such as thermodynamics time, and international calendar variations. in physical systems (Collins and Forbus 1989), it is surprising that our best content theories Given the importance of an ontology of of people are still struggling to get past time across so many different commonsense simple notions of belief and intentionality (van der Hoek and Wooldridge 2003). However, search is the generation of competency theories systems that can successfully reason about that have a degree of depth necessary to solve people are likely to be substantially more valuable inferential problems that people are easily able than those that reason about thermodynamics to handle. in most future applications. Yet competency in content theories is only Content theories for reasoning about people half of the challenge. Commonsense reasoning are best characterized collectively as a theory of in AI theories will require that computers not commonsense psychology, in contrast to those only make deep humanlike inferences but also that are associated with commonsense (naïve) ensure that the scope of these inferences is as physics. The scope of commonsense physics, broad as humans can handle, as well. That is, best outlined in Patrick Hayes's first and second in addition to competency, content theories will "Naïve Physics Manifestos" (Hayes 1979, need adequate coverage over the full breadth of 1984), includes content theories of time, space, concepts that are manipulated in human-level physical entities, and their dynamics. It is only by achieving psychology, in contrast, concerns all some adequate level of coverage that we of the aspects of the way that people think they can begin to construct reasoning systems that think. It should include notions of plans and integrate fully into real-world AI applications, goals, opportunities and threats, decisions and where pragmatic considerations and expressive preferences, emotions and memories, along user interfaces raise the bar significantly.

Project Halo is a multistaged effort, sponsored by Vulcan Inc, aimed at creating Digital Aristotle, an application that will encompass much of the world's scientific knowledge and be capable of applying sophisticated problem solving to answer novel questions. Vulcan envisions two primary roles for Digital Aristotle: as a tutor to instruct students in the sciences and as an interdisciplinary research assistant to help scientists in their work. As a first step towards this goal, we have just completed a six-month pilot phase designed to assess the state of the art in applied knowledge representation and reasoning (KR&/R). Vulcan selected three teams, each of which was to formally represent 70 pages from the advanced placement (AP) chemistry syllabus and deliver knowledge-based systems capable of answering questions on that syllabus. The evaluation quantified each system's coverage of the syllabus in terms of its ability to answer novel, previously unseen questions and to provide human- readable answer justifications. These justifications will play a critical role in building user trust in the question-answering capabilities of Digital Aristotle. Prior to the final evaluation, a "failure taxonomy' was collaboratively developed in an attempt to standardize failure analysis and to facilitate cross-platform comparisons. Despite differences in approach, all three systems did very well on the challenge, achieving performance comparable to the human median. The analysis also provided key insights into how the approaches might be scaled, while at the same time suggesting how the cost of producing such systems might be reduced. This outcome leaves us highly optimistic that the technical challenges facing this effort in the years to come can be identified and overcome. This article presents the motivation and longterm goals of Project Halo, describes in detail the six-month first phase of the project -- the Halo Pilot -- its KR&R challenge, empirical evaluation, results, and failure analysis. The pilot's outcome is used to define challenges for the next phase of the project and beyond.

AI agents combining natural language interaction, task planning, and business ontologies can help companies provide better-quality and more costeffective customer service. Our customer-service agents use natural language to interact with customers, enabling customers to state their intentions directly instead of searching for the places on the Web site that may address their concern. Our agents converse with customers, guaranteeing that needed information is acquired from customers and that relevant information is provided to them in order for both parties to make the right decision. The net effect is a more frictionless interaction process that improves the customer experience and makes businesses more competitive on the service front.

This article is a sequel to an article titled "A New Direction in AI -- Toward a Computational Theory of Perceptions," which appeared in the Spring 2001 issue of AI Magazine (volume 22, No. 1, 73-84). The concept of precisiated natural language (PNL) was briefly introduced in that article, and PNL was employed as a basis for computation with perceptions. In what follows, the conceptual structure of PNL is described in greater detail, and PNL's role in knowledge representation, deduction, and concept definition is outlined and illustrated by examples. What should be understood is that PNL is in its initial stages of development and that the exposition that follows is an outline of the basic ideas that underlie PNL rather than a definitive theory. A natural language is basically a system for describing perceptions. Perceptions, such as perceptions of distance, height, weight, color, temperature, similarity, likelihood, relevance, and most other attributes of physical and mental objects are intrinsically imprecise, reflecting the bounded ability of sensory organs, and ultimately the brain, to resolve detail and store information. In this perspective, the imprecision of natural languages is a direct consequence of the imprecision of perceptions (Zadeh 1999, 2000). How can a natural language be precisiated -- precisiated in the sense of making it possible to treat propositions drawn from a natural language as objects of computation? This is what PNL attempts to do. In PNL, precisiation is accomplished through translation into what is termed a precisiation language. In the case of PNL, the precisiation language is the generalized-constraint language (GCL), a language whose elements are so-called generalized constraints and their combinations. What distinguishes GCL from languages such as Prolog, LISP, SQL, and, more generally, languages associated with various logical systems, for example, predicate logic, modal logic, and so on, is its much higher expressive power. The conceptual structure of PNL mirrors two fundamental facets of human cognition: (a) partiality and (b) granularity (Zadeh 1997). Partiality relates to the fact that most human concepts are not bivalent, that is, are a matter of degree. Thus, we have partial understanding, partial truth, partial possibility, partial certainty, partial similarity, and partial relevance, to cite a few examples. Similarly, granularity and granulation relate to clumping of values of attributes, forming granules with words as labels, for example, young, middle-aged, and old as labels of granules of age. Existing approaches to natural language processing are based on bivalent logic -- a logic in which shading of truth is not allowed. PNL abandons bivalence. By so doing, PNL frees itself from limitations imposed by bivalence and categoricity, and opens the door to new approaches for dealing with long-standing problems in AI and related fields (Novak 1991). At this juncture, PNL is in its initial stages of development. As it matures, PNL is likely to find a variety of applications, especially in the realms of world knowledge representation, concept definition, deduction, decision, search, and question answering.