Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Context-aware applications are intended to facilitate the adaptation of services in a pervasive computing system. The semantic similarity between contexts and the application of a semantic similarity measure as a mechanism for service adaptation are topics that have yet to be thoroughly explored in the literature. This study measured semantic similarities between quantitative contextual and categorical variables in the field of pervasive computing. The measure was applied to a current context and to several reference contexts, which were predefined based on a contextual data set. Built on the overlap measure because of its simplicity, the proposed weighted method is easy to implement and can be used to evaluate the actual weight of each contextual variable.

Keywords

Pervasive computing context concept similarity reference

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andritsos,

Tsaparas,

R.J.

Miller and

K.C.

Sevcik, Limbo: Scalable clustering of categorical data, in: Advances in Database Technology-EDBT 2004, Springer, Berlin, 2004, pp. 123–146. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24741-8_9.

J.C.

Augusto,

Nakashima and

Aghajan, Ambient intelligence and smart environments: A state of the art, in: Handbook of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, Springer, US, 2010, pp. 3–31. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-93808-0_1.

Benazzouz, Découverte de contexte pour une adaptation automatique de services en intelligence ambiante, Ph.D. dissertation, École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne, France, 2011.

Boriah,

Chandola and

Kumar, Similarity measures for categorical data: A comparative evaluation, RED 30(2) (2008), 3.

Brezillon and

J.-Ch.

Pomerol, Contextual knowledge and proceduralized context, AAAI Technical Report 14 (1999), 16–20.

Chen and

Kotz, A survey of context-aware mobile computing research, Technical Report TR2000-381, 1(2.1), Dept. of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, 2000, 1–16.

Dalmau,

Roose and

Laplace, Context aware adaptable applications: A global approach, IJCSI 1 (2009), 1–13.

Desai,

Singh and

Pudi, Disc: Data-intensive similarity measure for categorical data, in: Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Springer, Berlin, 2011, pp. 469–481. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20847-8_39.

A.K.

Dey, Understanding and using context, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 5(1) (2001), 4–7. doi:10.1007/s007790170019.

10.

Dourish, What we talk about when we talk about context, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 8(1) (2004), 19–30. doi:10.1007/s00779-003-0253-8.

11.

El Sayed,

Hacid and

Zighed, Using Semantic Distance in a Content-Based Heterogeneous Information Retrieval System, Springer-Verlag, 2008, pp. 224–237.

12.

Gambaryan, A mathematical model of taxonomy, Izvest. Akad. Nauk Armen. SSR 17(12) (1964), 47.

13.

Ganesan,

Garcia-Molina and

Widom, Exploiting hierarchical domain structure to compute similarity, ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 21 (2003), 64–93. doi:10.1145/635484.635487.

14.

K.C.

Gowda and

Diday, Symbolic clustering using a new similarity measure: Systems, man and cybernetics, IEEE Transactions 22(2) (1992), 368–378.

15.

Greenberg, Context as a dynamic construct, Human-Computer Interaction 16(2) (2001), 257–268. doi:10.1207/S15327051HCI16234_09.

16.

Guessoum,

Miraoui and

Tadj, Survey of semantic similarity measures in pervasive computing, International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems 8(1) (2015), 125–158.

17.

Kirsch-Pinheiro,

Vanrompay and

Berbers, Context-aware service selection using graph matching, in: 2nd Non-functional Properties and Service Level Agreements in Service Oriented Computing Workshop (NFPSLA-SOC’08), ECOWS, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 411, 2008.

18.

Kolodner, Case-Based Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, 2014.

19.

Lavirotte,

Lingrand and

J.-Y.

Tigli, Définition du Contexte. Fonctions de Cout et Methodes de Selection, ACM, 2005.

20.

D.B.

Leake, Case-Based Reasoning, 2003.

21.

Lee,

Chang and

S.G.

Lee, Survey and trend analysis of context-aware systems, Information – An International Interdisciplinary Journal 14(2) (2011), 527–548.

22.

J.A.

Lino,

Salem and

Rauterberg, Responsive environments: User experiences for ambient intelligence, Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments 2(4) (2010), 347–367.

23.

Liu,

Lecue,

Mehandjiev and

Xu, Using context similarity for service recommendation, in: Semantic Computing (ICSC), IEEE Fourth International Conference, 2010, pp. 277–284.

24.

Miraoui and

Tadj, A service-oriented definition of context for pervasive computing, in: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computing, IEEE Computer Society Press, Mexico City, 2007.

25.

Miraoui,

Tadj and

Belgacem, Dynamic context-aware adaptation of mobile phone incoming call indication using context similarity, in: World Congress Computer and Information Technology (WCCIT), IEEE, 2013, pp. 1–5.

26.

Ning and

O’Sullivan, Context modeling and measuring for context aware knowledge management, International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing 2(3) (2012), 287–291. doi:10.7763/IJMLC.2012.V2.132.

27.

Perttunen,

Riekki and

Lassila, Context representation and reasoning in pervasive computing: A review, International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering 4(4) (2009).

28.

Petit, L’informatique contextuelle, Technical report, South Britany University, Vannes, 2005.

29.

Sancho, Adaptation d’architectures logicielles collaboratives dans les environnements ubiquitaires, Contribution à l’interopérabilité par la sémantique, Ph.D. Dissertation, EDSYS, France, 2010.

30.

Saruladha,

Aghila and

Raj, A survey of semantic similarity methods for ontology based information retrieval, in: Machine Learning and Computing (ICMLC), 2010 Second International Conference on, IEEE, February 2010, pp. 297–301.

31.

Schilit,

Adams and

Want, Context-aware computing applications, in: IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, Santa Cruz, CA, 1994.

32.

Schmidt,

Beigl and

H.-W.

Gellersen, There is more to context than location, Computers & Graphics 23(6) (1999), 893–901. doi:10.1016/S0097-8493(99)00120-X.

33.

Simonin and

Carbonell, Interfaces adaptatives, Adaptation dynamique à l’utilisateur courant, arXiv preprint arXiv:0708.3742, 2007.

34.

Slimani,

Ben Yaghlane and

Mellouli, Une extension de mesure de similarité entre les concepts d’une ontologie, in: 4th International Conference: Sciences of Electronic, Technologies of Information and Telecommunications, Tunisia, 2007, pp. 1–10.

35.

E.S.

Smirnov, On exact methods in systematics, Systematic Zoology 17(1) (1968), 1–13. doi:10.2307/2412390.

36.

Stanfill and

Waltz, Toward memory-based reasoning, Commun. ACM 29(12) (1986), 1213–1228. doi:10.1145/7902.7906.

37.

Topcu, Context modeling and reasoning techniques, in: SNET Seminar in the ST, 2011.

38.

Wu and

Palmer, Verb semantics and lexical selection, in: 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Las Cruces, New Mexico, 1994, pp. 133–138. doi:10.3115/981732.981751.

39.

Yuan and

Herbert, Context-aware hybrid reasoning framework for pervasive healthcare, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 18(4) (2014), 865–881. doi:10.1007/s00779-013-0696-5.

40.

Zhang,

Huang,

C.F.

Lai,

Liang,

Zou and

Guo, Survey on context-awareness in ubiquitous media, Multimedia Tools and Applications 67(1) (2013), 179–211. doi:10.1007/s11042-011-0940-9.