skip to main content
10.1145/511446.511532acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Learning to map between ontologies on the semantic web

Published:07 May 2002Publication History

ABSTRACT

Ontologies play a prominent role on the Semantic Web. They make possible the widespread publication of machine understandable data, opening myriad opportunities for automated information processing. However, because of the Semantic Web's distributed nature, data on it will inevitably come from many different ontologies. Information processing across ontologies is not possible without knowing the semantic mappings between their elements. Manually finding such mappings is tedious, error-prone, and clearly not possible at the Web scale. Hence, the development of tools to assist in the ontology mapping process is crucial to the success of the Semantic Web.We describe glue, a system that employs machine learning techniques to find such mappings. Given two ontologies, for each concept in one ontology glue finds the most similar concept in the other ontology. We give well-founded probabilistic definitions to several practical similarity measures, and show that glue can work with all of them. This is in contrast to most existing approaches, which deal with a single similarity measure. Another key feature of glue is that it uses multiple learning strategies, each of which exploits a different type of information either in the data instances or in the taxonomic structure of the ontologies. To further improve matching accuracy, we extend glue to incorporate commonsense knowledge and domain constraints into the matching process. For this purpose, we show that relaxation labeling, a well-known constraint optimization technique used in computer vision and other fields, can be adapted to work efficiently in our context. Our approach is thus distinguished in that it works with a variety of well-defined similarity notions and that it efficiently incorporates multiple types of knowledge. We describe a set of experiments on several real-world domains, and show that glue proposes highly accurate semantic mappings.

References

  1. http://ontobroker.semanticweb.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. www.daml.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. www.google.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2), 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. A. Agresti. Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley, New York, NY, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The Semantic Web. Scientific American, 279, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. D. Brickley and R. Guha. Resource Description Framework Schema Specification 1.0, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. J. Broekstra, M. Klein, S. Decker, D. Fensel, F. van Harmelen, and I. Horrocks. Enabling knowledge representation on the Web by Extending RDF Schema. In Proceedings of the Tenth International World Wide Web Conference, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. D. Calvanese, D. G. Giuseppe, and M. Lenzerini. Ontology of Integration and Integration of Ontologies. In Proceedings of the 2001 Description Logic Workshop (DL 2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S. Chakrabarti, B. Dom, and P. Indyk. Enhanced Hypertext Categorization Using Hyperlinks. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. H. Chalupsky. Ontomorph: A Translation system for symbolic knowledge. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. A. Doan, P. Domingos, and A. Halevy. Reconciling Schemas of Disparate Data Sources: A Machine Learning Approach. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. P. Domingos and M. Pazzani. On the Optimality of the Simple Bayesian Classifier under Zero-One Loss. Machine Learning, 29:103--130, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. D. Fensel. Ontologies: Silver Bullet for Knowledge Management and Electronic Commerce. Springer-Verlag, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Heflin and J. Hendler. A Portrait of the Semantic Web in Action. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2), 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. R. Hummel and S. Zucker. On the Foundations of Relaxation Labeling Processes. PAMI, 5(3):267--287, May 1983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. R. Ichise, H. Takeda, and S. Honiden. Rule Induction for Concept Hierarchy Alignment. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontology Learning at the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. M. Lacher and G. Groh. Facilitating the exchange of explixit knowledge through ontology mappings. In Proceedings of the 14th Int. FLAIRS conference, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. D. Lin. An Information-Theoritic Definiton of Similarity. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. S. Lloyd. An optimization approach to relaxation labeling algorithms. Image and Vision Computing, 1(2), 1983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. J. Madhavan, P. Bernstein, and E. Rahm. Generic Schema Matching with Cupid. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Databases (VLDB), 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. A. Maedche. A Machine Learning Perspective for the Semantic Web. Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS) Position Paper, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. A. Maedche and S. Saab. Ontology Learning for the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2), 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. D. McGuinness, R. Fikes, J. Rice, and S. Wilder. The Chimaera Ontology Environment. In Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. S. Melnik, H. Molina-Garcia, and E. Rahm. Similarity Flooding: A Versatile Graph Matching Algorithm. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. T. Milo and S. Zohar. Using Schema Matching to Simplify Heterogeneous Data Translation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Databases (VLDB), 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. P. Mitra, G. Wiederhold, and J. Jannink. Semi-automatic Integration of Knowledge Sources. In Proceedings of Fusion'99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. N. Noy and M. Musen. PROMPT: Algorithm and Tool for Automated Ontology Merging and Alignment. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. N. Noy and M. Musen. Anchor-PROMPT: Using Non-Local Context for Semantic Matching. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. B. Omelayenko. Learning of Ontologies for the Web: the Analysis of Existent approaches. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Web Dynamics, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. L. Padro. A Hybrid Environment for Syntax-Semantic Tagging, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. N. Pernelle, M.-C. Rousset, and V. Ventos. Automatic Construction and Refinement of a Class Hierarchy over Semi-Structured Data. In Proceeding of the Workshop on Ontology Learning at the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. E. Rahm and P. Bernstein. On Matching Schemas Automatically. VLDB Journal, 10(4), 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. K. M. Ting and I. H. Witten. Issues in stacked generalization. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 10:271--289, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. M. Uschold. Where is the semantics in the Semantic Web? In Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems (OAS) at the 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. van Rijsbergen. Information Retrieval. London:Butterworths, 1979. Second Edition. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. D. Wolpert. Stacked generalization. Neural Networks, 5:241--259, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. L. Yan, R. Miller, L. Haas, and R. Fagin. Data Driven Understanding and Refinement of Schema Mappings. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Learning to map between ontologies on the semantic web

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              WWW '02: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on World Wide Web
              May 2002
              754 pages
              ISBN:1581134495
              DOI:10.1145/511446

              Copyright © 2002 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 7 May 2002

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • Article

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

              Upcoming Conference

              WWW '24
              The ACM Web Conference 2024
              May 13 - 17, 2024
              Singapore , Singapore

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader