View
1.558
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Mrs Leila Mrs Leila Mrs Leila Mrs Leila Mrs Leila Mrs Leila Mrs Leila Mrs Leila GhomariGhomariGhomariGhomariGhomariGhomariGhomariGhomari--------ZemmouchiZemmouchiZemmouchiZemmouchiZemmouchiZemmouchiZemmouchiZemmouchiL_zemmouchi@esi.dzL_zemmouchi@esi.dzL_zemmouchi@esi.dzL_zemmouchi@esi.dzL_zemmouchi@esi.dzL_zemmouchi@esi.dzL_zemmouchi@esi.dzL_zemmouchi@esi.dz
JanuaryJanuaryJanuaryJanuaryJanuaryJanuaryJanuaryJanuary, 31, 31, 31, 31, 31, 31, 31, 31st st st st st st st st 20092009200920092009200920092009
Context :
OntologyHeterogeneity
Solution :
OntologyMatching
ContexteProgram Presentation
Ontologies selection
Matchingsystemsselection
Matchingontologies :Research
Problem &
22
1st Matching
2nd Matching
3rd Matching
Evaluation of
alignments
Synthesis
Of obtainedresults
Problem &Objectives
Context
Need :
OntologyOntologySimultaneousSimultaneous
OntologicalEngineering
DataIntegration
P2P Information sharing
3
SimultaneousSimultaneousUtilizationUtilization
sharing
Web Services Composition
Multi-Agent Communication
1.. Syntactic Level
2. Terminological Level
ContexteContext : Ontology Heterogeneity
3. Conceptual Level
4. Semiotic Level
4
Context : Ontology Heterogeneity
Ontology Matching Ontology Matching
process of corresponding semantically process of corresponding semantically
5
Entities which compose Entities which compose ontologiesontologies
Context : Ontology Heterogeneity
6
Adapted from [Isaac, 2007]
Context : Ontology Heterogeneity
7
Adapted from [Isaac, 2007]
Context :
OntologyHeterogeneity
Solution :
OntologyMatching
ContexteProgram Presentation
Ontologies selection
Matchingsystemsselection
Matchingontologies :Research
Problem &
88
1st Matching
2nd Matching
3rd Matching
Evaluation of
alignments
Synthesis
Of obtainedresults
Problem &Objectives
Research Problem & Objectives
9
Research Problem & Objectives
Since2004
10
I3CON EON
Information Interpretationand IntegrationConference
Evaluation of ONtology
Tools
OntologyAlignmentEvaluation Initiative
Research Problem & Objectives
Matching Systems
Cupid
TranScm
SKAT
RiMOM
Hovy
MapOnto
Clio
Falcon-AO
H-Match
Artemis
Tess
DIKE
ASCO
Similarity flooding
OLA
Automatch
Wise-Integrator
Anchor-Prompt
OMEN
BayesOWL
OntoMerge
MoA
HCONE
11
Falcon-AO
oMap
ToMAS
XClust
SBI&NB
Kang & Naughton
Wang & al.
NOM & QOM
Dumas
LSD/GLUE/iMAP
FCA-merge
IF-Map
Xu & al.
COMA & COMA++
DCM
T-tree
HCONE
DELTA
sPLMap
SEMINT
CAIMAN
S-Match
OntoBuilder
CtxMatch
Corpus-basedmatching
Research Problem & Objectives
““OntologiesOntologies are formal representations of are formal representations of semanticssemantics””
[[GuarinoGuarino, 1995], 1995]
12
Research Problem & Objectives
Syntaxic Systems
T-tree
Wise-Integrator
Anchor-Prompt
OMEN
BayesOWL
OntoMerge
MoA
Semantic Systems
S-Match
CtxMatch
13
MoA
HCONE
DELTA
sPLMap
SEMINT
CAIMAN
COMA & COMA++
OntoBuilder
OLA
Research Problem & Objectives
14
Research Problem & Objectives
Contribute to analyze the progress of both semanticsyntactic matching systems
1
Identify selected matching systems strengths andweaknesses in order to improve their matching quality.
15
Contribute to analyze the progress of both semanticsyntactic matching systems
2
3
Help future matching systems developers to selectthe adequate approach matching
Context :
OntologyHeterogeneity
Solution :
OntologyMatching
ContexteProgram Presentation
Ontologies selection
Matchingsystemsselection
Matchingontologies :Research
Problem &
1616
1st Matching
2nd Matching
3rd Matching
Evaluation of
alignments
Synthesis
Of obtainedresults
Problem &Objectives
Ontologies Selection
To Evaluatean
automaticmatchingresult
To Achievea referencematchingwhich ismanual
To Undestandontologies
to bematchedvery well
To beOntologies Domain(s) Experts
17
Ontologies Selection
18
Source : [Sean & al.], OM 2007
Ontologies Selection
Ontology URI University Origin
O1 http://www.mindswap.org/2005/debugging/ontologies/
University.owl
19
University.owl
O2 http://www.lehigh.edu/~zhp2/2004/0401/
univ-bench.owl
O3 http://www.webkursi.lv/luweb05fall/resources/
university.owl
Ontologies Selection
Ontologies Classes Properties Restrictions Instances Language
O1 30 12 18 4 OWL - FULL
20
O2 43 31 8 0 OWL - DL
O3 73 46 33 80 OWL - FULL
Context :
OntologyHeterogeneity
Solution :
OntologyMatching
ContexteProgram Presentation
Ontologies selection
Matchingsystemsselection
Matchingontologies :Research
Problem &
2121
1st Matching
2nd Matching
3rd Matching
Evaluation of
alignments
Synthesis
Of obtainedresults
Problem &Objectives
Matching Systems Selection
CTXMatch
2003S-Match
2004
(not available)
S-Match
2004
(not available)
22
CTXMatch 2
2006
OWL-CTXMatch
2006
[Bouquet & al., 2006]
Trento University, Italy
Matching Systems Selection
DELTA MapOnto XClustDumas Wang & al. SEMINT
HovyClio
SBI&NBGLUE DCM CAIMAN
Cupid Falcon-AOKang &
NaughtonFCA-merge T-tree QOM
COmbination
of schema MAtching
Approaches
[Aumueller & al., 2005]
Leipzieg U., Germany
23
TranScm oMapCOMA++
IF-MapWise-
IntegratorOntoBuilder
SKATToMAS
ASCO Xu & al. BayesOWL
RiMOM NOMSimilarity
floodingAnchor-Prompt OntoMerge
Corpus-based
matching
Tess H-Match OLA OMEN MoA LSD
DIKE Artemis Automatch sPLMap HCONE IMAP
Matching Systems Selection
24
Matching Systems Selection
SemanticSemanticElicitationElicitation
InternalrepresentationConstruction (Form :description logicformulas)
25
formulas)
AutomaicAutomaicDeductionDeduction of of relationshipsrelationships
betweenbetween entitiesentitiesby a by a reasonerreasoner
The reasoner mergeFormulas sets in onemodel, classify anddetermine whichrelation typeassociates the twoentities (=, ∩,⊆,⊇,⊥)
OWL-CTXMatch
Matching Systems Selection
SchemasSchemasManipulationManipulation
(Entity1, Entity2, Matcher)=
MatchersMatchersDefinitionDefinition and and ExecutionExecution
26
SimilaritySimilarityCubeCube
Matcher)= Similarity value
AgreggationAgreggation
SelectionSelectionCombinationCombination
DirectionDirection
COMA++
Where user can modifythe default configuration
Context :
OntologyHeterogeneity
Solution :
OntologyMatching
ContexteProgram Presentation
Ontologies selection
Matchingsystemsselection
Matchingontologies :Research
Problem &
2727
1st Matching
2nd Matching
3rd Matching
Evaluation of
alignments
Synthesis
Of obtainedresults
Problem &Objectives
Matching Ontologies
O1
1st Matching3rd Matching
28
O2O3
2nd Matching
Matching Ontologies
29
Matching Ontologies
30
Matching Ontologies
31
Matching Ontologies
32
Matching Ontologies
33
Matching Ontologies
IntuitionIntuition
Lexical Lexical ThesauriThesaurisuchsuch as : as : WordnetWordnet
34
WordnetWordnet
Expert Domain Expert Domain knowledgeknowledge
OntologiesOntologies
Matching Ontologies
ReferenceMatchingO1 O1 �������� O2O2
ReferenceMatchingO2 O2 �� O3O3
ReferenceMatchingO3 O3 �� O1O1
215 Correspondences
662Correspondences
600Correspondences
35
Correspondences Correspondences Correspondences
6.9% of all
correspondences
7.5%of all
correspondences
12%of all
correspondences
Context :
OntologyHeterogeneity
Solution :
OntologyMatching
ContexteProgram Presentation
Ontologies selection
Matchingsystemsselection
Matchingontologies :Research
Problem &
3636
1st Matching
2nd Matching
3rd Matching
Evaluation of
alignments
Synthesis
Of obtainedresults
Problem &Objectives
Matching Evaluation
Precision = TP/TP+FP
Recall = TP/TP+FN
FNFNTNTN
EXPERT
37
F-Mesure =
Overall = Recall (2-(1/Precision))
2 * Recall * Precision
Recall + PrecisionTPTP
FPFP
AUTOMATIC
SYSTEM
Matching Evaluation
38
Matching Evaluation
39
Matching Evaluation
40
Matching Evaluation
41
Matching Evaluation
42
Context :
OntologyHeterogeneity
Solution :
OntologyMatching
ContexteProgram Presentation
Ontologyselection
Matchingsystemsselection
Matchingontologies :Research
Problem &
4343
1st Matching
2nd Matching
3rd Matching
Evaluation of
alignments
Synthesis
Of obtainedresults
Problem &Objectives
Synthesis of obtained results
Class Class
44
Class
Property
Class
Property
Synthesis of obtained results
Classe Classe4577
45
Propriété Propriété
32
0.040.08
0.12
Synthesis of obtained results
46
Measuring Unit : second
Synthesis of obtained results
47
Synthesis of obtained results
48
Few Common
alignments
Synthesis of obtained results
Few Common
alignments
49
Few Common
alignments
CONCLUSION
•The two matching dimensions must be takeninto account :
syntacticsyntactic ((MatchingMatching termsterms) ) ANDsemanticsemantic ((MatchingMatching Concepts) Concepts)
About Matching
Approaches
MatchingResults
CONCLUSION
To Draw more
More significantMore significantnumber of Tests
To Draw more
General Conclusions
With regard to
Comparatives Syntactic Systems
Versus Semantic Systems
MoreMoreRecommendationsRecommendationsReferenceReference
CONCLUSION
MoreMoreRecommendationsRecommendations
and and NormsNormsTo To achieveachieve a good a good qualityquality manualmanual
matchingmatching
ReferenceReferenceOntologie(s) Ontologie(s)
ReferenceReferenceAlignmentsAlignments
THE END
Recommended