Upload
haven
View
61
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Block Matching for Ontologies. Wei Hu and Yuzhong Qu School of Computer Science and Engineering, Southeast University, P.R. China. Outline. Introduction Overview of the Approach Relatedness among Domain Entities Partitioning for Block Matching Evaluation Related Work Concluding Remarks. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 1
Block Matching for Ontologies
Wei Hu and Yuzhong Qu
School of Computer Science and Engineering,Southeast University, P.R. China
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 2
Outline
Introduction Overview of the Approach Relatedness among Domain Entities Partitioning for Block Matching Evaluation Related Work Concluding Remarks
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 3
Introduction
Ontology matching Enabling interoperability among different but related ontologies In practice, establishing mappings between domain entities
Block matching The common relationship cardinality of mappings is 1:1. However, mappings between sets of domain entities are more pervasive.
A block is a set of domain entities. A block mapping is a pair of matched blocks from different ontologies. Block matching is the process of discovering block mappings.
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 4
Introduction - Examples
From a microcosmic angle of view Given two ontologies O1 and O2, O1 contains three domain entities
Month, Day, Year; while O2 contains a single domain entity Date. It is more natural to match the block {Month, Day, Year} in O1 with the block {Date} in O2.
From a macroscopic angle of view Block matching provides a general picture at a higher level to explore
the correspondences between the main topics of ontologies.
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 5
Introduction (Cont’d.)
The block matching problem a special partitioning problem All the block mappings compose a partitioning of all the domain entities
from the two given ontologies. The partitioning quality – cohesiveness & coupling
In addition, the mapping quality is inherently difficult to guarantee.
At present, most of the algorithms proposed in literature are targeted to find 1:1 mappings. One exception – PBM
Only coping with mappings between classes – not a general solution The mapping quality is not good enough for complicated ontologies.
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 6
Introduction – Our Approach
So, we propose a new partitioning-based approach to address the block matching problem. The relatedness measure – Virtual Documents
Novelty – both the mapping quality & the partitioning quality can be guaranteed simultaneously.
The partitioning algorithm – A Hierarchical Bisection Algorithm Novelty – providing block mappings at different levels of granularity. Flat partitioning – extracting the optimal mappings with a given number
of block mappings.
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 7
Overview of the Approach
Our approach starts with two ontologies as input, and then after four processing stages, the output returns block mappings. Constructing virtual documents for domain entities Computing relatedness among domain entities Partitioning by a hierarchical bisection algorithm Extracting the optimal block mappings
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 8
A Toy Example
Onto1 Onto2
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 9
Step 1 – Construction of Virtual Documents
A virtual document represents a collection of weighted tokens, which reflects the intended meaning of a domain entity.
The virtual document of a domain entity contains not only the local descriptions but also the neighboring information. Local description – for a literal node / a URIref / a blank node Neighboring information – subject / predicate / object neighbors
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 10
Step 2 – Computation of Relatedness
The similarity between virtual documents is measured by the Cosine value between two vectors, corresponding to the two virtual documents in the Vector Space Model.
Generating a relatedness matrix by computing the similarity among virtual documents within each of the two ontologies as well as crossing the two ontologies. Both of linguistic and structural relatedness within each of the two ontolog
ies are reflected in W11 and W22. Linguistic relatedness crossing ontologies is characterized by W12.
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 11
Illustration by the Toy Example
VD(onto1:Report) Local Description = “report” Des(onto1:Reference) = “reference”
VD(onto1:Reference) Local Description = “reference” Des(onto1:Report) = “report”, Des(onto1:Book), Des(onto1:hasInstitution)
VD(onto2:Entry) Local Description = “entry” Des(onto2:Article), Des(onto2:Book), Des(onto2:hasInstitution)
The relatedness between onto1:Report and onto1:Reference is revealed throughshared words (“report” & “reference”) obtained from neighboring relationship in Vector Space Model.
The relatedness between onto1:Reference and onto2:Entry is exploited by the shared words “book”, “institution”.
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 12
Step 3 – The Hierarchical Bisection Algorithm
The min-max cut (Mcut) function is adopted as the criterion function.
Why is a hierarchical algorithm? It is easy to depict the partitioning for a given domain. There may be several correct answers.
The overview of our partitioning algorithm Input: a relatedness matrix W It recursively bisects a matrix into two submatrices by finding the minimum Mcut. Output: a dendrogram consisting of layers of block mappings.
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 13
Step 4 – Extraction of the Optimal Block Mappings
Obtaining a flat partitioning with a given number of block mappings p
where g is the objective function:
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 14
Illustration by the Toy Example (Cont’d.)
The dendrogram for onto1 & onto2 is shown as follows. If extracting 3 block mappings, then the selected ones are …
√√
√
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 15
Illustration by the Toy Example (Cont’d.)
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 16
Evaluation – Experimental Methodology
We implement our approach in Java, called BMO. BMO focuses on the domain entities at the conceptual level.
We evaluate the performance of BMO in three experiments: The mapping quality of BMO The partitioning quality of BMO In addition, comparing BMO with PBM
For both the mapping quality and the partitioning quality
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 17
Evaluation – Case Study
Two pairs of ontologies – Russia12 and TourismAB Russia12
Russia1 – 151 classes & 76 properties Russia2 – 162 classes & 81 properties 85 reference alignments (1:1)
TourismAB TourismA – 340 classes & 97 properties TourismB – 474 classes & 100 properties 226 reference alignments (1:1)
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 18
Evaluation – Evaluation Metrics
The mapping quality – observing the correctness with the variation of the number of the block mappings. Rationale – the higher the quality of the block mappings is, the more refere
nce alignments could be found in the block mappings.
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 19
Evaluation – Evaluation Metrics (Cont’d.)
The partitioning quality – comparing the computed block mappings by BMO with the manual ones set up by volunteers. The f-measure is defined as a combination of the precision and recall.
The entropy considers the distribution of the domain entities in block mappings and reflects the overall partitioning quality.
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 20
Evaluation – Experimental Results
The correctness with the variation of the number of the block mappings n
The partitioning quality of BMO
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 21
Evaluation – Experimental Results (Cont’d.)
The comparison between BMO and PBM The partitioning quality between the two approaches are almost the same. But, the mapping quality of BMO is much better than the one of PBM.
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 22
Related Work
Ontology matching There exist very few approaches raising the issue of block matching. PBM – only for class hierarchies & the mapping quality isn’t good enough In the field of schema matching
iMap – complex mapping, hard to specify the domain knowledge in some cases Artemis – similar to our framework, but the partitioning quality isn’t so good
Ontology partitioning Many existing works only provide a flat partitioning on a single ontology.
Our work is a hierarchical one & partitions two ontologies simultaneously.
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 23
Concluding Remarks
We discussed the block matching problem and suggested both the mapping quality and the partitioning quality should be considered in block matching.
We proposed a relatedness measure based on virtual documents that simultaneously importing both linguistic and structural characteristics of domain entities.
We presented a hierarchical bisection algorithm to provide block mappings at different levels of granularity. Also, we described a method to automatically extract the optimal block mappings.
We set up two kinds of metrics to evaluate of the quality of block matching. The experimental results demonstrated that our approach is feasible.
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 24
Concluding Remarks – Future Work
We would like to find other possible approaches to block matching, and compare them with each other.
We look forward to setting up systematic test cases for block matching.
We plan to address the block matching issue for very large ontologies.
04/22/23 XObjects Group - Southeast University 25
Thanks for your attention!
Any comment is welcome!