• Aucun résultat trouvé

Using concept and structure similarities for ontology integration

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Using concept and structure similarities for ontology integration"

Copied!
2
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Using Concept and Structure Similarities for Ontology Integration

Xiulei Liu12, Payam Barnaghi1, Klaus Moessner1, and Jianxin Liao2

1Centre for Communication Systems Research University of Surrey Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom

2State Key Laboratory of Networking and Switching Technology

Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications Beijing 100876, P.R. of China {xiulei.liu,p.barnaghi,k.moessner}@surrey.ac.uk

[email protected]

Abstract. We propose a method to align different ontologies in sim- ilar domains and then define correspondence between concepts in two different ontologies using the SKOS model.

Introduction.Recently ontologies are created to provide knowledge represen- tation. They use common representation languages such as OWL, but there are many heterogeneous ontologies [1–3]. In this paper we first propose a lexical and structural analysis and compute the concept similarity as a combination of attributes, second use the SKOS model to define correspondence between concepts[4].

Ontology Alignment Framework.To perform the matching between concepts in different ontologies, we focus both on syntactical and text in entity descrip- tions and also their semantic structure in the ontology representations. This process, illustrated in the block diagram shown in Figure 1, is divided into two main sub-tasks: Alignment and SKOS translation. The inputs are two ontologies and result of the process is an SKOS-based ontology that contains automatically defined associations.The alignment task analyses lexical and structural attributes of ontologies to automatically produce associations between concepts. The re- lation is defined: R(A,B) =< A,B,Relation,S(A, B) > where A and B are ontology concepts,Relationdescribe semantic relations between these concepts which have five types: equal beIncluded, include, disjoint, related, andS(A, B) is similarity measure for two concepts based on their structure and lexical analysis.

Fig. 1.The ontology alignment process

(2)

2

Fig. 2.Snapshot of the specified properties in the integrated ontology

Defining SKOS-based Associations.After identifying possible relations be- tween concepts, they are imported based on the SKOS model. This will provide an interconnection between two ontologies based on standard set of properties de- fined in the SKOS model. The SKOS mapping properties includeskos:closeMatch, skos:exactMatch,skos:broadMatch,skos:narrowMatchandskos:relatedMatch. The properties maintain a mapping between SKOS concepts adapted from schemes.

The relations in concept pairs defined in the previous section are based onsynset relations in WordNet. They are obtained according to accessing the extended synset collection for each representative word that describes entities and calcu- lating structural similarity We will map betweensynsetand SKOS relations. By applying these mappings, the final product of the ontology integration process will include assertion axioms in which the related concepts from different ontolo- gies are linked to each other based on SKOS relations. The integrated ontology will be a collection of concepts and properties from both ontologies and will also include the SKOS association properties. Figure 2 illustrates a part of the SKOS relations and concept alignment between two ontologies from the dataset (a complete set of our evaluation results using OAEI2008 dataset can be accessed from: http://tinyurl.com/38veolh).

Acknowledgement.The work is partially supported by them:Ciudad project funded by the European 7th Framework Programme, contract number: 215007.

Xiulei Liu’s and Jianxin Liao’s research is supported by Chinese National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (No. 60525110) and Chinese National 973 Program (No. 2007CB307100, 2007CB307103).

References

1. T. L. Bach, J. D. Bo, and R. Lara, “Knowledgeweb consortium, state of the art on ontology (d2.2.3),” 2004.

2. P.Shvaiko and J.Euzenat, “A survey of schema-based matching approaches,” in J.

Data Semantics IV, 2005, pp. 146–171.

3. Y. Kalfoglou and M. Schorlemmer, “Ontology mapping: The state of the art,” 2003.

4. A. Miles and S. Bechhofer, “(editors) skos simple knowledge organization system reference, w3c recommendation 18 august 2009.” [Online]. Available:

http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/

Références

Documents relatifs

This have motivated us to develop an ontology enti- tled Imaging Biomarker Ontology (IBO) to formally define basic aspects related to the imaging biomarker concept.. IBO is founded

The dynamic selection of Uberon by the BioPortal Mediating Finder provides evidence this approach can find qualified mediating ontologies since Uberon has been pre-selected

We relied on results of these works to support semantic integration process and have proposed integration architecture based on the alignment of ontologies using domain ontology

Second, we mapped the ontology labels to the MLSN terms by coincidence (3 930 terms; i.e. poulet basquaise formally denotes a MIAM concept, a lexical item with the same la- bel

As already mentioned, the Versions Manager enables the execution of each ontology development project, and captures its evolution based on operations that are

It is necessary to form an integrating data model based on the ontological representations that obtained after mapping the RDB structure of each of the integrated information

In this paper, we present the GeneTegra Alignment Tool (GT-Align), a practical implementation of the ASMOV ontology alignment algorithm within a Web-based

By annotating judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, we have aligned an ontology of the le- gal domain, LKIF, to YAGO, we have thus populated LKIF in order to train a