Learning to map between ontologies on the semantic web

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.
• 2: www.daml.org.
• 3: www.google.com.
• 4: IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2), 2001.
• 5: A. Agresti. Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley, New York, NY, 1990.
• 6: T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The Semantic Web. Scientific American, 279, 2001.
• 7: D. Brickley and R. Guha. Resource Description Framework Schema Specification 1.0, 2000.
• 8: Jeen Broekstra , Michel Klein , Stefan Decker , Dieter Fensel , Frank van Harmelen , Ian Horrocks, Enabling knowledge representation on the Web by extending RDF schema, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web, p.467-478, May 01-05, 2001, Hong Kong, Hong Kong [doi>10.1145/371920.372105]
• 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).
• 10: Soumen Chakrabarti , Byron Dom , Piotr Indyk, Enhanced hypertext categorization using hyperlinks, Proceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, p.307-318, June 01-04, 1998, Seattle, Washington, United States
• 11: H. Chalupsky. Ontomorph: A Translation system for symbolic knowledge. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 2000.
• 12: AnHai Doan , Pedro Domingos , Alon Y. Halevy, Reconciling schemas of disparate data sources: a machine-learning approach, Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, p.509-520, May 21-24, 2001, Santa Barbara, California, United States
• 13: Pedro Domingos , Michael Pazzani, On the Optimality of the Simple Bayesian Classifier under Zero-One Loss, Machine Learning, v.29 n.2-3, p.103-130, Nov./Dec. 1997 [doi>10.1023/A:1007413511361]
• 14: Ontologies: a silver bullet for knowledge management and electronic commerce, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY, 2001
• 15: Jeff Heflin , James Hendler, A Portrait of the Semantic Web in Action, IEEE Intelligent Systems, v.16 n.2, p.54-59, March 2001 [doi>10.1109/5254.920600]
• 16: R. Hummel and S. Zucker. On the Foundations of Relaxation Labeling Processes. PAMI, 5(3):267--287, May 1983.
• 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.
• 18: Martin S. Lacher , Georg Groh, Facilitating the Exchange of Explicit Knowledge through Ontology Mappings, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, p.305-309, May 21-23, 2001
• 19: Dekang Lin, An Information-Theoretic Definition of Similarity, Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, p.296-304, July 24-27, 1998
• 20: S. Lloyd. An optimization approach to relaxation labeling algorithms. Image and Vision Computing, 1(2), 1983.
• 21: Jayant Madhavan , Philip A. Bernstein , Erhard Rahm, Generic Schema Matching with Cupid, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, p.49-58, September 11-14, 2001
• 22: A. Maedche. A Machine Learning Perspective for the Semantic Web. Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS) Position Paper, 2001.
• 23: Alexander Maedche , Steffen Staab, Ontology Learning for the Semantic Web, IEEE Intelligent Systems, v.16 n.2, p.72-79, March 2001 [doi>10.1109/5254.920602]
• 24: Deborah L. McGuinness , Richard Fikes , James Rice , Steve Wilder, The Chimaera Ontology Environment, Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Twelfth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, p.1123-1124, July 30-August 03, 2000
• 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.
• 26: Tova Milo , Sagit Zohar, Using Schema Matching to Simplify Heterogeneous Data Translation, Proceedings of the 24rd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, p.122-133, August 24-27, 1998
• 27: P. Mitra, G. Wiederhold, and J. Jannink. Semi-automatic Integration of Knowledge Sources. In Proceedings of Fusion'99.
• 28: Natalya Fridman Noy , Mark A. Musen, PROMPT: Algorithm and Tool for Automated Ontology Merging and Alignment, Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Twelfth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, p.450-455, July 30-August 03, 2000
• 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.
• 30: B. Omelayenko. Learning of Ontologies for the Web: the Analysis of Existent approaches. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Web Dynamics, 2001.
• 31: L. Padro. A Hybrid Environment for Syntax-Semantic Tagging, 1998.
• 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.
• 33: Erhard Rahm , Philip A. Bernstein, A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching, The VLDB Journal — The International Journal on Very Large Data Bases, v.10 n.4, p.334-350, December 2001 [doi>10.1007/s007780100057]
• 34: K. M. Ting and I. H. Witten. Issues in stacked generalization. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 10:271--289, 1999.
• 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.
• 36: C. J. Van Rijsbergen, Information Retrieval, Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, MA, 1979
• 37: David H. Wolpert, Stacked generalization, Neural Networks, v.5 n.2, p.241-259, 1992 [doi>10.1016/S0893-6080(05)80023-1]
• 38: Ling Ling Yan , Renée J. Miller , Laura M. Haas , Ronald Fagin, Data-driven understanding and refinement of schema mappings, Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, p.485-496, May 21-24, 2001, Santa Barbara, California, United States

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.6 Learning

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.2 DATABASE MANAGEMENT
      H.2.5 Heterogeneous Databases

General Terms:
Algorithms, Design, Experimentation

Keywords:
machine learning, ontology mapping, relaxation labeling, semantic web