Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Omega-RIDL Annotations.

download Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Omega-RIDL Annotations.

of 21

  • date post

    23-Jun-2015
  • Category

    Technology

  • view

    571
  • download

    2

Embed Size (px)

description

Presentation of Alkhaldi, N., Debruyne, C. (2011) Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Omega-RIDL Annotations. In Proc. of On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2011: OTM Workshops - Semantic and Decision Support (SeDeS 2011), LNCS, Springer - October 2011 Abstract: To facilitate the process of annotating data in the DOGMA ontology-engineering framework, we present a method and tool for semi-automatic annotation of XML data using an ontology. XML elements are compared against concepts and their interrelations in the ontology using various metrics at different levels (lexical level, semantic level, structural level, etc.). The result of these metrics are then used to propose the user a series of annotations from XML elements to concepts in the ontology, which are then validated by that user. Those annotations - expressed in Ω-RIDL - are then used to transform data from one format into another format. In this paper, we demonstrate our approach on XML data containing vendor offers in the tourism domain, more precisely holiday packages.

Transcript of Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Omega-RIDL Annotations.

  • 1. Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate -RIDL Annotations Nadejda Alkhaldi and Christophe Debruyne16/10/11Herhaling titel van presentatie 1

2. IntroductionComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.2 3. Introduction Ontologies are a [formal,] explicit specification of a[shared] conceptualization (Gruber) Autonomously developed and maintained informationsystems commit to the ontology, a mostly manualactivity. How can we automate (a part) of this process?Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.3 4. Method: overview First we need an ontology. We used the DOGMA method for ontology engineering The development of the ontology is reported elsewhere in Debruyne et al. (WEBIST 2011) Semi-automatically annotate the data Match concept in the (structure of) the data to the ontology Generate a -RIDL commitment file Review of the mappings by representative of the information systemComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.4 5. in Context-identifiers,Method: DOGMApointers to a community DOGMA Ontology Descriptions a lexon base, a finite set of plausible binary fact types called lexons ci a partial function mapping context-identifiers and terms to concepts K a finite set of ontological commitments containing A selection of lexons A mapping from application symbols to ontology terms Predicates over those terms and roles to express constraintsComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.5 6. Method: DOGMA Example of a commitment-RIDL: Verheyden et al. (SWDB 2004), Trog et al. (RuleML 2007)Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.6 7. Method: (Semi)-Automatic Annotation First related work? Annotation Techniques: AeroDAML, SHOE Knowledge Annotator, S-CREAM, MnM, Armadillo, KIM, SemTag, Ontea. Ontology and schema matching techniques: CUPID, iMAP, oMAP, H-Match Looking at different aspect and reusing ideas that might be usableComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.7 8. Method: (Semi)-Automatic AnnotationComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.8 9. Method: (Semi)-Automatic Annotation Some considerations Ontology contains explicit relations between concepts, the XML not XML tags can be matched concepts of the ontology, but the content of a tag can also represent an a concept E.g., should be typed onto the concept of Bar and not onto Facility of which Bar is a subtype. No XML Schema to rely on! Spelling mistakes/language variationsComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.9 10. Method: (Semi)-Automatic Annotation 1) Element match Match tag and attribute names using string metrics 2) Linguistic match Match tag and attribute names using an external thesaurs (e.g., WordNet or a domain specific thesuarus) 3) Content match Match the content of a tag (with respect to the tag) to identify the concept represented by the contentComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.10 11. Method: (Semi)-Automatic Annotation 4) Structural Match Adjust the previously computed weighted means by looking to the structure of both the ontology graph and XML-tree.Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.11 12. Method: (Semi)-Automatic Annotation To summarize: using an XML and a DOGMA ontology a series of mapping scores are calculated based on element,linguistic and content match Those scores are then refined using the structural match The refined scores are then compared against a threshold toproduce the -RIDL mappings.Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.12 13. Method: Summary using an XML and a DOGMA ontology a series of mapping scores are calculated based on element, linguistic and content match Those scores are then refined using the structural match The refined scores are then compared against a threshold to produce the -RIDL mappings. The user can then use the generated mappings to get an idea how his application can commit to the ontology and then decide how to do so.Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.13 14. ToolComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.14 15. Experiment Data of the COMDRIVE RFP project Holiday Packages in the winter sports domainComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.15 16. Experiment Data of the COMDRIVE RFP project Holiday Packages in the winter sports domain Ontology developed in several iterations in the project Bootstrapping of the ontology Meeting with vendor experts Meeting with consumer expertsComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.16 17. Experiment Data of the COMDRIVE RFP project Holiday Packages in the winter sports domain Ontology developed in several iterations in the project Bootstrapping of the ontology Meeting with vendor experts Meeting with consumer expertsComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.17 18. Experiment Some generated mappings map /countries/country/sumary/code onCode identifies / identified by Commodity. map /countries/country/regions/region on Region. map /countries/country/regions/region onSki Area destination of / with destination Holiday Package. map /countries/country/regions/region/cities/city City. Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate -RIDL Annotations 16/10/11Pag.18 19. Conclusions The four heuristics were able to tackle the considerationsmentioned. The algorithm depends on a good choice of parameters, otherwisea lot of nonsense mappings are generated The structural match needs to be revisited to cope with morecomplicated cases such as: map /countries/country/regions/region/summary/descriptionon Description of / has RFP. Appropriate for suggesting the user mappings (needs testing) Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate -RIDL Annotations 16/10/11Pag.19 20. Future work Revision of the structural match Integration with tool suite (e.g., Business Semantics Studio) Additional testing Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate -RIDL Annotations 16/10/11Pag.20 21. Questions?Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate -RIDL Annotations16/10/11Pag.21