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

Nadejda Alkhaldi and Christophe Debruyne

16/10/11 1 Herhaling titel van presentatie

Pag.

Introduction

16/10/11 2

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

Pag.

Introduction

  Ontologies are a [formal,] explicit specification of a [shared] conceptualization (Gruber)

  Autonomously developed and maintained information systems commit to the ontology, a mostly manual activity.

  How can we automate (a part) of this process?

16/10/11 3

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

Pag.

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 Ω-RIDL commitment file –  Review of the mappings by representative of the information

system

16/10/11 4

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

Pag.

Method: DOGMA

  DOGMA Ontology Descriptions <Λ, ci, K>

–  Λ a lexon base, a finite set of plausible binary fact types called lexons <γ, t1, r1, r2, t2> <Vendor Community, Offer, has, is of, Title>

–  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 constraints

16/10/11 5

γ in Γ Context-identifiers, pointers to a community

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

Pag. 16/10/11 6

Method: DOGMA

  Example of a commitment

Ω-RIDL: Verheyden et al. (SWDB 2004), Trog et al. (RuleML 2007)

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

Pag.

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 usable

16/10/11 7

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

Pag.

Method: (Semi)-Automatic Annotation

16/10/11 8

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

Pag.

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., <facility type=“bar”> 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 variations

16/10/11 9

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

Pag.

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 content

16/10/11 10

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

Pag.

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.

16/10/11 11

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

Pag.

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 to

produce the Ω-RIDL mappings.

16/10/11 12

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

Pag.

–  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 Ω-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.

Method: Summary

16/10/11 13

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

Pag.

Tool

16/10/11 14

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

Pag.

Experiment

  Data of the COMDRIVE RFP project –  Holiday Packages in the winter sports domain

16/10/11 15

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

Pag.

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 experts

16/10/11 16

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

Pag.

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 experts

16/10/11 17

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

Pag.

Experiment

  Some generated mappings –  map ‘‘/countries/country/sumary/code’’ on

Code identifies / identified by Commodity. –  map ‘‘/countries/country/regions/region’’ on Region. –  map ‘‘/countries/country/regions/region’’ on

Ski Area destination of / with destination Holiday Package. –  map ‘‘/countries/country/regions/region/cities/city’’ City. –  …

16/10/11 18

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

Pag.

Conclusions

  The four heuristics were able to tackle the considerations mentioned.

  The algorithm depends on a good choice of parameters, otherwise a lot of “nonsense” mappings are generated

  The structural match needs to be revisited to cope with more complicated cases such as: –  map ‘‘/countries/country/regions/region/summary/description’’

on Description of / has RFP.

  Appropriate for suggesting the user mappings (needs testing)

16/10/11 19

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

Pag.

Future work

  Revision of the structural match

  Integration with tool suite (e.g., Business Semantics Studio)

  Additional testing

16/10/11 20

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

Pag.

Questions?

16/10/11 21

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