Dealing with uncertain entities in ontology alignment using rough sets

This is the author's accepted manuscript. The final published article is available from the link below. Copyright @ 2012 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other users, including reprinting/ republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted components of this work in other works.Ontology alignment facilitates exchange of knowledge among heterogeneous data sources. Many approaches to ontology alignment use multiple similarity measures to map entities between ontologies. However, it remains a key challenge in dealing with uncertain entities for which the employed ontology alignment measures produce conflicting results on similarity of the mapped entities. This paper presents OARS, a rough-set based approach to ontology alignment which achieves a high degree of accuracy in situations where uncertainty arises because of the conflicting results generated by different similarity measures. OARS employs a combinational approach and considers both lexical and structural similarity measures. OARS is extensively evaluated with the benchmark ontologies of the ontology alignment evaluation initiative (OAEI) 2010, and performs best in the aspect of recall in comparison with a number of alignment systems while generating a comparable performance in precision

Observing LOD: Its Knowledge Domains and the Varying Behavior of Ontologies Across Them

Linked Open Data (LOD) is the largest, collaborative, distributed, and publicly-accessible Knowledge Graph (KG) uniformly encoded in the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and formally represented according to the semantics of the Web Ontology Language (OWL). LOD provides researchers with a unique opportunity to study knowledge engineering as an empirical science: to observe existing modelling practices and possibly understanding how to improve knowledge engineering methodologies and knowledge representation formalisms. Following this perspective, several studies have analysed LOD to identify (mis-)use of OWL constructs or other modelling phenomena e.g. class or property usage, their alignment, the average depth of taxonomies. A question that remains open is whether there is a relation between observed modelling practices and knowledge domains (natural science, linguistics, etc.): do certain practices or phenomena change as the knowledge domain varies? Answering this question requires an assessment of the domains covered by LOD as well as a classification of its datasets. Existing approaches to classify LOD datasets provide partial and unaligned views, posing additional challenges. In this paper, we introduce a classification of knowledge domains, and a method for classifying LOD datasets and ontologies based on it. We classify a large portion of LOD and investigate whether a set of observed phenomena have a domain-specific character