Dividing the Ontology Alignment Task with Semantic Embeddings and Logic-based Modules

Large ontologies still pose serious challenges to state-of-the-art ontology alignment systems. In this paper we present an approach that combines a neural embedding model and logic-based modules to accurately divide an input ontology matching task into smaller and more tractable matching (sub)tasks. We have conducted a comprehensive evaluation using the datasets of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative. The results are encouraging and suggest that the proposed method is adequate in practice and can be integrated within the workflow of systems unable to cope with very large ontologies

MultiFarm: A benchmark for multilingual ontology matching

In this paper we present the MultiFarm dataset, which has been designed as a benchmark for multilingual ontology matching. The MultiFarm dataset is composed of a set of ontologies translated in different languages and the corresponding alignments between these ontologies. It is based on the OntoFarm dataset, which has been used successfully for several years in the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI). By translating the ontologies of the OntoFarm dataset into eight different languages – Chinese, Czech, Dutch, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish – we created a comprehensive set of realistic test cases. Based on these test cases, it is possible to evaluate and compare the performance of matching approaches with a special focus on multilingualism

Results of the ontology alignment evaluation initiative 2019

The Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI) aims at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can be based on ontologies of different levels of complexity (from simple thesauri to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different evaluation modalities (e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation, or consensus). The OAEI 2019 campaign offered 11 tracks with 29 test cases, and was attended by 20 participants. This paper is an overall presentation of that campaign

A Large Scale Dataset for the Evaluation of Ontology Matching Systems

Recently, the number of ontology matching techniques and systems has increased significantly. This makes the issue of their evaluation and comparison more severe. One of the challenges of the ontology matching evaluation is in building large scale evaluation datasets. In fact, the number of possible correspondences between two ontologies grows quadratically with respect to the numbers of entities in these ontologies. This often makes the manual construction of the evaluation datasets demanding to the point of being infeasible for large scale matching tasks. In this paper we present an ontology matching evaluation dataset composed of thousands of matching tasks, called TaxME2. It was built semi-automatically out of the Google, Yahoo and Looksmart web directories. We evaluated TaxME2 by exploiting the results of almost two dozen of state of the art ontology matching systems. The experiments indicate that the dataset possesses the desired key properties, namely it is error-free, incremental, discriminative, monotonic, and hard for the state of the art ontology matching systems. The paper has been accepted for publication in "The Knowledge Engineering Review", Cambridge Universty Press (ISSN: 0269-8889, EISSN: 1469-8005)

A Survey of Volunteered Open Geo-Knowledge Bases in the Semantic Web

Over the past decade, rapid advances in web technologies, coupled with innovative models of spatial data collection and consumption, have generated a robust growth in geo-referenced information, resulting in spatial information overload. Increasing 'geographic intelligence' in traditional text-based information retrieval has become a prominent approach to respond to this issue and to fulfill users' spatial information needs. Numerous efforts in the Semantic Geospatial Web, Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI), and the Linking Open Data initiative have converged in a constellation of open knowledge bases, freely available online. In this article, we survey these open knowledge bases, focusing on their geospatial dimension. Particular attention is devoted to the crucial issue of the quality of geo-knowledge bases, as well as of crowdsourced data. A new knowledge base, the OpenStreetMap Semantic Network, is outlined as our contribution to this area. Research directions in information integration and Geographic Information Retrieval (GIR) are then reviewed, with a critical discussion of their current limitations and future prospects

Introducing fuzzy trust for managing belief conflict over semantic web data

Interpreting Semantic Web Data by different human experts can end up in scenarios, where each expert comes up with different and conflicting ideas what a concept can mean and how they relate to other concepts. Software agents that operate on the Semantic Web have to deal with similar scenarios where the interpretation of Semantic Web data that describes the heterogeneous sources becomes contradicting. One such application area of the Semantic Web is ontology mapping where different similarities have to be combined into a more reliable and coherent view, which might easily become unreliable if the conflicting beliefs in similarities are not managed effectively between the different agents. In this paper we propose a solution for managing this conflict by introducing trust between the mapping agents based on the fuzzy voting model

Comparing human and automatic thesaurus mapping approaches in the agricultural domain

Knowledge organization systems (KOS), like thesauri and other controlled vocabularies, are used to provide subject access to information systems across the web. Due to the heterogeneity of these systems, mapping between vocabularies becomes crucial for retrieving relevant information. However, mapping thesauri is a laborious task, and thus big efforts are being made to automate the mapping process. This paper examines two mapping approaches involving the agricultural thesaurus AGROVOC, one machine-created and one human created. We are addressing the basic question "What are the pros and cons of human and automatic mapping and how can they complement each other?" By pointing out the difficulties in specific cases or groups of cases and grouping the sample into simple and difficult types of mappings, we show the limitations of current automatic methods and come up with some basic recommendations on what approach to use when.Comment: 10 pages, Int'l Conf. on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications 200