Comparing XML Files with a           DOGMA Ontology to Generate           Ω-RIDL Annotations           Nadejda Alkhaldi an...
IntroductionComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate Ω-RIDL Annotations16/10/11    Pag.2
Introduction  Ontologies are a [formal,] explicit specification of a  [shared] conceptualization (Gruber)  Autonomously de...
Method: overview  First we need an ontology.  –  We used the DOGMA method for ontology engineering  –  The development of ...
γ in Γ Context-identifiers,      Method: DOGMA                              pointers to a community  DOGMA Ontology Descri...
Method: DOGMA     Example of a commitment                                Ω-RIDL: Verheyden et al. (SWDB 2004), Trog et al....
Method:                           (Semi)-Automatic Annotation  First … related work?  –  Annotation Techniques:     AeroDA...
Method:                           (Semi)-Automatic AnnotationComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate Ω-RIDL A...
Method:                           (Semi)-Automatic Annotation  Some considerations  –  Ontology contains explicit relation...
Method:                           (Semi)-Automatic Annotation  1) Element match  –  Match tag and attribute names using st...
Method:                           (Semi)-Automatic Annotation  4) Structural Match  –  Adjust the previously computed weig...
Method:                           (Semi)-Automatic Annotation  To summarize:   –  using an XML and a DOGMA ontology   –  a...
Method: Summary–  using an XML and a DOGMA ontology–  a series of mapping scores are calculated based on element,   lingui...
ToolComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate Ω-RIDL Annotations16/10/11    Pag.14
Experiment  Data of the COMDRIVE RFP project   –  Holiday Packages in the winter sports domain  Comparing XML Files with a...
Experiment  Data of the COMDRIVE RFP project   –  Holiday Packages in the winter sports domain  Ontology developed in seve...
Experiment  Data of the COMDRIVE RFP project   –  Holiday Packages in the winter sports domain  Ontology developed in seve...
Experiment  Some generated mappings   –  map ‘‘/countries/country/sumary/code’’ on      Code identifies / identified by Co...
Conclusions  The four heuristics were able to tackle the considerations  mentioned.  The algorithm depends on a good choic...
Future work  Revision of the structural match  Integration with tool suite (e.g., Business Semantics Studio)  Additional t...
Questions?Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate Ω-RIDL Annotations16/10/11    Pag.21
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

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

724 views
676 views

Published on

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.

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
724
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

  1. 1. Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Ω-RIDL Annotations Nadejda Alkhaldi and Christophe Debruyne16/10/11 Herhaling titel van presentatie 1
  2. 2. IntroductionComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate Ω-RIDL Annotations16/10/11 Pag.2
  3. 3. 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? Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Ω-RIDL Annotations 16/10/11 Pag.3
  4. 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 Ω-RIDL commitment file –  Review of the mappings by representative of the information system Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Ω-RIDL Annotations 16/10/11 Pag.4
  5. 5. γ in Γ Context-identifiers, Method: DOGMA pointers to a community  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 Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Ω-RIDL Annotations 16/10/11 Pag.5
  6. 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 toGenerate Ω-RIDL Annotations16/10/11 Pag.6
  7. 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 usable Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Ω-RIDL Annotations 16/10/11 Pag.7
  8. 8. Method: (Semi)-Automatic AnnotationComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate Ω-RIDL Annotations16/10/11 Pag.8
  9. 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., <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 Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Ω-RIDL Annotations 16/10/11 Pag.9
  10. 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 content Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Ω-RIDL Annotations 16/10/11 Pag.10
  11. 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 to Generate Ω-RIDL Annotations 16/10/11 Pag.11
  12. 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 to produce the Ω-RIDL mappings. Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Ω-RIDL Annotations 16/10/11 Pag.12
  13. 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 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.Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate Ω-RIDL Annotations16/10/11 Pag.13
  14. 14. ToolComparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate Ω-RIDL Annotations16/10/11 Pag.14
  15. 15. Experiment  Data of the COMDRIVE RFP project –  Holiday Packages in the winter sports domain Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Ω-RIDL Annotations 16/10/11 Pag.15
  16. 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 experts Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Ω-RIDL Annotations 16/10/11 Pag.16
  17. 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 experts Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Ω-RIDL Annotations 16/10/11 Pag.17
  18. 18. 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. –  … Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Ω-RIDL Annotations 16/10/11 Pag.18
  19. 19. 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) Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology to Generate Ω-RIDL Annotations 16/10/11 Pag.19
  20. 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 Ω-RIDL Annotations 16/10/11 Pag.20
  21. 21. Questions?Comparing XML Files with a DOGMA Ontology toGenerate Ω-RIDL Annotations16/10/11 Pag.21

×