Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Image retrieval ++—web image retrieval with an enhanced multi-modality ontology

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we present an enhanced multi-modality ontology-based approach for web image retrieval step by step. Several ontology-based approaches have been made in the field of multimedia retrieval. Our multi-modality approach is one of the earliest attempts to integrate information from different modalities and apply the model in a complex domain. In order to develop the model, we need to answer the following questions: (1) how to find the proper structure and construct an ontology which can integrate information from different modalities; (2) how to quantify the matching degree (concept similarity) and provide an independent ranking mechanism; (3) how to ensure the scalability of this approach when applied to large domains. The first question has been answered by our multi-modality ontology which has been discussed in Wang et al. (Does ontology help in image retrieval? In: Asia-Pacific workshop on visual information processing, 2006) and its extension (Wang et al., Does ontology help in image retrieval?—a comparison between keyword, text ontology and multi-modality ontology approaches, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 109–112, 2006). More details about this work is given later. The main focus of this paper is that we propose a new ranking mechanism using Spearman’s ranking correlation to measure the similarity of concepts in the ontology. We take the priorities of information from different modalities into consideration. This algorithm gives the answer of the second question. The semantic matchmaking result is quantized and the degree of similarity between concepts is calculated. For the third question, importing of ontology will resolve the scalability issue but computing concept similarity and identify relationships when integrating different ontologies will be beyond the scope of this paper. To convince readers that our multi-modality ontology and concept similarity ranking is the right step forward, we decided to work on the animal kingdom. We believe this domain is challenging as demonstrated by images depict animals in a wide range of aspects, pose, configurations and appearances. We experimented with a data sets of 4,000 web images. Based on ground truth, we analyze the image content and text information, build up the enhanced multi-modality ontology and compare the retrieval results. Results show that we can even classify close animal species which share similar appearances and we can infer their hidden relationships from the canine family graph. By assigning a ranking to the semantic relationships we show unequivocal evidence that our improved model achieves good accuracy and performs comparable result with the Google re-ranking result in our previous work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://lucene.apache.org/.

  2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/animals_a_z.shtml.

References

  1. IEEE Computer Society (2006) 2006 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR 2006). IEEE Computer Society, New York, NY, USA, pp 17–22, June 2006

  2. Aslandogan YA, Thier C, Yu CT, Zou J, Rishe N (1997) Using semantic contents and wordnet in image retrieval. In: SIGIR. ACM, pp 286–295

  3. Berg TL, Forsyth DA (2006) Animals on the web. In: CVPR (2) 2006 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 1463–1470

  4. Chang SK, Hsu A (1992) Image information systems: where do we go from here? IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 4(5):431–442

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Fan L, Li B (2006) A hybrid model of image retrieval based on ontology technology and probabilistic ranking. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence, pp 477–480

  6. Gao Y, Fan J (2006) Incorporating concept ontology to enable probabilistic concept reasoning for multi-level image annotation. In: MIR ’06: Proceedings of the 8th ACM international workshop on multimedia information retrieval. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 79–88. http://doi.acm.org.ezlibproxy1.ntu.edu.sg/10.1145/1178677.1178691

  7. Gordon A (2001) Browsing image collections with representations of common-sense activities. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 52(11):925–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Grauman K, Darrell T (2005) The pyramid match kernel: discriminative classification with sets of image features. In: ICCV. IEEE Computer Society, pp 1458–1465

  9. Grauman K, Darrell T (2006) Unsupervised learning of categories from sets of partially matching image features. In: CVPR (1) 2006 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 19–25

  10. Grosky W, Sreenath D, Fotouhi F (2002) Emergent semantics and the multimedia semantic web. ACM SIGMOD Record 31(4):54–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowl Acquis 5(2):199–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Haarslev V, Möller R (2001) Racer system description. In: Goré R, Leitsch A, Nipkow T (eds) IJCAR. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2083. Springer, pp 701–706

  13. Hu B, Dasmahapatra S, Lewis PH, Shadbolt N (2003) Ontology-based medical image annotation with description logics. In: ICTAI. IEEE Computer Society, pp 77–82

  14. Hunter J (2001) Adding multimedia to the semantic web: building an MPEG-7 ontology. In: Cruz IF, Decker S, Euzenat J, McGuinness DL (eds) SWWS, pp 261–283

  15. Hyvonen E, Styrman A, Saarela S (2002) Ontology-based image retrieval. Towards the semantic web and web services. In: Proceedings of XML Finland 2002 conference, pp 15–27

  16. Jing F, Wang C, Yao Y, Deng K, Zhang L, Ma W (2006) IGroup: web image search results clustering. In: Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM international conference on multimedia, pp 377–384

  17. Lazebnik S, Schmid C, Ponce J (2006) Beyond bags of features: spatial pyramid matching for recognizing natural scene categories. In: CVPR (2) 2006 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 2169–2178

  18. Liu S, Chia LT, Chan S (2004) Ontology for nature-scene image retrieval. In: Meersman R, Tari Z (eds) CoopIS/DOA/ODBASE (2). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3291. Springer, pp 1050–1061

  19. Mehrotra S, Rui Y, Ortega M, Huang TS (1997) Supporting content-based queries over images in mars. In: ICMCS, pp 632–633

  20. Miller G, Beckwith R, Fellbaum C, Gross D, Miller K (1990) Wordnet: an on-line lexical database. Int J Lexicogr 3:235–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pentland A, Picard RW, Sclaroff S (1994) Photobook: tools for content-based manipulation of image databases. In: Storage and retrieval for image and video databases (SPIE), pp 34–47

  22. Popescu A, Moëllic P, Millet C (2007) SemRetriev: an ontology driven image retrieval system. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM international conference on image and video retrieval, pp 113–116

  23. Radhouani S, Lim JH, Chevallet JP, Falquet G (2006) Combining textual and visual ontologies to solve medical multimodal queries. In: 2006 International conference on multimedia and expo

  24. Smeulders AWM, Worring M, Santini S, Gupta A, Jain R (2000) Content-based image retrieval at the end of the early years. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 22(12):1349–1380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Smith JR, Chang SF (1996): Visualseek: a fully automated content-based image query system. In: ACM multimedia, pp 87–98

  26. Tamura H, Yokoya N (1984) Image database systems: a survey. Pattern Recogn 17(1):29–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang H, Liu S, Chia LT (2006) Does ontology help in image retrieval? In: Asia-Pacific workshop on visual information processing, best paper award

  28. Wang H, Liu S, Chia LT (2006) Does ontology help in image retrieval?—a comparison between keyword, text ontology and multi-modality ontology approaches. In: MULTIMEDIA ’06: Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM international conference on multimedia. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 109–112. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1180639.1180672

  29. Wang X, Ma W, He Q, Li X (2004) Grouping web image search result. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual ACM international conference on multimedia, pp 436–439

  30. Yanai K, Barnard K (2005) Probabilistic web image gathering. In: MIR ’05: Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGMM international workshop on multimedia information retrieval. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 57–64. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1101826.1101838

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Multimedia and Network Technology, School of Computer Engineering Nanyang Technological University, 639798, Singapore, Singapore

    Huan Wang, Liang-Tien Chia & Song Liu

Authors
  1. Huan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liang-Tien Chia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Song Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huan Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, H., Chia, LT. & Liu, S. Image retrieval ++—web image retrieval with an enhanced multi-modality ontology. Multimed Tools Appl 39, 189–215 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-008-0202-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-008-0202-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation