skip to main content
10.1145/3003464.3003465acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A holistic framework of geographical semantic web aligning

Authors Info & Claims
Published:31 October 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Semantic aligning of heterogeneous geographical data from different sources behaves unsatisfactory on Geographical Semantic Web (GSW) due to the flat structure of GSW and the influence of spatial features. To solve this problem, this paper proposes a holistic framework for GSW aligning. This holistic framework firstly produces the initial matched results respectively for classes, properties and instances by the approval voting strategy, and then enhances these results by the mutual cooperating mechanism. Especially, spatial distance and spatial index are introduced to align instances and to improve the performance of aligning class and aligning property. To demonstrate its ability, this holistic framework is tested with two real GSWs. Compared with the state-of-the-art holistic alignment system, namely PARIS, this framework gains a large number of matched pairs. The Fl values of aligning class, aligning property and aligning instance respectively are 0.562, 0.545 and 0.646, all of which are higher than PARIS's.

References

  1. Krzysztof, J., Sven, S., Arne, B., et al. 2010. Semantic enablement for spatial data infrastructures. Transactions in GIS, 14, 2, 111--129. DOI=10.1111/j.1467-9671.2010.01186.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Du, H., Alechina, N., Jackson, M., et al. 2013. Matching formal and informal geospatial ontologies. In Geographic information science at the heart of Europe, 155--171. DOI= 10.1007/978-3-319-00615-4_9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Liang Yu, Yong Liu. 2013. Using linked data in a heterogeneous sensor web: challenges, experiments and lessons learned. International Journal of Digital Earth, 8, 1, 15--35. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2013.839007Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Delgado, F., Martí, nez-Gonz, et al. 2013. An evaluation of ontology matching techniques on geospatial ontologies. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 27, 12, 2279--2301. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2013.812215 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Otero-Cerdeira, L., Rodríguez-Martínez, F. J., Gómez-Rodríguez, A. 2015. Ontology matching: a literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 42, 2, 949--971. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.08.032 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Zhenyuan Xia, Wei Zhang, Liping Lei, et al. 2014. Integrating spatial data linkage and analysis services in a geoportal for China urban research. Transactions in GIS, 19, 1, 107--128. DOI= 10.1111/tgis.12084Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Purves, R., Jones, C. 2011. Geographic information retrieval. SIGSPATIAL Special, 3, 2, 2-4. DOI= 10.1145/2047296.2047297 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Becker, C., Bizer, C. 2008. DBpedia mobile: a location-enabled linked data browser. Linked Data on the Web (Beijing, China, April 22, 2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Cimiano, P., Völker, J. 2005. Towards large-scale, open-domain and ontology-based named entity classification. In Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (Borovets, Bulgaria, September 21-23, 2005), 166--172. DOI=10.1.1.59.8993Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Faria, D., Pesquita, C., Santos, E., et al. 2014. Automatic background knowledge selection for matching biomedical ontologies. Plos One, 9, 11, e111226-e111226. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111226Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Nansu Zong, Sejin, N., Jae-Hong, E., et al. 2015. Aligning ontologies with subsumption and equivalence relations in linked data. Knowledge-Based Systems, 76, 30--41. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.11.022Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Lin, D. 1998. An Information-Theoretic Definition of Similarity. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Machine Learning (Madison, Wisconson, USAJuly 24-27, 1998), 1, 296--304. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Cohen W.W., Ravikumar P., Fienberg S.E., 2003. A comparison of string distance metrics for name-matching tasks. In Proceedings of 1JCA1-03 Workshop on Information Integertaion (Acapulco, Mexicao, August 9-15, 2003), 73--78. DOI= 10.1.1.112.8784Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Meilicke, C., Stuckenschmidt, H. 2007. Analyzing mapping extraction approaches. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Ontology Matching (Busan, Korea, November 11, 2007), 304, 25--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ballatore, A., Wilson, D. C., Bertolotto, M. 2013. A survey of volunteered open geo-knowledge bases in the semantic web. In Quality issues in the management of web information, 93--120. DOI= 10.1007/978-3-642-37688-7_5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Recchia G., Louwerse M., 2013. A Comparison of String Similarity Measures for Toponym Matching. In Proceedings of the First ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Computational Models of Place (Orlando, Florida, USA, November, 2013), 54, 5--8. DOI=10.1145/2534848.2534850 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Buscaldi, D., Rosso, P., Peris, P. 2006. Inferring Geographical Ontologies from Multiple Resources for Geographical Information Retrieval. ACM Workshop on Geographic Information Retrieval(Seattle, Wa, USA, August 10, 2006). 52--55. DOI=10.1.1.143.6156Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Parundekar, R., Knoblock, C. A., Ambite, J. L. 2012. Discovering Concept Coverings in Ontologies of Linked Data Sources. The 11th International Semantic Web Conference (Boston, MA, USA, November 11-15, 2012), 7649, 427--443. DOI= 10.1007/978-3-642-35176-1_27 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Ballatore, A., Bertolotto, M., Wilson, D. C. 2013. Grounding linked open data in WordNet: The case of the OSM semantic network. In International Symposium on Web and Wireless Geographical Information Systems (Banff, Canada, April 4-5, 2013), 1--15. DOI= 10.1007/978-3-642-37087-8_1 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Hess, G. N., Iochpe, C., Castano, S. 2006. An Algorithm and Implementation for GeoOntologies Integration. VIII Brazilian Symposium on Geoinformatics, 109--120. DOI= 10.1007/978-3-540-73414-7_9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Chuanrong Zhang, Tian Zhao, Weidong Li. 2010. The framework of a geospatial semantic web-based spatial decision support system for digital earth. International Journal of Digital Earth, 3, 2, 111--134. DOI= 10.1080/17538940903373803Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Auer, S., Lehmann, J., & Hellmann, S. 2009. Linkedgeodata: Adding a spatial dimension to the web of data. The 8th International Semantic Web Conference (Washington, DC., USA, October 25-29, 2009), 731--746. DOI= 10.1007/978-3-642-04930-9_46 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Jinguang Zheng, Linyun Fu, Xiaoguang Ma, et al. 2015. Sem+: tool for discovering concept mapping in earth science related domain. Earth Science Informatics, 8, 1, 1--8. DOI= 10.1007/s12145-014-0203-1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin Li, Xiaoyu Xing, Hui Xia, et al. 2016. Entropy-weighted instance matching between different sourcing points of interest. Entropy, 18, 2, 45--45. DOI=10.3390/e18020045Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Udrea, O., Getoor, L., Miller, R. J. 2007. Leveraging data and structure in ontology integration. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data (Beijing, China, November 11-14, 2007), 449--460. DOI= 10.1145/1247480.1247531 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Suchanek, F. M., Abiteboul, S., Senellart, P. 2011. Paris: Probabilistic alignment of relations, instances, and schema. In Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (Seattle, WA, USA, August 29-September 3, 2011), 5, 3, 157--168. DOI= 10.14778/2078331.2078332 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Hassen, W. 2012. MEDLEY results for OAEI 2012. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Ontology Matching (Statler, Boston, MA USA, November 11, 2012), 946, 168--172. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Zhichun Wang, Juanzi Li, Yue Zhao, et al. 2013. A unified approach to matching semantic data on the web. Knowledge-Based Systems, 39, 2, 173--184. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2012.10.015 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Ballatore, A., Bertolotto, M., Wilson, D. C. 2014. Linking geographic vocabularies through WordNet. Annals of CIS, 20, 2, 73--84. DOI=10.1080/19475683.2014.904440Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ballatore, A., Bertolotto, M., Wilson, D. C. 2013. Geographic knowledge extraction and semantic similarity in OpenStreetMap. Knowledge and Information Systems, 37, 1, 61--81. DOI= 10.1007/s10115-012-0571-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Iosif, E., Potamianos, A. 2015. Similarity computation using semantic networks created from web-harvested data. Natural Language Engineering, 21, 1, 49--79. DOI= 10.1017/S1351324913000144Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Janowicz, K., Raubal, M., Schwering, A., et al. 2008. Semantic similarity measurement and geospatial applications. Transactions in GIS, 12, 6, 651--659. DOI= 10.1111/j.1467-9671.2008.01129.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Schwering, A. 2008. Approaches to Semantic Similarity Measurement for Geo - Spatial Data: A Survey. Transactions in GIS, 12, 1, 5--29. DOI= 10.1111/j.1467-9671.2008.01084.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Ballatore, A., Wilson, D. C., Bertolotto, M. 2013. Computing the semantic similarity of geographic terms using volunteered lexical definitions. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 27, 10, 2099--2118. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2013.790548 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Wenwen Li, Raskin, R., Goodchild, M. F. 2012. Semantic similarity measurement based on knowledge mining: An artificial neural net approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26, 8, 1415--1435. DOI= 10.1080/13658816.2011.635595 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Arnold, P., Rahm, E. 2014. Enriching ontology mappings with semantic relations. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 93, 1--18. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2014.07.001 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Jan, S., Shah, I. A., Khan, I., et al. 2012. Similarity Measures and their Aggregation in Ontology Matching. International Journal of Computer Science and Telecommunications, 3, 5, 52--57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Hastings J.T., 2008. Automated Conflation of Digital Gazetteer Data. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22(10), 1109--1127. DOI=10.1080/13658810701851453 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. McKenzie G., Janowicz K., Adams B., 2014. A weighted multi-attribute method for matching user-generated Points of Interest. Journal of Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 41(2), 125--137. DOI=10.1080/15230406.2014.880327Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Sehgal V., Getoor L., Viechnicki P.D., 2006. Entity resolution in geospatial data integration. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information System (Arlington, Virginia, USA, November 10-11, 2006), 83--90. DOI=10.1145/1183471.1183486 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Zheng Y., Fen X.X., Xie X., et al., 2010. Detecting nearly duplicated records in location datasets. In Proceedings of the 18th SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems (San Jose, CA, USA, November 3-5, 2010), 137--143. DOI=10.1145/1869790.1869812 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Martins B., 2011. A supervised machine learning approach for duplicate detection over gazetteer records. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of GeoSpatial Semantics, (Brest, France, May 12-13, 2011), 6631, 34--51. DOI=10.1007/978-3-20630-6_3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Zhang Q., Kang J.H., Gong Y.Y, et al. 2013. Map search via a factor graph model. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (San Francisco, CA, USA, October 27-November 1, 2013), 69--78. DOI=10.1145/2505515.2505674 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Juanzi Li, Jie Lang, Yi Li, et al. 2008. Rimom: a dynamic multistrategy ontology alignment framework. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge & Data Engineering, 21, 8, 1218--1232. DOI= 10.1109/TKDE.2008.202 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A holistic framework of geographical semantic web aligning

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          GIR '16: Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Geographic Information Retrieval
          October 2016
          68 pages
          ISBN:9781450345880
          DOI:10.1145/3003464

          Copyright © 2016 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 31 October 2016

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          GIR '16 Paper Acceptance Rate9of12submissions,75%Overall Acceptance Rate46of61submissions,75%
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)3
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader