Jorge Martinez-Gil
Shaoyi Yin
ABSTRACT
The problem of ontology matching consists of finding the semantic correspondences between two ontologies that, although belonging to the same domain, have been developed separately. Matching methods are of great importance since they allow us to find the pivot points from which an automatic data integration process can be established. Unlike the most recent developments based on deep learning, this study presents our research on the development of new methods for ontology matching that are accurate and interpretable at the same time. For this purpose, we rely on a symbolic regression model specifically trained to find the mathematical expression that can solve the ground truth accurately, with the possibility of being understood by a human operator and forcing the processor to consume as little energy as possible. The experimental evaluation results show that our approach seems to be promising.
- Olivier Bodenreider. 2004. The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, Database-Issue (2004), 267–270. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh061Google Scholar
- Olivier Bodenreider, Terry F. Hayamizu, Martin Ringwald, Sherri de Coronado, and Songmao Zhang. 2005. Of Mice and Men: Aligning Mouse and Human Anatomies. In AMIA 2005, American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium, Washington, DC, USA, October 22-26, 2005. AMIA. http://knowledge.amia.org/amia-55142-a2005a-1.613296/t-001-1.616182/f-001-1.616183/a-012-1.616655/a-013-1.616652Google Scholar
- Sherri de Coronado, Margaret W. Haber, Nicholas Sioutos, Mark S. Tuttle, and Lawrence W. Wright. 2004. NCI Thesaurus: Using Science-Based Terminology to Integrate Cancer Research Results. In MEDINFO 2004 - Proceedings of the 11th World Congress on Medical Informatics, San Francisco, California, USA, September 7-11, 2004(Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, Vol. 107), Marius Fieschi, Enrico W. Coiera, and Jack Yu-Chan Li (Eds.). IOS Press, 33–37. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-949-3-33Google Scholar
- Kalyanmoy Deb, Samir Agrawal, Amrit Pratap, and T. Meyarivan. 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6, 2 (2002), 182–197. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kevin Donnelly. 2006. SNOMED-CT: The advanced terminology and coding system for eHealth. Studies in health technology and informatics 121 (2006), 279.Google Scholar
- Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. 2017. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608(2017).Google Scholar
- Daniel Faria, Catia Pesquita, Emanuel Santos, Matteo Palmonari, Isabel F. Cruz, and Francisco M. Couto. 2013. The AgreementMakerLight Ontology Matching System. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2013 Conferences - Confederated International Conferences: CoopIS, DOA-Trusted Cloud, and ODBASE 2013, Graz, Austria, September 9-13, 2013. Proceedings(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8185), Robert Meersman, Hervé Panetto, Tharam S. Dillon, Johann Eder, Zohra Bellahsene, Norbert Ritter, Pieter De Leenheer, and Dejing Dou (Eds.). Springer, 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41030-7_38Google ScholarCross Ref
- Terry F Hayamizu, Mary Mangan, John P Corradi, James A Kadin, and Martin Ringwald. 2005. The Adult Mouse Anatomical Dictionary: a tool for annotating and integrating data. Genome biology 6, 3 (2005), 1–8.Google Scholar
- Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz and Bernardo Cuenca Grau. 2011. LogMap: Logic-Based and Scalable Ontology Matching. In The Semantic Web - ISWC 2011 - 10th International Semantic Web Conference, Bonn, Germany, October 23-27, 2011, Proceedings, Part I(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7031), Lora Aroyo, Chris Welty, Harith Alani, Jamie Taylor, Abraham Bernstein, Lalana Kagal, Natasha Fridman Noy, and Eva Blomqvist(Eds.). Springer, 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25073-6_18 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Prodromos Kolyvakis, Alexandros Kalousis, and Dimitris Kiritsis. 2018. DeepAlignment: Unsupervised Ontology Matching with Refined Word Vectors. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2018, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, June 1-6, 2018, Volume 1 (Long Papers), Marilyn A. Walker, Heng Ji, and Amanda Stent (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, 787–798. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/n18-1072Google ScholarCross Ref
- Prodromos Kolyvakis, Alexandros Kalousis, Barry Smith, and Dimitris Kiritsis. 2018. Biomedical ontology alignment: an approach based on representation learning. J. Biomedical Semantics 9, 1 (2018), 21:1–21:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-018-0187-8Google ScholarCross Ref
- Amir Laadhar, Faiza Ghozzi, Imen Megdiche, Franck Ravat, Olivier Teste, and Faïez Gargouri. 2019. POMap++ Results for OAEI 2019: Fully Automated Machine Learning Approach for Ontology Matching. In Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Ontology Matching co-located with the 18th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2019), Auckland, New Zealand, October 26, 2019(CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 2536), Pavel Shvaiko, Jérôme Euzenat, Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz, Oktie Hassanzadeh, and Cássia Trojahn (Eds.). CEUR-WS.org, 169–174. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2536/oaei19_paper13.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Yoonkyong Lee, Mayssam Sayyadian, AnHai Doan, and Arnon Rosenthal. 2007. eTuner: tuning schema matching software using synthetic scenarios. VLDB J. 16, 1 (2007), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-006-0024-z Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vladimir I Levenshtein. 1966. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. In Soviet physics doklady, Vol. 10. 707–710.Google Scholar
- Jorge Martinez-Gil, Enrique Alba, and José Francisco Aldana-Montes. 2008. Optimizing Ontology Alignments by Using Genetic Algorithms. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Nature Inspired Reasoning for the Semantic Web, Karlsruhe, Germany, October 27, 2008(CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 419), Christophe Guéret, Pascal Hitzler, and Stefan Schlobach(Eds.). CEUR-WS.org. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jorge Martinez-Gil and José Francisco Aldana-Montes. 2011. Evaluation of two heuristic approaches to solve the ontology meta-matching problem. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 26, 2 (2011), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-009-0277-0Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jorge Martinez-Gil and José Francisco Aldana-Montes. 2012. An overview of current ontology meta-matching solutions. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 27, 4 (2012), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888912000288 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jorge Martinez-Gil and Jose M. Chaves-Gonzalez. 2020. A novel method based on symbolic regression for interpretable semantic similarity measurement. Expert Syst. Appl. 160(2020), 113663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113663Google ScholarCross Ref
- Natalya Fridman Noy, Mark A. Musen, José L. V. Mejino Jr., and Cornelius Rosse. 2004. Pushing the envelope: challenges in a frame-based representation of human anatomy. Data Knowl. Eng. 48, 3 (2004), 335–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2003.06.002 Google ScholarDigital Library
- John W Ratcliff and David E Metzener. 1988. Pattern-matching-the gestalt approach. Dr Dobbs Journal 13, 7 (1988), 46.Google Scholar
- Dominique Ritze and Heiko Paulheim. 2011. Towards an automatic parameterization of ontology matching tools based on example mappings. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Ontology Matching, Bonn, Germany, October 24, 2011(CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 814), Pavel Shvaiko, Jérôme Euzenat, Tom Heath, Christoph Quix, Ming Mao, and Isabel F. Cruz (Eds.). CEUR-WS.org. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-814/om2011_Tpaper4.pdf Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gizem Sogancioglu, Hakime Öztürk, and Arzucan Özgür. 2017. BIOSSES: a semantic sentence similarity estimation system for the biomedical domain. Bioinform. 33, 14 (2017), i49–i58. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx238Google ScholarCross Ref
- Junli Wang, Zhijun Ding, and Changjun Jiang. 2006. GAOM: Genetic Algorithm Based Ontology Matching. In Proceedings of The 1st IEEE Asia-Pacific Services Computing Conference, APSCC 2006, December 12-15, 2006, Guangzhou, China. IEEE Computer Society, 617–620. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSCC.2006.59 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jifang Wu, Jianghua Lv, Haoming Guo, and Shilong Ma. 2020. DAEOM: A Deep Attentional Embedding Approach for Biomedical Ontology Matching. Applied Sciences 10, 21 (2020), 7909.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mengyi Zhao, Songmao Zhang, Weizhuo Li, and Guowei Chen. 2018. Matching biomedical ontologies based on formal concept analysis. J. Biomed. Semant. 9, 1 (2018), 11:1–11:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-018-0178-9Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Matching Large Biomedical Ontologies Using Symbolic Regression
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Matching large ontologies: A divide-and-conquer approach
Ontologies proliferate with the progress of the Semantic Web. Ontology matching is an important way of establishing interoperability between (Semantic) Web applications that use different but related ontologies. Due to their sizes and monolithic nature, ...
Semantic enrichment in ontologies for matching
AOW '06: Proceedings of the second Australasian workshop on Advances in ontologies - Volume 72Matching (or mapping) between heterogeneous ontologies becomes crucial for interoperability in distributed and intelligent environments. Although many efforts in ontology mapping have already been conducted, most of them rely heavily on the meaning of ...
Semantic matching in hierarchical ontologies
Hierarchical ontologies play a key role in organizing documents in a repository. While matching the ontologies, the relationships among the concepts are considered to be a major aspect. In hierarchical ontologies, the concepts are associated with one ...
Comments