skip to main content
10.1145/2247596.2247680acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesedbtConference Proceedingsconference-collections
demonstration

QUASAR: querying annotation, structure, and reasoning

Published:27 March 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

An increasing number of systems provide the ability to semantically annotate documents. OpenCalais [4], Evri API [2], Zemanta [6], and Alchemy API [1] are web-hosted systems that return annotated documents, i. e. documents with annotations that are overlayed on the document structure. Many of the annotations can be linked to standard ontologies, such as DBpedia and YAGO. These annotations give insight as to the meaning of documents in a variety of ways, identifying entities and relationships inside them, classifying them according to topic or theme, and giving the attitude or sentiment of a document or document fragment. In order for users (or applications) to make use of these annotations with a means to access and manipulate documents that contain them, we provide a query language for doing this and demonstrate its utility on a demo system built on top of diverse semantic annotators and external ontologies. We explain how integrating semantic annotations and utilizing external knowledge helps in increasing the quality of query answers over annotated documents by both filtering out irrelevant answers and obtaining extra answers that are not explicitly available in the annotated documents.

References

  1. Alchemyapi www.alchemyapi.com/api/entity/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Evriapi. www.evri.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Jenaapi. jena.sourceforge.net.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Opencalais. www.opencalais.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Reuters-21578. www.daviddlewis.com/resources/testcollections/reuters21578/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Zemanta api. http://developer.zemanta.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. A. Kiryakov, B. Popov, I. Terziev, D. Manov, and D. Ognyanoff. Semantic annotation, indexing, and retrieval. J. Web Semantics, 2(1):49--79, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. A. Olson, K. Bostic, and M. Seltzer. Berkeley db. In USENIX Technical Conference, pages 43--43, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. H. Pérez-Urbina, I. Horrocks, and B. Motik. Practical aspects of query rewriting for OWL2. In OWLED, 09.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Pound, I. F. Ilyas, and G. E. Weddell. Quick: Expressive and flexible search over knowledge bases and text collections. PVLDB, 3(2):1573--1576, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Zhou, T. Cheng, and K. C.-C. Chang. DoCQS: a prototype system for supporting data-oriented content query. In SIGMOD, pages 1211--1214, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

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
    EDBT '12: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Extending Database Technology
    March 2012
    643 pages
    ISBN:9781450307901
    DOI:10.1145/2247596

    Copyright © 2012 Authors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 27 March 2012

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • demonstration

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate7of10submissions,70%
  • Article Metrics

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

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader