skip to main content
10.1145/2309996.2310004acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshtConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Moving beyond SameAs with PLATO: partonomy detection for linked data

Published:25 June 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Linked Open Data (LOD) Cloud has gained significant traction over the past few years. With over 275 interlinked datasets across diverse domains such as life science, geography, politics, and more, the LOD Cloud has the potential to support a variety of applications ranging from open domain question answering to drug discovery.

Despite its significant size (approx. 30 billion triples), the data is relatively sparely interlinked (approx. 400 million links). A semantically richer LOD Cloud is needed to fully realize its potential. Data in the LOD Cloud are currently interlinked mainly via the owl:sameAs property, which is inadequate for many applications. Additional properties capturing relations based on causality or partonomy are needed to enable the answering of complex questions and to support applications.

In this paper, we present a solution to enrich the LOD Cloud by automatically detecting partonomic relationships, which are well-established, fundamental properties grounded in linguistics and philosophy. We empirically evaluate our solution across several domains, and show that our approach performs well on detecting partonomic properties between LOD Cloud data.

References

  1. K. Alexander, R. Cyganiak, M. Hausenblas, and J. Zhao. Describing Linked Datasets -- On the Design and Usage of voiD, the 'Vocabulary of Interlinked Datasets'. In WWW2009 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web (LDOW2009), Madrid, Spain, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. A. Artale, E. Franconi, N. Guarino, and L. Pazzi. Part-whole relations in object-centered systems: An overview. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 20(3):347--383, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Michael K. Bergman and Frédérick Giasson. UMBEL ontology, volume 1, technical documentation. Technical Report 1, Structured Dynamics, 2008. Available from: http://umbel.org/doc/UMBELOntology_vA1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Christian Bizer, Tom Heath, and Tim Berners Lee. Linked data - the story so far. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 5(3):1--22, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Christian Bizer, Jens Lehmann, Georgi Kobilarov, Sören Auer, Christian Becker, Richard Cyganiak, and Sebastian Hellmann. DBpedia-A crystallization point for the Web of Data. Journal of Web Semantics, 7(3):154--165, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Andrew Carlson, Justin Betteridge, Bryan Kisiel, Burr Settles, Estevam R. Hruschka Jr., and Tom M. Mitchell. Toward an architecture for never-ending language learning. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2010), 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. R. Casati and A.C. Varzi. Parts and places: The structures of spatial representation. The MIT Press, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Namyoun Choi, Il-Yeol Song, and Hyoil Han. A survey on ontology mapping. SIGMOD Rec., 35(3):34--41, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Philipp Cimiano, Andreas Hotho, and Steffen Staab. Learning concept hierarchies from text corpora using formal concept analysis. J. Artif. Int. Res., 24:305--339, August 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jérôme Euzenat and Pavel Shvaiko. Ontology matching. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg (DE), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Christiane Fellbaum, editor. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database (Language, Speech, and Communication). The MIT Press, illustrated edition edition, May 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. David Ferrucci, Eric Brown, Jennifer Chu-Carroll, James Fan, David Gondek, Aditya A Kalyanpur, Adam Lally, J William Murdock, Eric Nyberg, and John Prager. Building watson: An overview of the deepqa project. AI Magazine, 31(3):59--79, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. P. Gerstl and S. Pribbenow. A conceptual theory of part-whole relations and its applications. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 20(3):305--322, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. R. Girju, A. Badulescu, and D. Moldovan. Automatic discovery of part-whole relations. Computational Linguistics, 32(1):83--135, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Michael Hausenblas. Exploiting linked data to build web applications. IEEE Internet Computing, 13:68--73, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Marti A. Hearst. Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. In Proceedings of the 14th conference on Computational linguistics -- Volume 2, COLING '92, pages 539--545, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. P. Hitzler, M. Krötzsch, B. Parsia, P.F. Patel-Schneider, and S. Rudolph, editors. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Primer. W3C Recommendation, 27 October 2009. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ian Horrocks, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Harold Boley, Said Tabet, Benjamin Grosof, and Mike Dean. SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission 21 May 2004, 2004. Available from http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Prateek Jain, Pascal Hitzler, Peter Z. Yeh, Kunal Verma, and Amit P. Sheth. Linked Data is Merely More Data. In Linked Data Meets Artificial Intelligence, pages 82--86. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Prateek Jain, Peter Z. Yeh, Kunal Verma, Cory A. Henson, and Amit P. Sheth. SPARQL query re-writing using partonomy based transformation rules. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on GeoSpatial Semantics, GeoS '09, pages 140--158, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Adila Krisnadhi, Frederick Maier, and Pascal Hitzler. OWL and Rules. In Reasoning Web. Semantic Technologies for the Web of Data -- 7th International Summer School 2011, Galway, Ireland, August 23-27, 2011, Tutorial Lectures, volume 6848 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 382--415. Springer, Heidelberg, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Markus Krötzsch, Frederick Maier, Adila A. Krisnadhi, and Pascal Hitzler. A better uncle for OWL: Nominal schemas for integrating rules and ontologies. In Proceedings of the 20th International World Wide Web Conference, WWW2011, Hyderabad, India, March/April 2011, pages 645--654. ACM, New York, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Jens Lehmann and Pascal Hitzler. Concept learning in description logics using refinement operators. Machine Learning, 78(1--2):203--250, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. B. Motik, P.F. Patel-Schneider, and B. Parsia, editors. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. W3C Recommendation, 27 October 2009. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Boris Motik, Ulrike Sattler, and Rudi Studer. Query answering for OWL DL with rules. Journal of Web Semantics, 3(1):41--60, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Patrick Pantel and Marco Pennacchiotti. Espresso: leveraging generic patterns for automatically harvesting semantic relations. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 44th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL-44, pages 113--120, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Alan Rector, Chris Welty, Natasha Noy, and Evan Wallace. Simple part-whole relations in OWL Ontologies available at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/bestpractices/oep/simplepartwhole/, August 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Barry Smith. The basic tools of formal ontology. In Formal Ontology in Information Systems, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Nectaria Tryfona and Max J. Egenhofer. Consistency among parts and aggregates: A computational model. Transactions in GIS, 1(3):189--206, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Willem van Hage, Hap Kolb, and Guus Schreiber. A method for learning part-whole relations. In The Semantic Web - ISWC 2006, volume 4273 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 723--735. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. J. Volz, C. Bizer, M. Gaedke, and G. Kobilarov. Silk--A Link Discovery Framework for the Web of Data. In 2nd Linked Data on the Web Workshop (LDOW2009), Madrid, Spain, 2009. Available from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-538/ldow2009_paper13.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Julius Volz, Christian Bizer, Martin Gaedke, and Georgi Kobilarov. Discovering and maintaining links on the web of data. In ISWC '09: Proceedings of the 8th International Semantic Web Conference, pages 650--665, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Morton E. Winston, Roger Chaffin, and Douglas Herrmann. A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11(4):417--444, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Moving beyond SameAs with PLATO: partonomy detection for linked data

      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 Conferences
        HT '12: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM conference on Hypertext and social media
        June 2012
        340 pages
        ISBN:9781450313353
        DOI:10.1145/2309996

        Copyright © 2012 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: 25 June 2012

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        HT '12 Paper Acceptance Rate33of120submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate378of1,158submissions,33%

        Upcoming Conference

        HT '24
        35th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media
        September 10 - 13, 2024
        Poznan , Poland

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader