skip to main content
research-article

PARIS: probabilistic alignment of relations, instances, and schema

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 November 2011Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

One of the main challenges that the Semantic Web faces is the integration of a growing number of independently designed ontologies. In this work, we present paris, an approach for the automatic alignment of ontologies. paris aligns not only instances, but also relations and classes. Alignments at the instance level cross-fertilize with alignments at the schema level. Thereby, our system provides a truly holistic solution to the problem of ontology alignment. The heart of the approach is probabilistic, i.e., we measure degrees of matchings based on probability estimates. This allows paris to run without any parameter tuning. We demonstrate the efficiency of the algorithm and its precision through extensive experiments. In particular, we obtain a precision of around 90% in experiments with some of the world's largest ontologies.

References

  1. A. Arasu, C. Re, and D. Suciu. Large-scale deduplication with constraints using Dedupalog. In Proc. ICDE, pages 952--963, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. S. Auer, C. Bizer, G. Kobilarov, J. Lehmann, R. Cyganiak, and Z. G. Ives. DBpedia: A nucleus for a Web of open data. In Proc. ISWC, pages 722--735, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. D. Aumueller, H.-H. Do, S. Massmann, and E. Rahm. Schema and ontology matching with COMA++. In Proc. SIGMOD, pages 906--908, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. I. Bhattacharya and L. Getoor. Collective entity resolution in relational data. ACM TKDD, 1, 03 2007. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. C. Bizer. Web of linked data. A global public data space on the Web. In Proc. WebDB, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. C. Bizer, T. Heath, K. Idehen, and T. Berners-Lee. Linked data on the Web. In Proc. WWW, pages 1265--1266, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J. Bleiholder and F. Naumann. Data fusion. ACM Comput. Surv., 41(1), 2008. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. L. Ding, J. Shinavier, Z. Shangguan, and D. L. McGuinness. SameAs networks and beyond: Analyzing deployment status and implications of owl:sameAs in linked data. In Proc. ISWC, pages 142--147, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. A. Elmagarmid, P. Ipeirotis, and V. Verykios. Duplicate record detection: A survey. IEEE TKDE, 19(1):1--16, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. O. Etzioni, M. Cafarella, D. Downey, S. Kok, A.-M. Popescu, T. Shaked, S. Soderland, D. S. Weld, and A. Yates. Web-scale information extraction in KnowItAll (preliminary results). In Proc. WWW, pages 100--110, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J. Euzénat, A. Ferrara, C. Meilicke, A. Nikolov, J. Pane, F. Scharffe, P. Shvaiko, and H. Stuckenschmidt. Results of the ontology alignment evaluation initiative 2010. In Proc. OM, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. A. Ferrara, D. Lorusso, and S. Montanelli. Automatic identity recognition in the semantic web. In Proc. IRSW, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. H. Glaser, A. Jaffri, and I. Millard. Managing co-reference on the semantic Web. In Proc. LDOW, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J. Gracia, M. d'Aquin, and E. Mena. Large scale integration of senses for the semantic Web. In Proc. WWW, pages 611--620, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. H. Halpin, P. Hayes, J. P. McCusker, D. McGuinness, and H. S. Thompson. When owl:sameAs isn't the same: An analysis of identity in linked data. In Proc. ISWC, pages 305--320, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. Hogan. Performing object consolidation on the semantic Web data graph. In Proc. I3, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. A. Hogan, A. Polleres, J. Umbrich, and A. Zimmermann. Some entities are more equal than others: statistical methods to consolidate linked data. In Proc. NeFoRS, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. W. Hu, J. Chen, and Y. Qu. A self-training approach for resolving object coreference on the semantic Web. In Proc. WWW, pages 87--96, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. W. Hu, J. Chen, H. Zhang, and Y. Qu. How matchable are four thousand ontologies on the semantic Web. In Proc. ESWC, pages 290--304, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. A. Isaac, L. van der Meij, S. Schlobach, and S. Wang. An empirical study of instance-based ontology matching. In Proc. ISWC, pages 253--266, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Y. R. Jean-Mary, E. P. Shironoshita, and M. R. Kabuka. Ontology matching with semantic verification. J. Web Semantics, 7(3):235--251, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. J. Li, J. Tang, Y. Li, and Q. Luo. Rimom: A dynamic multistrategy ontology alignment framework. IEEE TKDE, 21(8):1218--1232, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. C. Matuszek, J. Cabral, M. Witbrock, and J. Deoliveira. An introduction to the syntax and content of Cyc. In Proc. AAAI Spring Symposium, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. I. Niles and A. Pease. Towards a standard upper ontology. In Proc. FOIS, pages 2--9, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. J. Noessner, M. Niepert, C. Meilicke, and H. Stuckenschmidt. Leveraging terminological structure for object reconciliation. In Proc. ESWC, pages 334--348, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. S. P. Ponzetto and M. Strube. Deriving a large-scale taxonomy from Wikipedia. In Proc. AAAI, pages 1440--1445, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. F. Saïs, N. Pernelle, and M.-C. Rousset. L2R: A logical method for reference reconciliation. In Proc. AAAI, pages 329--334, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. F. Saïs, N. Pernelle, and M.-C. Rousset. Combining a logical and a numerical method for data reconciliation. J. Data Semantics, 12:66--94, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. F. M. Suchanek, G. Ifrim, and G. Weikum. Combining linguistic and statistical analysis to extract relations from Web documents. In KDD, pages 412--417, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. F. M. Suchanek, G. Kasneci, and G. Weikum. YAGO: A core of semantic knowledge. Unifying WordNet and Wikipedia. In Proc. WWW, pages 697--706, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. G. Tummarello, R. Cyganiak, M. Catasta, S. Danielczyk, R. Delbru, and S. Decker. Sig.ma: live views on the web of data. In Proc. WWW, pages 1301--1304, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. O. Udrea, L. Getoor, and R. J. Miller. Leveraging data and structure in ontology integration. In Proc. SIGMOD, pages 449--460, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. J. Volz, C. Bizer, M. Gaedke, and G. Kobilarov. Discovering and maintaining links on the Web of data. In Proc. ISWC, pages 650--665, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. S. Wang, G. Englebienne, and S. Schlobach. Learning concept mappings from instance similarity. In Proc. ISWC, pages 339--355, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Word Wide Web Consortium. RDF Primer (W3C Recommendation 2004-02-10). http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. PARIS: probabilistic alignment of relations, instances, and schema
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    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

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment
      Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment  Volume 5, Issue 3
      November 2011
      117 pages

      Publisher

      VLDB Endowment

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 November 2011
      Published in pvldb Volume 5, Issue 3

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader