Explicit scientific knowledge comparison based on semantic description matching

Researchers begin new research by acquiring pre-existing explicit scientific knowledge that is potentially relevant to the research subject. In order to find some potentially relevant explicit scientific knowledge items, such as knowledge whose content is similar to the targeted research, a researcher must examine the semantics of each item. In this paper, after reviewing related work, an automated semantic description matching-based approach is presented for comparing items of explicit scientific knowledge. This approach obtains a matching score between semantic descriptions of two items of explicit scientific knowledge that indicates their similarity. Three dimensions are considered in this approach: matching granularity, similarity scale for instance classes, and logic similarity scale. In order to match two semantic descriptions, a six-step method is presented: creation of atomic queries, generalization of query classes, generalization of query properties, addition of rules, creation of instances implied by complex class definition, and semi-automatic pruning of matching results. Finally, some conclusions regarding the approach are presented together with plans for future work.

[1]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  COMA - A System for Flexible Combination of Schema Matching Approaches , 2002, VLDB.

[2]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  Making Peer Databases Interact - A Vision for an Architecture Supporting Data Coordination , 2002, CIA.

[3]  Frank S. de Boer,et al.  On dynamically generated ontology translators in agent communication * , 2001, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[4]  Jeffrey F. Naughton,et al.  On schema matching with opaque column names and data values , 2003, SIGMOD '03.

[5]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching , 2001, The VLDB Journal.

[6]  John R. Ehrenfeld,et al.  Advocacy and Objectivity in Industrial Ecology , 2006 .

[7]  Steven B. Kraines,et al.  EKOSS: A Knowledge-User Centered Approach to Knowledge Sharing, Discovery, and Integration on the Semantic Web , 2006, SEMWEB.

[8]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Representing and querying data transformations , 2005, 21st International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE'05).

[9]  Takahiro Kawamura,et al.  Semantic Matching of Web Services Capabilities , 2002, SEMWEB.

[10]  Luciano Serafini,et al.  Semantic Coordination: A New Approach and an Application , 2003, SEMWEB.

[11]  DoanAnHai,et al.  Learning to match ontologies on the Semantic Web , 2003, VLDB 2003.

[12]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Data integration: a theoretical perspective , 2002, PODS.

[13]  David Wallace,et al.  Internet‐Based Integrated Environmental Assessment Using Ontologies to Share Computational Models , 2005 .

[14]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  S-Match: an Algorithm and an Implementation of Semantic Matching , 2004, ESWS.

[15]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  A Survey of Schema-Based Matching Approaches , 2005, J. Data Semant..

[16]  Steven B. Kraines,et al.  Internet‐Based Integrated Environmental Assessment, Part II: Semantic Searching Based on Ontologies and Agent Systems for Knowledge Discovery , 2006 .