Property-Based Semantic Similarity Criteria to Evaluate the Overlaps of Schemas

Knowledge graph-based data integration is a practical methodology for heterogeneous legacy database-integrated service construction. However, it is neither efficient nor economical to build a new cross-domain knowledge graph on top of the schemas of each legacy database for the specific integration application rather than reusing the existing high-quality knowledge graphs. Consequently, a question arises as to whether the existing knowledge graph is compatible with cross-domain queries and with heterogenous schemas of the legacy systems. An effective criterion is urgently needed in order to evaluate such compatibility as it limits the quality upbound of the integration. This research studies the semantic similarity of the schemas from the aspect of properties. It provides a set of in-depth criteria, namely coverage and flexibility, to evaluate the pairwise compatibility between the schemas. It takes advantage of the properties of knowledge graphs to evaluate the overlaps between schemas and defines the weights of entity types in order to perform precise compatibility computation. The effectiveness of the criteria obtained to evaluate the compatibility between knowledge graphs and cross-domain queries is demonstrated using a case study.

[1]  Marko Horvat,et al.  Ontological heterogeneity as an obstacle for knowledge integration in the Semantic Web , 2016 .

[2]  Giancarlo Guizzardi,et al.  From reference ontologies to ontology patterns and back , 2017, Data Knowl. Eng..

[3]  BOGUMIŁA HNATKOWSKA,et al.  Semi-Automatic Definition of Attribute Semantics for the Purpose of Ontology Integration , 2020, IEEE Access.

[4]  Mattia Fumagalli,et al.  Entity Type Recognition - Dealing with the Diversity of Knowledge , 2020, KR.

[5]  Yew Kwang Hooi,et al.  Ontology evaluation — A criteria selection framework , 2015, 2015 International Symposium on Mathematical Sciences and Computing Research (iSMSC).

[6]  S. Gorlatch,et al.  Measuring Performance of Fault Management in a Legacy System: An Alarm System Study , 2020, MASCOTS.

[7]  Richard West,et al.  Boomerang: Real-Time I/O Meets Legacy Systems , 2019, 2020 IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS).

[8]  Graeme Hirst,et al.  Semantic distance in WordNet: An experimental, application-oriented evaluation of five measures , 2004 .

[9]  Buzhou Tang,et al.  KGDDS: A System for Drug-Drug Similarity Measure in Therapeutic Substitution based on Knowledge Graph Curation , 2019, Journal of Medical Systems.

[10]  Freddy Priyatna,et al.  Relational Database to RDF Mapping Patterns , 2012, WOP.

[11]  Daniel Garijo,et al.  WIDOCO: A Wizard for Documenting Ontologies , 2017, SEMWEB.

[12]  Csongor Nyulas,et al.  BioPortal: enhanced functionality via new Web services from the National Center for Biomedical Ontology to access and use ontologies in software applications , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[13]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  Teleologies: Objects, Actions and Functions , 2017, ER.

[14]  Franjo Cecelja,et al.  Ontology evaluation for reuse in the domain of Process Systems Engineering , 2016, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[15]  Akram Fathian Dastgerdi.  Ontology Evaluation:Consideration of Criteria, Approaches and Layers , 2012 .

[16]  C. Maria Keet,et al.  Analysis of Ontology Competency Questions and their formalizations in SPARQL-OWL , 2019, J. Web Semant..

[17]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  Ontology matching , 2007 .

[18]  X. Sean Wang,et al.  POLYTOPE: a flexible sampling system for answering exploratory queries , 2019, World Wide Web.

[19]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  Ontology Matching: State of the Art and Future Challenges , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[20]  Lucia Rapanotti,et al.  Requirements analysis gamification in legacy system replacement projects , 2019, Requirements Engineering.

[21]  Giseli Rabello Lopes,et al.  An Approach for Improving DBpedia as a Research Data Hub , 2020, WebMedia.

[22]  Ralph Ewerth,et al.  Requirements Analysis for an Open Research Knowledge Graph , 2020, TPDL.

[23]  Eunmi Choi,et al.  TKM Ontology Integration and Visualization , 2020, ICSIM.

[24]  Irlán Grangel-González,et al.  VoCol: An Integrated Environment to Support Version-Controlled Vocabulary Development , 2016, EKAW.

[25]  Pingyu Jiang,et al.  Manufacturing Knowledge Graph: A Connectivism to Answer Production Problems Query With Knowledge Reuse , 2019, IEEE Access.

[26]  Ryutaro Ichise,et al.  Ontology Integration for Linked Data , 2014, Journal on Data Semantics.

[27]  Guilin Qi,et al.  Knowledge graph construction from multiple online encyclopedias , 2019, World Wide Web.

[28]  Xin Luna Dong,et al.  MultiImport: Inferring Node Importance in a Knowledge Graph from Multiple Input Signals , 2020, KDD.

[29]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Why are ontologies not reused across the same domain? , 2019, J. Web Semant..

[30]  Joongho Ahn,et al.  Ontology selection ranking model for knowledge reuse , 2011, Expert Syst. Appl..

[31]  Heon Young Yeom,et al.  Evaluation Criteria Ontology Modularization Tools , 2011, 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology.

[32]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative: Six Years of Experience , 2011, J. Data Semant..

[33]  María Poveda-Villalón,et al.  Linked Open Vocabularies (LOV): A gateway to reusable semantic vocabularies on the Web , 2016, Semantic Web.

[34]  Martin Hepp,et al.  Reusing ontologies and language components for ontology generation , 2010, Data Knowl. Eng..

[35]  Fanliang Bu,et al.  Analysis on the Construction of Knowledge Graph of Mass Events Based on Ontology , 2021 .

[36]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  Modeling Recipes for Online Search , 2016, OTM Conferences.