Learning ontologies for geographic entity matching and multi-sources data fusion

Geographic information integration and fusion from multi-sources geospatial data is still a challenge because of semantic heterogeneity of geospatial entity data. These will delay geospatial cooperation decision support and integrated assessment application for natural resources and environmental problem. Ontology as a conceptualization and knowledge representation of application domain have provided a potential and aided support for entity matching and information integration of multiple sources and heterogeneous data. However, many data sources may not provided ontology definition and formalization representation. This paper will provide a method of graph model based ontologies representation and ontologies learning from data sources schema. Entity matching and fusion with ontology support is also discussed. This paper has classified unary properties and binary properties in ontology representation. Binary semantic relations in ontologies are analyzed. Based on semantic relations, the Tree model and Network model of ontology representation are defined. Through analyzing entity data schema, semantic relations extraction and learning are also discussed in constitution of entity ontologies. The framework of entity fusion with ontology support has been designed. Finally entity matching and fusion methods are discussed.

[1]  Michel Gagnon,et al.  Ontology-based integration of data sources , 2007, 2007 10th International Conference on Information Fusion.

[2]  Prashant Doshi,et al.  Inexact Matching of Ontology Graphs Using Expectation-Maximization , 2006, AAAI.

[3]  Ashok Samal,et al.  A feature-based approach to conflation of geospatial sources , 2004, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[4]  Weng Tat Chan,et al.  XML application schema matching using similarity measure and relaxation labeling , 2005, Inf. Sci..

[5]  Jennifer Golbeck,et al.  Ontologies for ecoinformatics , 2006, J. Web Semant..

[6]  George A. Miller,et al.  Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database , 1990 .

[7]  Vijayan Sugumaran,et al.  Usability of upper level ontologies: The case of ResearchCyc , 2010, Data Knowl. Eng..

[8]  H. Lan,et al.  SWRL : A semantic Web rule language combining OWL and ruleML , 2004 .

[9]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  OWL Web ontology language overview , 2004 .

[10]  Dagmar Haase,et al.  Towards a flood risk assessment ontology - Knowledge integration into a multi-criteria risk assessment approach , 2013, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[11]  P. Cochat,et al.  Et al , 2008, Archives de pediatrie : organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie.

[12]  Pascal Hitzler,et al.  Ontologies and Rules , 2009, Handbook on Ontologies.

[13]  V. Phan-Luong.  A framework for integrating information sources under lattice structure , 2008, Inf. Fusion.

[14]  Ajay Tripathi,et al.  Developing a modular hydrogeology ontology by extending the SWEET upper-level ontologies , 2008, Comput. Geosci..

[15]  Marinos Kavouras,et al.  Comparing categories among geographic ontologies , 2005, Comput. Geosci..

[16]  Georg Lausen,et al.  Ontologies in F-logic , 2004, Handbook on Ontologies.

[17]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Description Logics , 2008, Handbook of Knowledge Representation.

[18]  Max J. Egenhofer,et al.  Determining Semantic Similarity among Entity Classes from Different Ontologies , 2003, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[19]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Ontology-Based Integration of Information - A Survey of Existing Approaches , 2001, OIS@IJCAI.

[20]  Robert G. Raskin,et al.  Knowledge representation in the semantic web for Earth and environmental terminology (SWEET) , 2005, Comput. Geosci..