Evaluation of SPARQL-compliant semantic search user interfaces

A regular user of a semantic search system frequently posses no knowledge about the SPARQL language nor about the ontology of a given knowledge base, especially when it provides domain-unspecific data obtained from heterogeneous sources. Nevertheless, he/she should be provided with tools enabling both intuitive and effective exploration of RDF-compliant knowledge bases. Natural language querying is one of the solutions that have been proposed so far as means for making knowledge bases more user-friendly. However, the results of natural language querying usually have lower precision and recall than analogical results of graph-based querying. In the paper, we introduce an evaluation methodology based on the 2011 QALD workshop queries that allows to measure the accuracy of a semantic search system as well as the complexity of the query formulation process. The obtained results confirm the intuition that graph-based querying, although assuring comparatively high accuracy of the results, is usually still too difficult for regular users. On the other hand, on the basis of results obtained for an experimental search system referred to as Semantic Focused Crawler, we claim that enhancing a SPARQL-compliant graph-based system by an entity-type recommendation feature may reduce the number of query elements necessary to formulate a query without compromising the quality of the results.

[1]  Hamish Cunningham,et al.  Natural Language Interfaces to Ontologies: Combining Syntactic Analysis and Ontology-Based Lookup through the User Interaction , 2010, ESWC.

[2]  Timothy W. Finin,et al.  GoRelations: An Intuitive Query System for DBpedia , 2011, JIST.

[3]  Gerhard Weikum,et al.  NAGA: Searching and Ranking Knowledge , 2008, 2008 IEEE 24th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[4]  Andrzej Szwabe,et al.  SPARQL - Compliant Semantic Search Engine with an Intuitive User Interface , 2014, ACIIDS.

[5]  Éric Gaussier,et al.  A Probabilistic Interpretation of Precision, Recall and F-Score, with Implication for Evaluation , 2005, ECIR.

[6]  Lora Aroyo,et al.  The Semantic Web: Research and Applications , 2009, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[7]  James A. Hendler,et al.  The Semantic Web" in Scientific American , 2001 .

[8]  Maria Teresa Pazienza,et al.  Semantic turkey: a browser-integrated environment for knowledge acquisition and management , 2012 .

[9]  G Stix,et al.  The mice that warred. , 2001, Scientific American.

[10]  Nigel Shadbolt,et al.  NITELIGHT: A Graphical Tool for Semantic Query Construction , 2008 .

[11]  Peter Haase,et al.  Usability of Keyword-Driven Schema-Agnostic Search , 2010, ESWC.

[12]  Fabio Ciravegna,et al.  Evaluating Semantic Search Query Approaches with Expert and Casual Users , 2012, SEMWEB.

[13]  Gerhard Weikum,et al.  WWW 2007 / Track: Semantic Web Session: Ontologies ABSTRACT YAGO: A Core of Semantic Knowledge , 2022 .

[14]  Chong Wang,et al.  SPARK: Adapting Keyword Query to Semantic Search , 2007, ISWC/ASWC.

[15]  Abraham Bernstein,et al.  Methodology and campaign design for the evaluation of semantic search tools , 2010, SEMSEARCH '10.

[16]  Ngoc Thanh Nguyen,et al.  Intelligent Information and Database Systems , 2014, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[17]  Enrico Motta,et al.  Integration of micro-gravity and geodetic data to constrain shallow system mass changes at Krafla Volcano, N Iceland , 2006 .

[18]  Chong Wang,et al.  PANTO: A Portable Natural Language Interface to Ontologies , 2007, ESWC.

[19]  J. Carroll,et al.  Jena: implementing the semantic web recommendations , 2004, WWW Alt. '04.