Popularity-Driven Ontology Ranking Using Qualitative Features

Efficient ontology reuse is a key factor in the Semantic Web to enable and enhance the interoperability of computing systems. One important aspect of ontology reuse is concerned with ranking most relevant ontologies based on a keyword query. Apart from the semantic match of query and ontology, the state-of-the-art often relies on ontologies’ occurrences in the Linked Open Data (LOD) cloud to determine relevance. We observe that ontologies of some application domains, in particular those related to Web of Things (WoT), often do not appear in the underlying LOD datasets used to define ontologies’ popularity, resulting in ineffective ranking scores. This motivated us to investigate – based on the problematic WoT case – whether the scope of ranking models can be extended by relying on qualitative attributes instead of an explicit popularity feature. We propose a novel approach to ontology ranking by (i) selecting a range of relevant qualitative features, (ii) proposing a popularity measure for ontologies based on scholarly data, (iii) training a ranking model that uses ontologies’ popularity as prediction target for the relevance degree, and (iv) confirming its validity by testing it on independent datasets derived from the state-of-the-art. We find that qualitative features help to improve the prediction of the relevance degree in terms of popularity. We further discuss the influence of these features on the ranking model.

[1]  Antonio Iera,et al.  The Internet of Things: A survey , 2010, Comput. Networks.

[2]  Matija Novak,et al.  Using Semantic Web for Internet of Things Interoperability: A Systematic Review , 2018, Int. J. Semantic Web Inf. Syst..

[3]  Kerry L. Taylor,et al.  Semantics for the Internet of Things: Early Progress and Back to the Future , 2019 .

[4]  George A. Miller,et al.  WordNet: A Lexical Database for English , 1995, HLT.

[5]  Anila Sahar Butt Ontology Search: Finding the Right Ontologies on the Web , 2015, WWW.

[6]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  The PageRank Citation Ranking : Bringing Order to the Web , 1999, WWW 1999.

[7]  Armin Haller,et al.  Ontology Search: An Empirical Evaluation , 2014, SEMWEB.

[8]  Olivier Boissier,et al.  Smart City Artifacts Web Portal , 2016, ESWC.

[9]  Jens Lehmann,et al.  Quality assessment for Linked Data: A Survey , 2015, Semantic Web.

[10]  Christian Bonnet,et al.  LOV4IoT: A Second Life for Ontology-Based Domain Knowledge to Build Semantic Web of Things Applications , 2016, 2016 IEEE 4th International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud).

[11]  Olivier Chapelle,et al.  Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance , 2009, CIKM.

[12]  Dieter Fensel,et al.  Linked Open Vocabulary Ranking and Terms Discovery , 2016, SEMANTiCS.

[13]  Ansgar Scherp,et al.  Survey on Common Strategies of Vocabulary Reuse in Linked Open Data Modeling , 2014, ESWC.

[14]  Christopher J. C. Burges,et al.  From RankNet to LambdaRank to LambdaMART: An Overview , 2010 .

[15]  Gerard Salton,et al.  Term-Weighting Approaches in Automatic Text Retrieval , 1988, Inf. Process. Manag..

[16]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Building an ontology catalogue for smart cities , 2014 .

[17]  Elena Paslaru Bontas Simperl,et al.  Reusing ontologies on the Semantic Web: A feasibility study , 2009, Data Knowl. Eng..

[18]  Enrico Motta,et al.  Ontology Selection: Ontology Evaluation on the Real Semantic Web , 2006, EON@WWW.

[19]  Steffen Stadtmüller,et al.  Accessing Information About Linked Data Vocabularies with vocab.cc , 2012, CSWS.

[20]  Armin Haller,et al.  DWRank: Learning concept ranking for ontology search , 2016, Semantic Web.

[21]  Tie-Yan Liu Learning to Rank for Information Retrieval , 2009, Found. Trends Inf. Retr..

[22]  Martin J. O'Connor,et al.  NCBO Ontology Recommender 2.0: an enhanced approach for biomedical ontology recommendation , 2016, Journal of Biomedical Semantics.

[23]  Sylvain Kubler,et al.  Linked Vocabulary Recommendation Tools for Internet of Things , 2019, ACM Comput. Surv..

[24]  Stephen E. Robertson,et al.  Overview of the Okapi projects , 1997, J. Documentation.

[25]  Dmitry Mouromtsev,et al.  Ontologies for Web of Things: A Pragmatic Review , 2015, KESW.

[26]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Ontology Development by Reuse , 2012, Ontology Engineering in a Networked World.

[27]  Michael Grüninger,et al.  Choosing ontologies for reuse , 2017, Appl. Ontology.

[28]  Paola Espinoza-Arias,et al.  Ontological Representation of Smart City Data: From Devices to Cities , 2018, Applied Sciences.

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

[30]  Jeffrey Dean,et al.  Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality , 2013, NIPS.

[31]  Ansgar Scherp,et al.  TermPicker: Enabling the Reuse of Vocabulary Terms by Exploiting Data from the Linked Open Data Cloud , 2015, ESWC.

[32]  Amelie Gyrard,et al.  Building IoT-Based Applications for Smart Cities: How Can Ontology Catalogs Help? , 2018, IEEE Internet of Things Journal.

[33]  Gang Wu,et al.  Identifying Potentially Important Concepts and Relations in an Ontology , 2008, International Semantic Web Conference.