Bootstrapping ontology alignment methods with APFEL

Ontology alignment is a prerequisite in order to allow for interoperation between different ontologies and many alignment strategies have been proposed to facilitate the alignment task by (semi-)automatic means. Due to the complexity of the alignment task, manually defined methods for (semi-)automatic alignment rarely constitute an optimal configuration of substrategies from which they have been built. In fact, scrutinizing current ontology alignment methods, one may recognize that most are not optimized for given ontologies. Some few include machine learning for automating the task, but their optimization by machine learning means is mostly restricted to the extensional definition of ontology concepts. With APFEL (Alignment Process Feature Estimation and Learning) we present a machine learning approach that explores the user validation of initial alignments for optimizing alignment methods. The methods are based on extensional and intensional ontology definitions. Core to APFEL is the idea of a generic alignment process, the steps of which may be represented explicitly. APFEL then generates new hypotheses for what might be useful features and similarity assessments and weights them by machine learning approaches. APFEL compares favorably in our experiments to competing approaches.

[1]  Trevor F. Cox,et al.  Metric multidimensional scaling , 2000 .

[2]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Similarity flooding: a versatile graph matching algorithm and its application to schema matching , 2002, Proceedings 18th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[3]  DoanAnHai,et al.  Semantic-integration research in the database community , 2005 .

[4]  Michel Klein,et al.  Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions , 2001, OIS@IJCAI.

[5]  Ramakrishnan Srikant,et al.  On integrating catalogs , 2001, WWW '01.

[6]  Vladimir I. Levenshtein,et al.  Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals , 1965 .

[7]  Steffen Staab,et al.  The Karlsruhe view on ontologies , 2003 .

[8]  Steffen Staab,et al.  QOM - Quick Ontology Mapping , 2004, GI Jahrestagung.

[9]  Mark A. Musen,et al.  The PROMPT suite: interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[10]  York Sure-Vetter,et al.  Ontology Mapping - An Integrated Approach , 2004, ESWS.

[11]  Martin L. Kersten,et al.  A Graph-Oriented Model for Articulation of Ontology Interdependencies , 1999, EDBT.

[12]  Luciano Serafini,et al.  A SAT-Based Algorithm for Context Matching , 2003, CONTEXT.

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

[14]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  Similarity-Based Ontology Alignment in OWL-Lite , 2004, ECAI.

[15]  Pedro M. Domingos,et al.  iMAP: discovering complex semantic matches between database schemas , 2004, SIGMOD '04.

[16]  Pedro M. Domingos,et al.  Learning to Match the Schemas of Data Sources: A Multistrategy Approach , 2003, Machine Learning.

[17]  Boris Motik,et al.  Reducing SHIQ-Description Logic to Disjunctive Datalog Programs , 2004, KR.

[18]  Steffen Staab,et al.  Bibster - A Semantics-Based Bibliographic Peer-to-Peer System , 2004, International Semantic Web Conference.

[19]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Comparison of Schema Matching Evaluations , 2002, Web, Web-Services, and Database Systems.