Improving Ontology Matching Using Meta-level Learning

Despite serious research efforts, automatic ontology matching still suffers from severe problems with respect to the quality of matching results. Existing matching systems trade-off precision and recall and have their specific strengths and weaknesses. This leads to problems when the right matcher for a given task has to be selected. In this paper, we present a method for improving matching results by not choosing a specific matcher but applying machine learning techniques on an ensemble of matchers. Hereby we learn rules for the correctness of a correspondence based on the output of different matchers and additional information about the nature of the elements to be matched, thus leveraging the weaknesses of an individual matcher. We show that our method always performs significantly better than the median of the matchers used and in most cases outperforms the best matcher with an optimal threshold for a given pair of ontologies. As a side product of our experiments, we discovered that the majority vote is a simple but powerful heuristic for combining matchers that almost reaches the quality of our learning results.

[1]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative , 2007 .

[2]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Schema and ontology matching with COMA++ , 2005, SIGMOD '05.

[3]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2007 , 2006, OM.

[4]  Enrico Motta,et al.  The Semantic Web - ISWC 2005, 4th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2005, Galway, Ireland, November 6-10, 2005, Proceedings , 2005, SEMWEB.

[5]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning , 1992 .

[6]  Vojtech Svátek,et al.  Combining Ontology Mapping Methods Using Bayesian Networks , 2006, Ontology Matching.

[7]  Marta Sabou,et al.  Spider: Bringing Non-equivalence Mappings to OAEI , 2008, OM.

[8]  Qiang Liu,et al.  SAMBO and SAMBOdtf Results for the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2008 , 2008, OM.

[9]  Alberto Maria Segre,et al.  Programs for Machine Learning , 1994 .

[10]  Ryutaro Ichise,et al.  Machine Learning Approach for Ontology Mapping Using Multiple Concept Similarity Measures , 2008, Seventh IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science (icis 2008).

[11]  Steffen Staab,et al.  Bootstrapping Ontology Alignment Methods with APFEL , 2005, International Semantic Web Conference.

[12]  Feng Shi,et al.  RiMOM Results for OAEI 2009 , 2008, OM.

[13]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  Specification of a Common Framework for Characterizing Alignment , 2004 .

[14]  Malgorzata Mochól,et al.  Towards a Rule-Based Matcher Selection , 2008, EKAW.

[15]  Baowen Xu,et al.  Lily: Ontology Alignment Results for OAEI 2008 , 2008, OM.

[16]  Nuno Silva,et al.  Evaluating a Confidence Value for Ontology Alignment , 2007, OM.

[17]  Pedro M. Domingos,et al.  Learning to match ontologies on the Semantic Web , 2003, The VLDB Journal.

[18]  Patrick Lambrix,et al.  Ontology Alignment and Merging , 2008, Anatomy Ontologies for Bioinformatics.

[19]  DoanAnHai,et al.  Learning to match ontologies on the Semantic Web , 2003, VLDB 2003.

[20]  Ian Witten,et al.  Data Mining , 2000 .

[21]  Mansur R. Kabuka,et al.  ASMOV Results for OAEI 2007 , 2007, OM.

[22]  Antoine Isaac,et al.  Using Quantitative Aspects of Alignment Generation for Argumentation on Mappings , 2008, OM.

[23]  V. Svátek,et al.  OntoFarm : Towards an Experimental Collection of Parallel Ontologies , 2005 .

[24]  Enrico Motta,et al.  DSSim Results for OAEI 2008 , 2008, OM.

[25]  Jérôme David,et al.  AROMA Results for OAEI 2009 , 2008, OM.