SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Karaelmas Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 2

Similarity Matching of Ontology in Semantic Web

Semantik Web’de Ontoloji Benzerliklerinin Eşleşmesi

Ayşe SALMAN
Pages
263–267
Publication Date
2022-12-24
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This similarity is derived by constructing a graph from the matched nodes and use it to calculate the measure of structure similarity.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Matching Ontologies becomes an important task for many applications in Semantic Web.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This paper investigates effective similarity match between ontologies by considering similarity on two levels.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This similarity is derived by constructing a graph from the matched nodes and use it to calculate the measure of structure similarity.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ontoloji Eşleştirme · Kaynak Tanımlama Çerçevesi Grafiği · Benzerlik Ölçüsü

Abstract

Matching Ontologies becomes an important task for many applications in Semantic Web. This paper investigates effective similarity match between ontologies by considering similarity on two levels. We first consider the similarity of the linguistic properties of the ontology entities which takes in consideration both morphological and semantics of the entities. This is then combined with measuring the similarity of the ontology structure as represented by RDF graph. This similarity is derived by constructing a graph from the matched nodes and use it to calculate the measure of structure similarity.

Özet

Ontolojileri eşleştirmek birçok Semantik Web uygulaması için önemli bir görev haline gelmiştir. Bu makale, iki benzerlik seviyesi kullanarak ontolojiler arasındaki etkili benzerlik eşleşmesini araştırmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, ilk olarak varlıkların hem morfolojisini hem de semantiğini hesaba katarak, ontoloji varlıklarının dilsel özelliklerinin benzerliklerinin incelenmesi ile başlamaktadır. Bu daha sonra bir RDF grafiği ile temsil edilen ontoloji yapısının bir karşılaştırması ile birleştirilmektedir. Bu benzerlik, eşleşen düğümlerden bir grafik oluşturularak ve yapı benzerliğinin ölçüsünü hesaplamak için kullanılarak hesaplanmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

SALMAN, A. (2022). Similarity Matching of Ontology in Semantic Web. Karaelmas Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 2, 263–267. https://ajindex.com/articles/860800

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Algergawy, A., Nayak, R., & Saake, G. (2010). Element similarity measures in XML schema matching. Information Sciences, 180(24), 4975-4998.
  2. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web. Scientific american, 284(5), 34-43.
  3. Bird, S., Klein, E., & Loper, E. (2009). Natural language processing with Python: analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. “ O’Reilly Media, Inc.”. Blanchard, E., Harzallah, M., Briand, H., & Kuntz, P. (2005). A typology of ontology-based semantic measures. EMOIINTEROP, 160, 3-11.
  4. Budanitsky, A., & Hirst, G. (2006). Evaluating wordnet-based measures of lexical semantic relatedness. Computational linguistics, 32(1), 13-47.
  5. Cyganiak, R., Wood, D., Lanthaler, M., Klyne, G., Carroll, J. J., & McBride, B. (2014). RDF 1.1 concepts and abstract syntax. W3C recommendation, 25(02), 1-22.
  6. Ding, L., Pan, R., Finin, T., Joshi, A., Peng, Y., & Kolari, P. (2005). Finding and ranking knowledge on the semantic web. In International Semantic Web Conference (pp. 156-170).
  7. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Graves, A., Adali, S., & Hendler, J. (2008). A Method to Rank Nodes in an RDF Graph. In International Semantic Web Conference (Posters & Demos) (Vol. 401). Jeh, G., & Widom, J. (2002, July). Simrank: a measure of structural-context similarity. In Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 538-543).
  8. Klyne, G. (2004). RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax W3C Recommendation. http://www. w3. org/TR/rdf-concepts/. Lin, D. (1998). An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In Icml (Vol. 98, No. 1998, pp. 296-304).
  9. Liu, X., Tong, Q., Liu, X., & Qin, Z. (2021). Ontology matching: state of the art, future challenges and thinking based on utilized information. IEEE Access. Lv, Q., Jiang, C., & Li, H. (2020). Solving ontology metamatching problem through an evolutionary algorithm with approximate evaluation indicators and adaptive selection pressure. IEEE Access, 9, 3046-3064.
  10. Melnik, S., Garcia-Molina, H., & Rahm, E. (2002). Similarity flooding: A versatile graph matching algorithm and its application to schema matching. In Proceedings 18th international conference on data engineering (pp. 117-128).
  11. IEEE. Miller, G. A., Fellbaum, C., Tengi, R., Wolff, S., Wakefield, P., Langone, H., & Haskell, B. (2006). WordNet: A lexical database for the English language. Cognitive Science Lab, Princeton University, http://www. cogsci. princeton. edu/wn. Motik, B., & Patel-Schneider, P