Artificial Intelligence Review

, Volume 52, Issue 4, pp 2623–2650 | Cite as

Ontologies’ mappings validation and annotation enrichment through tagging

  • Peter OchiengEmail author
  • Swaib Kyanda


Pay as you go ontology matching, the technique of first executing an automatic matching tool and then engaging users to improve the quality of an alignment produced by the tool is gaining popularity. Most of the existing techniques employ a single user to validate mappings by annotating them using terms from a controlled set such as “correct” or “incorrect”. This single user based approach of validating mappings using a controlled set of vocabulary is restrictive. First, the use of controlled vocabulary does not maximize the user’s effort since it restrains him/her from adding more meaning to the concepts participating in low-quality mappings using his/her own terms. Secondly, a single user approach of validating a wide range of mappings is error prone since even the most experienced user may not be familiar with all subtopics contained in the input ontologies. We demonstrate in this research that through tagging of concepts participating in mappings flagged as low-quality, we can achieve both mappings’ validation and ontology’s metadata enrichment by adding quality annotations to the ontology.


Repair Alignment Tagging Ontology Matching 


  1. Alpert CJ, Yao SZ (1995) Spectral partitioning: the more eigenvectors, the better. In: 32nd design automation conference. IEEE, pp 195–200Google Scholar
  2. Belhajjame K, Paton NW, Fernandes AAA, Hedeler C, Embury SM (2011) User feedback as a first class citizen in information integration systems. In: Conference on innovative data systems research (CIDR 11), pp 175–183Google Scholar
  3. Borgatti SP, Halgin DS (2011) Analyzing affiliation networks. In: Scott J, Carrington PJ (eds) The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. Sage, London, pp 417–433Google Scholar
  4. Cattuto C, Benz D, Hotho A, Stumme G (2008) Semantic analysis of tag similarity measures in collaborative tagging systems. In: Data engineering, p 5Google Scholar
  5. Chan PK, Schlag MD, Zien JY (1994) Spectral K-way ratio-cut partitioning and clustering. IEEE Trans Comput Aided Des Integr Circuits Syst 9:1088–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conroy C, O’Sullivan D, Lewis D (2007) A ’Tagging’ approach to ontology mapping. In: CEUR workshop proceedings, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  7. Cruz IF, Stroe C, Palmonari M (2012) Interactive user feedback in ontology matching using signature vectors. In: Proceedings—international conference on data engineering, pp 1321–1324Google Scholar
  8. Cruz I, Loprete F, Palmonari M (2014) Pay-as-you-go multi-user feedback model for ontology matching. In: International conference on knowledge engineering and knowledge management, pp 80–96Google Scholar
  9. Dang TT, Gabriel A, Hertling S, Roskosch P, Wlotzka M, Zilke JR, Janssen F, Paulheim H (2012) HotMatch results for OEAI 2012. In: CEUR workshop proceedings, pp 145–151Google Scholar
  10. de Vaus D (2002) Surveys in social research. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  11. Ding CHQ, He X, Zhab H, Gu M, Simon H D (2001) A min–max cut algorithm for graph partitioning and data clustering. In: Proceedings 2001 IEEE international conference on data mining. IEEE, pp 107–114Google Scholar
  12. Dragisic Z, Ivanova V, Lambrix P, Faria D, Jiménez-Ruiz E, Pesquita C (2016) User validation in ontology alignment. In: Proceedings of the international semantic web conferenceGoogle Scholar
  13. Eddine W, Tarek M, Ben S (2016) XMap: results for OAEI 2016. In: Proceedings of the 11th international workshop on ontology matchingGoogle Scholar
  14. Euzenat P, Shvaiko J (2007) Ontology matching. Springer, HeidelbergzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Groß A, Hartung M, Kirsten T, Rahm E (2012) GOMMA results for OAEI 2012. In: International semantic web conferenceGoogle Scholar
  16. Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquis 5:199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gulić M, Vrdoljak B, Banek M (2015) CroMatcher—results for OAEI 2015Google Scholar
  18. Hagen L, Member S, Kahng AB (1992) New spectral methods for ratio cut partitioning and clustering. IEEE Trans Comput Aided Des 11(9):1074–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall KM (1970) An r-dimensional quadratic placement algorithm. Manag Sci 17:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ipeirotis PG, Provost F, Wang J (2010) Quality management on Amazon Mechanical Turk. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD workshop on human computation—HCOMP ’10, p 64Google Scholar
  21. Ivanova V, Lambrix P, Å Berg J (2015) Requirements for and evaluation of user support for large-scale ontology alignment. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), pp 3–20Google Scholar
  22. Jiménez-Ruiz E, Grau BC (2011) LogMap: logic-based and scalable ontology matching. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), pp 273–288Google Scholar
  23. Jiménez-Ruiz E, Grau BC, Zhou Y (2011) LogMap 2.0: towards logic-based, scalable and interactive ontology matching. In: SWAT4LS, pp 45–46Google Scholar
  24. Jiménez-Ruiz E, Grau BC, Zhou Y, Horrocks I (2012) Large-scale interactive ontology matching: algorithms and implementation. In: Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, no ii, pp 444–449Google Scholar
  25. Jirkovský V, Ichise R (2014) MAPSOM: user involvement in ontology matching. In: Kim W, Ding Y, Kim HG (eds) Semantic technology. JIST 2013. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 8388. Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
  26. Luxburg UV (2006) A tutorial on spectral clustering a tutorial on spectral clustering. Stat Comput 17:395–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Malik J, Belongie S, Leung TK, Shi J (2001) Contour and texture analysis for image segmentation. Int J Comput Vis (1):7–27.
  28. Massmann S, Raunich S, Aumüller D, Arnold P, Rahm E (2011) Evolution of the COMA match system. In: CEUR workshop proceedings, pp 49–60Google Scholar
  29. Meilicke C (2011) Alignment incoherence in ontology matching. Dissertation—meilicke, Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat MannheimGoogle Scholar
  30. Melnik S, Garcia-Molina H, Rahm E (2002) Similarity flooding: a versatile graph matching algorithm. In: Data engineering, pp 117–128Google Scholar
  31. Mika P (2007) Ontologies are us: a unified model of social networks and semantics. Web Semantics, pp 5–15.
  32. Mohar B (1988) The Laplacian spectrum of graphs. In: Proceedings of 6th quadrennial international conference on the theory and applications of graphs, pp 871–898Google Scholar
  33. Mohar B (1991) Some applications of Laplace eigenvalues of graphs. In: Graph symmetry: algebraic methods and applications, pp 225–275.
  34. Nentwig M, Hartung M, Ngonga A-C, Rahm E (2015) A survey of current link discovery frameworks. Semant Web Interoper Usability Appl J 8:1–17Google Scholar
  35. Ngo DH, Bellahsene Z (2016) Overview of YAM++(not) Yet Another Matcher for ontology alignment task. J Web Semant 41:30–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Osorno-Gutierrez F, Paton NW, Fernandes AAA (2013) Crowdsourcing feedback for pay-as-you-go data integration. In: CEUR workshop proceedings, pp 32–37Google Scholar
  37. Otero-Cerdeira L, Rodríguez-Martínez FJ, Gómez-Rodríguez A (2015) Ontology matching: a literature review. Expert Syst Appl 42:949–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pesquita C, Faria D, Santos E, Couto F M (2013) To repair or not to repair: Reconciling correctness and coherence in ontology reference alignments. In: CEUR workshop proceedings, pp 13–24Google Scholar
  39. Peukert E, Massmann S (2010) Comparing similarity combination methods for schema matching. J GI Jahrestag 1:692–701Google Scholar
  40. Salton G (1989) Automatic text processing: the transformation, analysis, and retrieval of information by computer. Analysis and retrieval of information by computer. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  41. Sánchez D, Batet M, Isern D, Valls A (2012) Ontology-based semantic similarity: a new feature-based approach. Expert Syst Appl 39:7718–7728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Santos E, Faria D, Pesquita C, Couto FM (2015) Ontology alignment repair through modularization and confidence-based heuristics. PLoS ONE 10:1–17Google Scholar
  43. Sarasua C, Simperl E, Noy NF (2012) CrowdMap: crowdsourcing ontology alignment with microtasks. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), vol 7649. LNCS, pp 525–541Google Scholar
  44. Shi F, Li J, Tang J, Xie G, Li H (2009) Actively learning ontology matching via user interaction. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), pp 585–600Google Scholar
  45. Shvaiko P, Euzenat J (2013) Ontology matching: state of the art and future challenges. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 25:158–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Song Y, Zhang L, Giles CL (2011) Automatic tag recommendation algorithms for social recommender systems. ACM Trans Web 5(1):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Spielman DA, Teng SH (2007) Spectral partitioning works: planar graphs and finite element meshes. Linear Algebra Appl 421(2–3):284–305MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Makerere UniversityKampalaUganda

Personalised recommendations