Querying Linked Data Based on Hierarchical Multi-Hop Ranking Model

  • Junxian Li (李俊娴)Email author
  • Wei Wang (汪卫)
  • Jingjing Wang (王晶晶)


How to query Linked Data effectively is a challenge due to its heterogeneous datasets. There are three types of heterogeneities, i.e., different structures representing entities, different predicates with the same meaning and different literal formats used in objects. Approaches based on ontology mapping or Information Retrieval (IR) cannot deal with all types of heterogeneities. Facing these limitations, we propose a hierarchical multi-hop language model (HMPM). It discriminates among three types of predicates, descriptive predicates, out-associated predicates and in-associated predicates, and generates multi-hop models for them respectively. All predicates’ similarities between the query and entity are organized into a hierarchy, with predicate types on the first level and predicates of this type on the second level. All candidates are ranked in ascending order. We evaluated HMPM in three datasets, DBpedia, LinkedMDB and Yago. The results of experiments show that the effectiveness and generality of HMPM outperform the existing approaches.

Key words

hierarchical multi-hop ranking model (HMPM) Linked Data language model 

CLC number

TP 391 

Document code


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    HARTIG O, BIZER C, FREYTAG J C. Executing SPARQL queries over the web of Linked Data [C]//Proceedings of the 8th International Semantic Web Conference. Chantilly, VA, USA: Springer, 2009: 293–309.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    LADWIG G, TRAN T. Linked Data query processing strategies [C]//Proceedings of the 9th International Semantic Web Conference. Shanghai, China: Springer, 2010: 453–469.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    HARTIG O. Zero-knowledge query planning for an iterator implementation of link traversal based query execution [C]//Proceedings of the 8th Extended Semantic Web Conference. Heraklion, Crete, Greece: Springer, 2011: 154–169.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    HARTH A, HOSE K, KARNSTEDT M, et al. Data summaries for on-demand queries over Linked Data [C]//Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web. Raleigh, NC, USA: DBLP, 2010: 411–420.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    PHAM M D, BONCZ P. Exploiting emergent schemas to make RDF systems more efficient [C]//Proceedingsof the 15th International Sematic Web Conference. Kobe, Japan: Springer, 2016: 463–479.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    RAHM E, BERNSTEIN P A. A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching [J]. The International Journal on Very Large Data Bases, 2001, 10(4): 334–350.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    DOAN A H, HALEVY A Y. Semantic-integration research in the database community: A brief survey [J]. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 2005, 26(1): 83–94.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    DUAN S, FOKOUE A, SRINIVAS K. One size does not fit all: Customizing ontology alignment using user feedback [C]// Proceedings of the 10th International Semantic Web Conference. Shanghai, China: Springer, 2010: 177–192.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    HU W, QU Y Z. Falcon-AO: A practical ontology matching system [J]. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 2008, 6(3): 237–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    ZHOU X, GAUGAZ J, BALKE W T, et al. Query relaxation using malleable schemas [C]//Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. Beijing, China: ACM, 2007: 545–556.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    ELBASSUONI S, RAMANATH M, SCHENKEL R, et al. Language-model-based ranking for queries on RDFgraphs [C]//Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on International and Knowledge Management. Hong Kong, China: ACM, 2009: 977–986.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    NEUMAYER R, BALOG K, NØRV˚AG K. On the modeling of entities for ad-hoc entity search in the web of data [C]//Proceedings of the 34th European Conference on IR Research. Barcelona, Spain: Springer, 2012: 133–145.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    HERZIG D M, TRAN T. Heterogeneous web data search using relevance-based on the fly data integration [C]//Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web. Lyon, France: ACM, 2012: 141–150.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    PONTE J M, CROFT W B. A language modeling approach to information retrieval [C]//Proceedings of the 21st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. Melbourne, Australia: ACM, 1998: 275–281.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    OGILVIE P, CALLAN J. Hierarchical language models for XML component retrieval [C]//Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Initiative for the Evaluation of XML Retrieval. Dagstuhl Castle, Germany: Springer, 2004: 224–237.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    BLEI D M, NG A Y, JORAN M I. Latent dirichlet allocation [J]. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2003, 3: 993–1022.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shanghai Jiaotong University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Junxian Li (李俊娴)
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Wei Wang (汪卫)
    • 2
  • Jingjing Wang (王晶晶)
    • 3
  1. 1.School of ComputerJiangsu University of Science and TechnologyZhenjiang, JiangsuChina
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceFudan UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Yangzhou Polytechnic CollegeYangzhou, JiangsuChina

Personalised recommendations