Advertisement

Use of OWL and Semantic Web Technologies at Pinterest

  • Rafael S. GonçalvesEmail author
  • Matthew Horridge
  • Rui Li
  • Yu Liu
  • Mark A. Musen
  • Csongor I. Nyulas
  • Evelyn Obamos
  • Dhananjay Shrouty
  • David Temple
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11779)

Abstract

Pinterest is a popular Web application that has over 250 million active users. It is a visual discovery engine for finding ideas for recipes, fashion, weddings, home decoration, and much more. In the last year, the company adopted Semantic Web technologies to create a knowledge graph that aims to represent the vast amount of content and users on Pinterest, to help both content recommendation and ads targeting. In this paper, we present the engineering of an OWL ontology—the Pinterest Taxonomy—that forms the core of Pinterest’s knowledge graph, the Pinterest Taste Graph. We describe modeling choices and enhancements to WebProtégé that we used for the creation of the ontology. In two months, eight Pinterest engineers, without prior experience of OWL and WebProtégé, revamped an existing taxonomy of noisy terms into an OWL ontology. We share our experience and present the key aspects of our work that we believe will be useful for others working in this area.

Keywords

Pinterest Knowledge graph OWL WebProtégé Ontology engineering Taxonomy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We extend a huge thanks to John Milinovich (prev. at Pinterest), who played a pivotal role in establishing the collaboration between Pinterest and the Protégé team. We also thank Lance Riedel (Pinterest) and Brian Johnson (prev. at Pinterest), who steered the project in its earlier stages. The work described in this paper has been fully supported by Pinterest. Core WebProtégé work is supported by NIH NIGMS Grant GM121724.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Grau, B.C., et al.: OWL 2: the next step for OWL. Web Semant.: Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 6(4), 309–322 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Horridge, M., Tudorache, T., Vendetti, J., Nyulas, C.I., Musen, M.A., Noy, N.F.: Simplified OWL ontology editing for the web: is WebProtégé enough? In: Alani, H., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2013. LNCS, vol. 8218, pp. 200–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41335-3_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horridge, M., et al.: Webprotégé: a collaborative Web-based platform for editing biomedical ontologies. Bioinformatics 30(16), 2384–2385 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knublauch, H., Kontokostas, D.: Shapes constraint language (SHACL). W3C Recommendation 11(8) (2017). https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl
  6. 6.
    Milinovich, J.: Introducing the pinterest taste graph and enhanced targeting (2017). https://business.pinterest.com/en/blog/introducing-the-pinterest-taste-graph-and-enhanced-targeting
  7. 7.
    Montiel-Ponsoda, E., et al.: Style guidelines for naming and labeling ontologies in the multilingual web. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Noy, N.F., et al.: Ontology development 101: a guide to creating your first ontology. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory technical report KSL-01-05 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Phillips, A., Davis, M.: BCP 47 - tags for identifying languages, September 2006. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/bcp/bcp47.txt
  10. 10.
    Rector, A., et al.: OWL pizzas: practical experience of teaching OWL-DL: common errors & common patterns. In: Motta, E., Shadbolt, N.R., Stutt, A., Gibbins, N. (eds.) EKAW 2004. LNCS, vol. 3257, pp. 63–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30202-5_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schober, D., et al.: Towards naming conventions for use in controlled vocabulary and ontology engineering. In: Proceedings of the Annual Bio-Ontologies Meeting, pp. 87–90 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Svátek, V., Šváb-Zamazal, O.: Entity naming in semantic web ontologies: design patterns and empirical observations. University of Economics, Prague, pp. 1–12 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafael S. Gonçalves
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthew Horridge
    • 1
  • Rui Li
    • 2
  • Yu Liu
    • 2
  • Mark A. Musen
    • 1
  • Csongor I. Nyulas
    • 1
  • Evelyn Obamos
    • 2
  • Dhananjay Shrouty
    • 2
  • David Temple
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Biomedical Informatics ResearchStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.PinterestSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations