Advertisement

Integrating Ontology Learning and R for Providing Services Efficiently in Cities

  • Anjali HoraEmail author
  • Sarika Jain
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 955)

Abstract

With the advancement in Artificial Intelligence, Intelligent systems are being implemented that are able to perform cognitive functions like human beings but due to the complexity in this domain and lack of measure of semantics in program, it is difficult to analyze that how these functions are performed, what functions are to be considered, to what degree they are to be considered. As ontology has been proven the excellent mean of providing semanticity, definitions that are machine understandable are created through ontology. The purpose of creating knowledge representation through ontology that is to analyze the data related to urban services. In this way, intelligent systems will use the definitions created through ontology for doing analysis. This is to be done to provide services in cities in a better way. This paper deals with the learning of base ontology in specific domain from a relational database by making use of plug-in available in Protégé. By populating the ontology through learning, functions available in R will be used to remove the redundant/implied ontological terms. This will evaluate/curate the ontology.

Keywords

MySQL R language Ontology learning Semantic web Protégé 

References

  1. 1.
    Jain, V., Singh, M.: A framework to convert relational database to ontology for knowledge database in semantic web. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 2(10), 9–12 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li, M., Xiao-Yong, D., Shan W.: Learning ontology from relational database. In: Proceedings of 2005 International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, vol. 6. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., Magnini, B.: Ontology learning from text: an overview. Ontol. Learn. Text: Methods Eval. Appl. 123, 3–12 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Missikoff, M., Navigli, R., Velardi, P.: Integrated approach to web ontology learning and engineering. Computer 35(11), 60–63 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nyulas, C., O’Connor, M., Tu, S.: Datamaster–a plug-in for importing schemas and data from relational databases into protege. In: 10th International Protégé Conference, pp. 15–18 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Overton, J.A., Dietze, H., Essaid, S., Osumi-Sutherland, D., Mungall, C.J.: ROBOT: a command-line tool for ontology development. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Biomedical Ontology (ICBO), pp. 131–132. CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS. org), Lisbon (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee, J.J.Y., et al.: Text-based phenotypic profiles incorporating biochemical phenotypes of inborn errors of metabolism improve phenomics-based diagnosis. J. Inherit. Metab. Dis., 1–8 (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bakuya, T., Masato, M.: Relational database management system. U.S. Patent No. 5,680,614. 21 October 1997Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang, X., Chan, C.W., Hamilton, H.J.: Design of knowledge-based systems with the ontology-domain-system approach. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Köhler, J., et al.: Quality control for terms and definitions in ontologies and taxonomies. BMC Bioinform. 7(1), 212 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mogotlane, K.D., Fonou-Dombeu, J.V.: Automatic Conversion of Relational Databases into Ontologies: A Comparative Analysis of Protégé Plug-ins Performances. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.02816 (2016)
  13. 13.
    McGuinness, D.L., Van Harmelen, F.: OWL web ontology language overview. W3C Recomm. 10(10), 2004 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of TechnologyKurukshetraIndia

Personalised recommendations