Advertisement

Assessing Semantic Similarities among Geospatial Feature Class Definitions

  • M. Andrea Rodríguez
  • Max J. Egenhofer
  • Robert D. Rugg
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1580)

Abstract

The assessment of semantic similarity among objects is a basic requirement for semantic interoperability. This paper presents an innovative approach to semantic similarity assessment by combining the advantages of two different strategies: feature-matching process and semantic distance calculation. The model involves a knowledge base of spatial concepts that consists of semantic relations (is-a and part-whole) and distinguishing features (functions, parts, and attributes). By taking into consideration cognitive properties of similarity assessments, this model represents a cognitively plausible and computationally achievable method for measuring the degree of interoperability.

Keywords

Semantic Similarity Semantic Relation Semantic Network Semantic Distance Similarity Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Birkhoff, G.: Lattice Theory. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1967) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bishr, Y.: Semantic Aspects of Interoperable GIS. Thesis Wageningen Agricultural University and International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Science (ITC).Enshede, The Netherlands (1997) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cardelli, L.: A Semantics of Multiple Inheritance. In: Plotkin, G., MacQueen, D.B., Kahn, G. (eds.) Semantics of Data Types 1984. LNCS, vol. 173, pp. 51–67. Springer, Heidelberg (1984) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaffin, R., Herrmann, D.: The Nature of Semantic Relations: a Comparison of two Approaches. In: Evens, M. (ed.) Relational Models of the Lexicon: Representing Knowledge in Semantic Network, pp. 289–334. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Collins, A., Quillian, M.: Retrieval Time from Semantic Memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8, 240–247 (1969) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cruse, D.: On the Transitivity of the Part-Whole Relation. Linguistics 15, 29–38 (1979) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahlgren, K.: Naive Semantics for Natural Language Understanding. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (1988) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dittrich, K.: Object-Oriented Data Base Systems: The Notation and The Issues. In: Dittrrich, K., Dayal, U., Buchmann, A. (eds.) International Worskshop in Object-Oriented Database Systems, Pacific Grove, CA, Washington, D.C., pp. 2–4. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1986) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gibson, J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1979) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gruber, T.: Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing. International Journal of Human and Computer Studies 43(5/6), 907–928 (1995) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guarino, N.: Formal Ontology, Conceptual Analysis, and Knowledge Representation. International Journal of Human and Computer Studies 43(5/6), 625–640 (1995) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guarino, N., Giaretta, P.: Ontologies and Knowledge Bases: Towards a Terminological Clarification. In: Mars, N. (ed.) Toward Very Large Knowledge Bases: Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing, pp. 25–32. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1995) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guarino, N.: Semantic Matching: Formal Ontological Distinctions for Information Organization, Extraction, and Integration. In: Pazienza, M. (ed.) Information Extraction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Engineering Information Theory, Frascati, Italy, pp. 139–170. Springer, Heidelberg (1997) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iris, M., Litowitz, B., Evens, M.: Problem of the Part-Whole Relation. In: Evens, M. (ed.) Relational Models of the Lexicon: Representing Knowledge in Semantic Network, pp. 261–288. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiang, J., Conrath, D.: Semantic Similarity Based on Corpus Statistics and Lexical Taxonomy. In: International Conference on Computational Linguistics (ROCLING X), Taiwan, pp. 19–35 (1997) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kahng, J., McLeod, D.: Dynamic Classificational Ontologies: Mediation of Information Sharing in Cooperative federated Database Systems. In: Pa-pazoglou, M., Schlageter, G. (eds.) Cooperative Information Systems: Trends and Directions, pp. 179–203. Academic Press, London (1998) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kashyap, V., Sheth, A.: Semantic and Schematic Similarities Between Database Objects: A Context-Based Approach. The VLDB Journal 5(4), 276–304 (1996) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kashyap, V., Sheth, A.: Semantic Heterogeneity in Global Information Systems: The Role of Metada, Context, and Ontologies. In: Papazoglou, M., Schlageter, G. (eds.) Cooperative Information Systems: Trends and Directions, pp. 139–178. Academic Press, London (1998) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khoshafian, S., Abnous, R.: Object Orientation: Concepts, Languages, Databases, User Interfaces. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1990) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krumhansl, C.: Concerning the Applicability of Geometric Models to Similarity Data: The Interrelationship Between Similarity and Spatial Density. Psychological Review 85(5), 445–463 (1978) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, J., Kim, M., Lee, Y.: Information Retrieval Based on Conceptual Distance in IS-A Hierarchies. Journal of Documentation 49(2), 188–207 (1993) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lenat, D., Guha, R.: Building Large Knowledge Based Systems: Representation and Inference in the Cyc. Project. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading (1990) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meersman, R.: An Essay on The Role and Evolution of Data(base) Semantics. In: Meersman, R., Mark, L. (eds.) DataBase Application Semantics. Chapman Hall, London (1997) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mena, E., Kashyap, V., Illarramendi, A., Sheth, A.: Domain Specific Ontologies for Semantic Information Brokering on the Global Information Infrastructure. In: International Conference on Formal Ontology Information Systems (1998), available at http://ra.cs.uga.edu/publications/pub_ALL.html
  25. 25.
    Miller, G.: Nouns in WordNet: A Lexical Inheritance System. International Journal ofLexicography 3(4), 245–264 (1990) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miller, G.: A Lexical Database for English. Communications of the ACM 38(11), 39–41 (1995) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miller, G., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., Miller, K.: Introduction to WordNet: An On-Line Lexical Database. International Journal of Lexicography 3(4), 235–244 (1990) Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miller, G., Charles, W.: Contextual Correlates of Semantic Similarity. Language and Cognitive Processes 6(1), 1–28 (1991) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rada, R., Mili, H., Bicknell, E., Blettner, M.: Development and Application of a Metric on Semantic Nets. IEEE Transactions on System, Man, and Cybernetics 19(1), 17–30 (1989) Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Richardson, R., Smeaton, A.: An Information Retrieval Approach to Locating Information in Large Scale Federated Database Systems. Dublin City University, School of Computer Applications, Working Paper CA-0296 (1996), available at http://simpr1.compapp.dcu.ie/CA_Working_Papers/wp96.html#0296
  31. 31.
    Richardson, R., Smeaton, A., Murphy, J.: Using WordNett as a Knowledge Base for Measuring Semantic Similarity Between Words. Dublin City University, School of Computer Applications, Working Paper CA-1294 (1994), available at http://simpr1.compapp.dcu.ie/CA_Working_Papers/wp94.html#1294.html
  32. 32.
    Rips, L., Shoben, J., Smith, E.: Semantic Distance and the Verification of Semantic Relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12, 1–20 (1973) Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosch, E., Mervis, C.: Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology 7, 573–603 (1975) Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sheth, A.: Changing Focus on in Information Systems: From System, Syntax, Structure to Semantics. In: Goodchild, M., Egengoher, M., Fegeas, R., Kottman, C. (eds.) Interoperating Geographic Information Systems. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht (1998) (in press) Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tversky, A.: Features of Similarity. Psychological Review 84(4), 327–352 (1977) Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    USGS, View of the Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS) Document (1998), available at http://mcmcweb.er.usgs.gov/sdts/standard.html (Last modification: Friday, 12-June-1998 )
  37. 37.
    Winston, M., Chaffin, R., Herramann, D.: A Taxonomy of Part-Whole Relations. Cognitive Science 11, 417–444 (1987) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Andrea Rodríguez
    • 1
    • 2
  • Max J. Egenhofer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Robert D. Rugg
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.National Center for Geographic Information and AnalysisUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Spatial Information Science and EngineeringUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  4. 4.Department of Urban Studies and PlanningVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations