Interpreting and predicting social commerce intention based on knowledge graph analysis
- 37 Downloads
There have been significant efforts to understand, describe, and predict the social commerce intention of users in the areas of social commerce and web data management. Based on recent developments in knowledge graph and inductive logic programming in artificial intelligence, in this paper, we propose a knowledge-graph-based social commerce intention analysis method. In particular, a knowledge base is constructed to represent the social commerce environment by integrating information related to social relationships, social commerce factors, and domain background knowledge. In this study, knowledge graphs are used to represent and visualize the entities and relationships related to social commerce, while inductive logic programming techniques are used to discover implicit information that can be used to interpret the information behaviors and intentions of the users. Evaluation tests confirmed the effectiveness of the proposed method. In addition, the feasibility of using knowledge graphs and knowledge-based data mining techniques in the social commerce environment is also confirmed.
KeywordsSocial commerce Social commerce intention Knowledge graph Knowledge base Inductive logic programming
This study was supported by research grants funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61771297), and the “Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities” (GK201803062, GK201802013).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
This manuscript has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Both authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
- 2.Afrasiabi Rad, A., & Benyoucef, M. (2011). A model for understanding social commerce. Journal of Information Systems Applied Research,4(2), 63–73.Google Scholar
- 5.Attia, A. M., Aziz, N., & Friedman, B. A. (2012). The impact of social networks on behavioral change: A conceptual framework. World Review of Business Research,2(2), 91–108.Google Scholar
- 7.Friedrich, T. (2015). Analyzing the factors that influence consumers’ adoption of social commerce—A literature review. In Americas conference on information systems, Puerto Rico, United States.Google Scholar
- 10.Zhang, T., & Chen, P. J. (2018). Customer engagement with social commerce: A motivation analysis. Advances in Global Business and Economıcs,1, 175–183.Google Scholar
- 16.Singhal, A. (2012). Introducing the knowledge graph: Things, not strings. Official google blog, 5.Google Scholar
- 24.Anand, A., & Lee, J. (2016). U.S. Patent No. 9,497,234. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.Google Scholar
- 27.Maryam, S. (2017). Factors affecting social commerce and exploring the mediating role of perceived risk. Iranian Journal of Management Studies,10(1), 63–90.Google Scholar
- 28.Alhulail, H., Dick, M., & Abareshi, A. (2018). Factors that impact customers’ loyalty to social commerce websites. In International conference on information resources management, Ningbo, China.Google Scholar
- 34.Biucky, S. T., & Harandi, S. R. (2017). The effects of perceived risk on social commerce adoption based on tam model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies,8(2), 173–196.Google Scholar
- 36.Gruber, T. (2009). Ontology. Encyclopedia of database systems, 1963–1965.Google Scholar
- 39.Brickley, D., & Miller, L. (2016). The friend of a friend (FOAF) vocabulary specification, November 2007. http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec. Accessed February 22, 2019.
- 44.Eder, J. S. (2012). U.S. Patent Application No. 13/404, 109.Google Scholar
- 47.Hernández-Orallo, J., Muggleton, et al. (2016). Approaches and applications of inductive programming. Dagstuhl Reports, 5(10), 89–111. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Google Scholar
- 48.Inoue, K., Ohwada, H., & Yamamoto, A. (2016). Inductive logic programming: Challenges. In AAAI, Phoenix, Arizona USA (pp. 4330–4332).Google Scholar
- 49.Schmid, U. (2018). Inductive programming as approach to comprehensible machine learning. In Proceedings of the 7th workshop on dynamics of knowledge and belief and the 6th workshop KI & Kognition (Vol. 2194, pp. 4–12).Google Scholar
- 50.Athanasopoulos, G., Paliouras, G., et al. (2018). Predicting the evolution of communities with online inductive logic programming. In 25th international symposium on temporal representation and reasoning, Warsaw, Poland (Vol. 120, pp. 4:1–4:20).Google Scholar
- 52.Schmid, U., Muggleton, S. H., & Singh, R. (2018). Approaches and applications of inductive programming (Dagstuhl Seminar 17382). In Dagstuhl reports (Vol. 7, No. 9). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Google Scholar
- 53.Malec, M., Khot, T., Nagy, J., Blasch, E., & Natarajan, S. (2016). Inductive logic programming meets relational databases: An application to statistical relational learning. In Inductive Logic Programming (ILP).Google Scholar
- 54.Contreras-Ochando, L., Ferri, C., Hernández-Orallo, J., Martínez-Plumed, F., Ramírez-Quintana, M. J., & Katayama, S. (2018). General-purpose declarative inductive programming with domain-specific background knowledge for data wrangling automation. arXiv:1809.10054.
- 60.Home, D. C. M. I. (2015). Dublin Core® Metadata Initiative (DCMI).Google Scholar
- 61.Bechhofer, S., Van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D. L., Patel-Schneider, P. F., & Stein, L. A. (2004). OWL Web ontology language reference. W3C Recommendation, 10(02).Google Scholar
- 62.W3C Owl Working Group. (2009). 2 Web ontology language document overview. W3C Recommendation, 27(10).Google Scholar
- 63.WeChat Economic and Social Impact Report 2017. (2017) China Academy of Information and Communications Technology Industry and Planning Research Institute.Google Scholar