Journal of Computer Science and Technology

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 165–174 | Cite as

Summarizing Vocabularies in the Global Semantic Web

  • Xiang Zhang
  • Gong Cheng
  • Wei-Yi Ge
  • Yu-Zhong Qu
Short Paper


In the Semantic Web, vocabularies are defined and shared among knowledge workers to describe linked data for scientific, industrial or daily life usage. With the rapid growth of online vocabularies, there is an emergent need for approaches helping users understand vocabularies quickly. In this paper, we study the summarization of vocabularies to help users understand vocabularies. Vocabulary summarization is based on the structural analysis and pragmatics statistics in the global Semantic Web. Local Bipartite Model and Expanded Bipartite Model of a vocabulary are proposed to characterize the structure in a vocabulary and links between vocabularies. A structural importance for each RDF sentence in the vocabulary is assessed using link analysis. Meanwhile, pragmatics importance of each RDF sentence is assessed using the statistics of instantiation of its terms in the Semantic Web. Summaries are produced by extracting important RDF sentences in vocabularies under a re-ranking strategy. Preliminary experiments show that it is feasible to help users understand a vocabulary through its summary.


Semantic Web vocabulary summarization RDF pragmatics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

11390_2009_9212_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (63 kb)
(PDF 62.6 kb)


  1. [1]
    Ding L, Pan R, Finin T, Joshi A, Peng Y, Kolari P. Finding and ranking knowledge on the Semantic Web. In Proc. the 4th International Semantic Web Conference, Galway, Ireland, June 9–12, 2005, pp.156–170.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Mani I. Automatic Summarization. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Penin T, Wang H F, Tran T, Yu Y. Snippet generation for Semantic Web search engines. In Proc. the 3rd Asian Semantic Web Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 2009. (To appear)Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Zhang X, Cheng G, Qu Y Z. Ontology summarization based on RDF sentence graph. In Proc. the 16th International World Wide Web Conference, Banff, Canada, May 8–12, 2007, pp.707–715.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Kessler M M. Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 1963, 14(1): 10–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Lempel R, Moran S. The stochastic approach for link-structure analysis (SALSA) and the TKC effect. In Proc. the 9th International World Wide Web Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, May 15–19, 2000, pp.387–401.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Kleinberg J. Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. In Proc. the 9th ACM SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithm, San Francisco, California, USA, Jan. 1998, pp.668–677.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Carbonell J, Goldstein J. The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries. In Proc. the 21st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Melbourne, Australia, 1998, pp.335–336.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Radev D R, Jing H, Budzikowska M. Centroid-based summarization of multiple documents: Sentence extraction, utility-based evaluation and user studies. In Proc. ANLP/NAACL 2000 Workshop, Seattle, Washington, USA, May 2000, pp.21–29.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Kershenbaum A, Ma L, Schonberg E, Srinivas K, Fokoue A. The summary Abox: Cutting ontologies down to size. In Proc. the 5th International Semantic Web Conference, Athens, GA, USA, Nov. 5–9, 2006, pp.343–356.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Hustadt U, Motik B, Sattler U. Reducing SHIQ description logic to disjunctive datalog programs. In Proc. the 9th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Whistler, Canada, June 2004, pp.152–162.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Aleman-Meza B, Halaschek-Wiener C, Arpinar I B, Ramakrishnan C, Sheth A P. Ranking complex relationships on the Semantic Web. IEEE Internet Computing, June 2005, 9(3): 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Anyanwu K, Maduko A, Sheth A. SemRank: Ranking complex relationship search results on the Semantic Web. In Proc. the 14th International Conference on World Wide Web, Chiba, Japan, May 10–14, 2005, pp.117–127.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Alani H, Brewster C. Ontology ranking based on the analysis of concept structures. In Proc. the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Capture, Banff, Canada, Oct. 23–25, 2005, pp.51–58.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Yu C, Jagadish H V. Schema summarization. In Proc. the 32nd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Seoul, Korea, Sept. 12–15, 2006, pp.319–330.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiang Zhang
    • 1
  • Gong Cheng
    • 1
  • Wei-Yi Ge
    • 1
  • Yu-Zhong Qu
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations