Semantic Information in Geo-Ontologies: Extraction, Comparison, and Reconciliation

  • Margarita Kokla
  • Marinos Kavouras
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3534)


A crucial issue during semantic integration of different geographic metadata sources is category comparison and reconciliation. We focus on the development of a framework for identification and resolution of semantic heterogeneity between geographic categories. The framework is divided in three processes: extraction, comparison and reconciliation. The first process performs semantic information extraction and formalization based on definitions of geographic category terms. Definitions constitute important sources of semantic information for geographic categories. Based on specific rules, definitions are analyzed in a set of semantic elements (properties and values). This information is further used in the second process to identify similarities and heterogeneities between geographic categories. Heterogeneity reconciliation is implemented by semantic factoring, a conceptual analysis process which results in a set of non-redundant, non-overlapping categories.


Noun Phrase Semantic Information Semantic Relation Relative Clause Semantic Property 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    McGuinness, D.L., Fikes, R., Rice, J., Wilder, S.: An environment for merging and testing large ontologies. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mitra, P., Wiederhold, G.: Resolving Terminological Heterogeneity in Ontologies. In: Euzenat, J., Gomez-Perez, A., Guarino, N., Stuckenschmidt, H. (eds.) Proceedings of Workshop on Ontologies and Semantic Interoperability at the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), France (2002),
  3. 3.
    Noy, N., Musen, M.: PROMPT: Algorithm and Tool for Automated Ontology Merging and Alignment. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2000), Austin, TX, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rodríguez, A., Egenhofer, M.: Determining Semantic Similarity Among Entity Classes from Different Ontologies. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15(2), 442–456 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuhn, W.: Modeling the Semantics of Geographic Categories through Conceptual Integration. In: Egenhofer, M.J., Mark, D.M. (eds.) GIScience 2002. LNCS, vol. 2478, pp. 108–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hakimpour, F., Timpf, S.: A Step towards Geodata Intagration using Formal Ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 5th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science, Palma, Spain (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kokla, M., Kavouras, M.: Fusion of top-level and geographical domain ontologies based on context formation and complementarity. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15(7), 679–687 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kavouras, M., Kokla, M.: A method for the formalization and integration of geographical categorizations. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 16(5), 439–453 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jensen, K., Binot, J.L.: Disambiguating prepositional phrase attachments by using on-line dictionary definitions. Computational Linguistics 13(3-4), 251–260 (1987)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klavans, J., Chodorow, M., Wacholder, N.: Building a Knowledge Base from Parsed Definitions. In: Jensen, K., Heidorn, G., Richardson, S. (eds.) Natural Language Processing: The PLNLP Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, USA (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Swartz, N.: Definitions, Dictionaries, and Meanings (1997),
  12. 12.
    Jensen, K., Heidorn, G., Richardson, S. (eds.): Natural Language Processing: The PLNLP Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, USA (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barriere, C.: From a Children’s First Dictionary to a Lexical Knowledge Base of Conceptual Graphs. PhD Thesis, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vanderwende, L.: The Analysis of Noun Sequences using Semantic Information Extracted from On-Line Dictionaries. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    CL Research: DIMAP-4, Dictionary Maintenance Programs, (2001),
  16. 16.
    Dolan, W.B., Vanderwende, L., Richardson, S.D.: Automatically Deriving Structured Knowledge Base from On-line Dictionaries. In: Proceedings of the Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, British Columbia (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chodorow, M.S., Byrd, R.J., Heidorn, G.E.: Extracting semantic hierarchies from a large on-line dictionary. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACL Conference, Chicago, Ill, pp. 299–304 (1985)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Markowitz, J., Ahlswede, T., Evens, M.: Semantically Significant Patterns in Dictionary Definitions. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACL Conference, New York, pp. 112–119 (1986)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ide, N., Veronis, J.: Refining Taxonomies Extracted from Machine Readable Dictionaries. In: Hockey, S., Ide, N. (eds.) Research in Humanities Computing II, pp. 145–159. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grishman, R., Sterling, J.: Acquisition of selectional patterns. In: Proceedings of COLING 1992, Nantes, France, pp. 658–664 (1992)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sombatsrisomboon, R., Matsuo, Y., Ishizuka, M.: Aquisition of Hypernyms and Hyponyms from the WWW. In: Tsumoto, S., Yamaguchi, T., Numao, M., Motoda, H. (eds.) AM 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3430, pp. 7–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    CYCORP, Inc., Upper Cyc Ontology,
  23. 23.
    WORDNET - a Lexical Database for English, Cognitive Science Laboratory. Princeton University, Princeton,
  24. 24.
    Digital Geographic Information Working Group (DGIWG): The Digital Geographic Information Exchange Standard (DIGEST), Part 4, Annex A: Feature Codes, 2.1 edn. (2000) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sowa, J.: Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical and Computational Foundations Brooks/Cole, USA (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margarita Kokla
    • 1
  • Marinos Kavouras
    • 1
  1. 1.National Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations