Advertisement

Efficient High-Level Semantic Enrichment of Undocumented Enterprise Data

  • Markus SchröderEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11762)

Abstract

In absence of a data management strategy, undocumented enterprise data piles up and becomes increasingly difficult for companies to use to its full potential. As a solution, we propose the enrichment of such data with meaning, or more precisely, the interlinking of data content with high-level semantic concepts. In contrast to low-level data lifting and mid-level information extraction, we would like to reach a high level of knowledge conceptualization. Currently, this can only be achieved if human experts are integrated into the enrichment process. Since human expertise is costly and limited, our methodology is designed to be as efficient as possible. That includes quantifying enrichment levels as well as assessing efficiency of gathering and exploiting user feedback. This paper proposes research on how semantic enrichment of undocumented enterprise data with humans in the loop can be conducted. We already got promising preliminary results from several projects in which we enriched various enterprise data.

Keywords

Semantic enrichment Knowledge graph building Enterprise data Human in the loop 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Parts of this work have been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy in the project PRO-OPT (01MD15004D) and by the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture in the project SDSD (2815708615). I thank my doctoral supervisor Prof. Dr. Andreas Dengel and my colleagues Christian Jilek, Dr. Heiko Maus, Dr. Sven Schwarz, Dr. Jörn Hees and Dr. Ansgar Bernardi for their helpful discussions, comments and feedback.

References

  1. 1.
    Ananiadou, S.: A methodology for automatic term recognition. In: The 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 1994, vol. 2, pp. 1034–1038 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Sci. Am. 284(5), 34–43 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouquet, P., Serafini, L., Zanobini, S., Sceffer, S.: Bootstrapping semantics on the web: meaning elicitation from schemas. In: WWW 2006, pp. 505–512 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brackenbury, W., et al.: Draining the data swamp: a similarity-based approach. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Human-In-the-Loop Data Analytics, HILDA 2018. ACM (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chortaras, A., Stamou, G.: D2RML: integrating heterogeneous data and web services into custom RDF graphs. In: Proceedings of the LDOW, vol. 2073. CEUR (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke, M., Harley, P.: How smart is your content? Using semantic enrichment to improve your user experience and your bottom line. Sci. Editor 37(2), 41 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarkson, K., Gentile, A.L., Gruhl, D., Ristoski, P., Terdiman, J., Welch, S.: User-centric ontology population. In: Gangemi, A., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2018. LNCS, vol. 10843, pp. 112–127. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93417-4_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Culotta, A., McCallum, A.: Reducing labeling effort for structured prediction tasks. In: AAAI, vol. 5, pp. 746–751 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Enslen, E., Hill, E., Pollock, L., Vijay-Shanker, K.: Mining source code to automatically split identifiers for software analysis. In: 2009 6th IEEE International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, pp. 71–80 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Figure Eight Inc.: Data scientist report 2018 (2018). https://www.figure-eight.com/figure-eight-2018-data-scientist-report/. Accessed 1st Feb 2019
  11. 11.
    Galkin, M., Auer, S., Scerri, S.: Enterprise knowledge graphs : a backbone of linked enterprise data. In: 2016 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Galkin, M., Auer, S., Vidal, M.E., Scerri, S.: Enterprise knowledge graphs: a semantic approach for knowledge management in the next generation of enterprise information systems. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS), vol. 2, pp. 88–98. SciTePress (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hai, R., Geisler, S., Quix, C.: Constance: an intelligent data lake system. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halevy, A.Y., Franklin, M.J., Maier, D.: From databases to dataspaces: a new abstraction for information management. ACM Sigmod Rec. 34, 27–33 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hitzler, P., Krotzsch, M., Rudolph, S.: Foundations of Semantic Web Technologies. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hlomani, H., Stacey, D.: Approaches, methods, metrics, measures, and subjectivity in ontology evaluation: a survey. Semant. Web J. 1(5), 1–11 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hua, W., Wang, Z., Wang, H., Zheng, K., Zhou, X.: Short text understanding through lexical-semantic analysis. In: 2015 IEEE 31st International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 495–506 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jeffery, S.R., Franklin, M.J., Halevy, A.Y.: Pay-as-you-go user feedback for dataspace systems. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 847–860 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jilek, C., Schröder, M., Novik, R., Schwarz, S., Maus, H., Dengel, A.: Inflection-tolerant ontology-based named entity recognition for real-time applications. In: 2nd Conference on Language, Data and Knowledge, vol. 70. OASIcs (2019, in print)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khine, P.P., Wang, Z.S.: Data lake: a new ideology in big data era. In: ITM Web Conference, vol. 17, p. 03025 (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kristjansson, T., Culotta, A.: Interactive information extraction with constrained conditional random fields. In: AAAI, vol. 4, pp. 412–418 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li, H., Zhai, J.: Constructing investment open data of Chinese listed companies based on linked data. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Digital Government Research Conference on Digital Government Research, pp. 475–480. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martinez-Rodriguez, J.L., Hogan, A., Lopez-Arevalo, I.: Information extraction meets the semantic web: a survey. Semant. Web 1–81 (2018). PreprintGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maus, H., Schwarz, S., Dengel, A.: Weaving personal knowledge spaces into office applications. In: Fathi, M. (ed.) Integration of Practice-Oriented Knowledge Technology: Trends and Prospectives, pp. 71–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34471-8_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Olson, J.R., Rueter, H.H.: Extracting expertise from experts: methods for knowledge acquisition. Expert Syst. 4(3), 152–168 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pan, J.Z., Vetere, G., Gomez-Perez, J.M., Wu, H.: Exploiting Linked Data and Knowledge Graphs in Large Organisations. Springer, Heidelberg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45654-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pham, M., Alse, S., Knoblock, C.A., Szekely, P.: Semantic labeling: a domain-independent approach. In: Groth, P., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9981, pp. 446–462. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46523-4_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rao, S.S., Nayak, A.: LinkED: a novel methodology for publishing linked enterprise data. J. Comput. Inf. Technol. 25(3), 191–209 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schröder, M., Hees, J., Bernardi, A., Ewert, D., Klotz, P., Stadtmüller, S.: Simplified SPARQL REST API. In: Gangemi, A., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2018. LNCS, vol. 11155, pp. 40–45. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98192-5_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schröder, M., Jilek, C., Dengel, A.: Deep linking desktop resources. In: Gangemi, A., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2018. LNCS, vol. 11155, pp. 202–207. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98192-5_38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schröder, M., Jilek, C., Hees, J., Hertling, S., Dengel, A.: RDF spreadsheet editor: get (g)rid of your RDF data entry problems. In: ISWC 2017 Posters & Demonstrations and Industry Tracks, vol. 1963. CEUR (2017)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schröder, M., Jilek, C., Hees, J., Hertling, S., Dengel, A.: An easy & collaborative RDF data entry method using the spreadsheet metaphor. arXiv 1804.04175 (2018)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Skluzacek, T.J., et al.: Skluma: an extensible metadata extraction pipeline for disorganized data. In: 2018 IEEE 14th International Conference on e-Science, pp. 256–266 (2018)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Studer, R., Benjamins, V.R., Fensel, D., et al.: Knowledge engineering: principles and methods. Data Knowl. Eng. 25(1), 161–198 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Terrizzano, I., Schwarz, P., Roth, M., Colino, J.E.: Data wrangling: the challenging journey from the wild to the lake. In: 7th Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR’15) (2015)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tsuruoka, Y., Tsujii, J., Ananiadou, S.: Accelerating the annotation of sparse named entities by dynamic sentence selection. BMC Bioinf. 9, S8 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    W3C: RDF 1.1 concepts and abstract syntax (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Smart Data & Knowledge Services DepartmentDFKI GmbHKaiserslauternGermany
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentTU KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations