Advertisement

An Approach to Evaluate Existing Ontologies for Indexing a Document Corpus

  • Nathalie Hernandez
  • Josiane Mothe
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3192)

Abstract

Using ontologies for IR is one of the key issues for indexing. It is not always easy to decide which ontology to use for the corpus to index. We propose to define measures reflecting the adequacy of an ontology to a corpus. The goal of these measures is to evaluate if an ontology suits a corpus, but also to compare the adequacy of two or more ontologies to the same corpus. The measures are based on a lexical and a conceptual analysis of the corpus and the ontology. We have carried out a first validation of these measures on a corpus and samples of the ontologies. The results are encouraging.

Keywords

ontology information retrieval indexing adequacy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aussenac-Gilles, N., Mothe, J.: Ontologies as Background Knowledge to Explore Document Collections, RIAO, pp. 129–142 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benjamins, R., Fensel, D., Decker, D., Gomez Perez, A.: (KA)2: building ontologies for the internet: a mid-term report. In: International Workshop on ontological engineering on the global information infrastructure, pp. 1–24 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bourigault, D., Fabre, C.: Approche linguistique pour l’analyse syntaxique de corpus. Cahiers de Grammaires 25, 131–151 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borst, P.: Construction of Engineering Ontologies for Knowledge Sharing and Reuse, Ph.D Dissertation, Twente University (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bozsak, E., Ehrig, M., Handschuh, S., Hotho, A., Maedche, A., Motik, B., Oberle, D., Schmitz, C., Staab, S., Stojanovic, L., Stojanovic, N., Studer, R., Stumme, G., Sure, Y., Tane, J., Volz, R., Zacharias, V.: KAON - Towards a Large Scale Semantic Web, EC-Web 2002, pp. 304–313 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Budanitsky, A., Hirst, G.: Semantic distance in WordNet: An experimental, applicationoriented evaluation of five measures. In: Workshop on WordNet and Other Lexical Resources, ACL (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Desmontils, E., Jaquin, C.: Indexing a web site with a terminology oriented ontology. In: Cruz, I.F., Decker, S., Euzenat, J., McGuinness, D.L. (eds.) The Emerging Semantic Web, pp. 181–197. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002) ISBN 1-58603-255-0Google Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Fensel, D.: Ontologies: a silver bullet for Knowledge Management and Electronic Commerce. Springer, Berlin (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Vetere, G.: OntoSeek: Content-Based Access to the Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(3), 70–80 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gruber, R.T.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specification. Knowledge Acquisition (5), 199–220 (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hendler, J., Berners-Lee, T., Miller, E.: Integrating Applications on the semantic Web (2002), http://www.w3.org/2002/07/swint
  13. 13.
    Himsolt, M.: The graphlet system. In: North, S.C. (ed.) GD 1996. LNCS, vol. 1190, pp. 233–240. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Jiand, J.J., Conrath, D.W.: Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical terminology, ICCL (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lin, D.: An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In: 15th international conference on Machine Learning, pp. 296–304 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lord, P.W., Stevens, R.D., Brass, A., Goble, C.A.: Semantic similarity measures as tools for exploring the Gene Ontology. In: Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, pp. 601–612 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maedche, A., Staab, S.: Measuring similarity between ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 251–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Masolo, C.: Ontology driven Information retrieval: Stato dell’arte, Rapport de IKF (Information and Knowledge Fusion) Eureka Project E!2235. LADSEB-Cnr, Padova (I) (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rada, R., Mili, H., Bickel, E.: Developement and application of a metric on semantic nets. IEEE transaction on systems 19(1), 17–30 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Resnik, P.: Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: an information based measure and its application to problems of ambiguity in natural langage. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 95–130 (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rothenburger, B.: A Differential Approach for Knowledge Management. In: ECAI, Workshop on Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing for Ontology Engineering (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Salton, G.: The Smart retrieval system. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1971)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.): Handbook on Ontologies. Series on Handbooks in Information Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) ISBN 3540408347Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winston, M., Chaffin, R., Herramann, D.: A taxonomy of Part-Whole relations. Cognitive Science 11, 417–444 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wu, S.H., Tsai, T.H., Hsu, W.L.: Domain Event Extraction and Representation with Domain Ontology. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI 2003 Workshop on Information Integration on the Web, Acapulco, Mexico, pp. 33–38 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wu, Z., Palmer, M.: Verb semantics and lexical selection. In: 32nd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathalie Hernandez
    • 1
    • 2
  • Josiane Mothe
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.IRITToulouseFrance
  2. 2.IUFMToulouse cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations