Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Nowadays, due to the high level of data distribution, it is frequently impossible to generate a unified representation of a variety of heterogenous data sources in a single step. Dividing the integration process into smaller subtasks and their parallelization can solve this problem. Unfortunately, it entails difficulties concerning the initial classification of data sources into groups that can be independently integrated, and serve as an input for the final integration step. The problem becomes even more complicated when not only raw data is required to be integrated, but the designed system is expected to perform more expressive integration of heterogenous knowledge representations, such as ontologies. In our previous work [10] we have proved both analytically and experimentally that such approach to the integration task can increase its effectiveness in terms of the time required to obtain the final result. In this article we intend to explore the issue of selecting initial classes of ontologies based on the novel notion of the knowledge increase. This indicator can be computed before the integration and moreover answer the question concerning whether this integration is viable. This not only simplifies the initial distribution of aforementioned subtasks, but can also be used as a stop condition during subsequent steps of the integration.

Keywords

Ontology integration knowledge management consensus theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Batista

M.D.C.M.

and Salgado

A.C.

, Information Quality Measurement in Data Integration Schemas. In QDB, 2007, pp. 61–72.

Calvanese

, De Giacomo

and Lenzerini

, Ontology of integration and integration of ontologies, Description Logics49 (2001), 10–19:30.

Ceusters

and Smith

, Towards A realism-based metric for quality assurance in ontology matching, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications150 (2006), 321–332.

Chen

, Chiang

R.H.

and Storey

V.C.

, Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact, MIS quarterly36(4). Society for Information Management and The Management Information Systems Research Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2012, pp. 1165–1188.

Chen

C.P.

and Zhang

C.Y.

, Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies: A survey on Big Data, Information Sciences275 (2014), 314–347.

Euzenat

and Petko

, An integrative proximity measure for ontology alignment, Proc ISWC-2003 workshop on semantic information integration. No commercial editor., 2003.

Frank

A.U.

, Data quality ontology: An ontology for imperfect knowledge, In Spatial Information Theory, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 406–420.

Kozierkiewicz-Hetmańska

, Comparison of one-level and two-level consensuses satisfying the 2-optimality criterion, 2012. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-34630-9_1

Kozierkiewicz-Hetmańska

and Nguyen

N.T.

, A Comparison Analysis of Consensus Determining Using One and Two-level Methods, Volume 243: Advances in Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, 2012, pp. 159–168.

10.

Kozierkiewicz-Hetmańska

and Pietranik

, Preliminary evaluation of multilevel ontology integration on the concept level, Lecture Notes in Computer Science9621 (2016), Springer London. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-49381-6

11.

Kumar

, Moseley

, Vassilvitskii

and Vattani

, Fast greedy algorithms in mapreduce and streaming, ACM Transactions on Parallel Computing2(3) (2015), 14.

12.

and Dang

, Ontology-based disease similarity network for disease gene prediction, Vietnam Journal of Computer Science3 (2016), 197. DOI: 10.1007/s40595-016-0063-3

13.

Lv Ni

, Zhou

and Chen

, Multi-level ontology integration model for business collaboration, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology84(1-4) (2016), 445–451. ISO 690.

14.

Maleszka

and Nguyen

N.T.

, A method for complex hierarchical data integration, Cybernetics and Systems42(5) (2011), 358–378.

15.

Merelli

, Pérez-Sánchez

, Gesing

and D’Agostino

, Managing, analysing, and integrating big data in medical bioinformatics, open problems and future perspectives, BioMed Research International2014 (2014), 1–13. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/134023

16.

Nguyen

N.T.

, Advanced Methods for Inconsistent Knowledge Management, Springer London, 2008.

17.

Nguyen

V.D.

, Nguyen

N.T.

, Some Novel Results of Collective Knowledge Increase Analysis Using Euclidean Space. In: Rutkowski

, Korytkowski

, Scherer

, Tadeusiewicz

, Zadeh

A.L.

and Zurada

M.J.

(eds.) Artificial Intelligence and Soft Comuting: 15th International Conference, ICAISC 2016, Zakopane, Poland, June 12-16, 2016, Proceedings, Part II. pp. 352–363. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-39384-1_30. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016.

18.

Noy

N.F.

and Musen

M.A.

, An algorithm for merging and aligning ontologies: Automation and tool support, Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontology Management at the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-99)1999.

19.

http://oaei.ontologymatching.org/2015/

20.

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/

21.

Pietranik

and Nguyen

N.T.

, Semantic Distance Measure Between Ontology Concept’s Attributes, Proceedings of 15th International Conference, KES 2011 Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 6881, Springer, 2011, pp. 210–219.

22.

Pietranik

and Nguyen

N.T.

, A multi-atrribute based framework for ontology aligning, Neurocomputing146 (2014), 276–290. DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2014.03.067

23.

Rekatsinas

, Dong

X.L.

, Getoor

and Srivastava

, Finding Quality in Quantity: The Challenge of Discovering Valuable Sources for Integration, In 7th Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR’15), 2015.

24.

Jiménez-Ruiz

, Grau

B.C.

, Horrocks

and Berlanga

, Ontology integration using mappings: Towards getting the right logical consequences, 2009. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-02121-3_16

25.

Shvaiko

and Euzenat

, Ontology matching: State of the art and future challenges, IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng25(1) (2013), 158–176.

26.

Supekar

, Patel

and Lee

, Characterizing Quality of Knowledge on Semantic Web, In FLAIRS Conference2004, pp. 472–478.

27.

Tartir

, Arpinar

I.B.

, Moore

, Sheth

A.P.

and Aleman-Meza

, OntoQA: Metric-based ontology quality analysis, (2005). Available at: http://works.bepress.com/amit_sheth/341/

28.

Tzabbar

, Aharonson

B.S.

and Amburgey

T.L.

, When does tapping external sources of knowledge result in knowledge integration?Research Policy42(2) (2013), 481–494. ISSN 0048-7333 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.07.007

29.

Zhou

, Li

, Zhang

, Chen

and Kong

, Feature classification and analysis of lung cancer related genes through gene ontology and KEGG pathways, Current Bioinformatics11(1) (2016), 40–50.