2017
DOI: 10.3233/sw-170264
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ontology understanding without tears: The summarization approach

Abstract: Given the explosive growth in both data size and schema complexity, data sources are becoming increasingly difficult to use and comprehend. Summarization aspires to produce an abridged version of the original data source highlighting its most representative concepts. In this paper, we present an advanced version of the RDF Digest, a novel platform that automatically produces and visualizes high quality summaries of RDF/S Knowledge Bases (KBs). A summary is a valid RDFS graph that includes the most representati… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Summarising an ontology involves identifying the key concepts in an ontology [56]. An ontology summary should be concise, yet it needs to convey enough information to enable ontology understanding and to provide sufficient coverage of the entire ontology [57]. Centrality measures have been used in [52] to identify key concepts and produce RDF summaries.…”
Section: Identifying Key Entities In Data Graphsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Summarising an ontology involves identifying the key concepts in an ontology [56]. An ontology summary should be concise, yet it needs to convey enough information to enable ontology understanding and to provide sufficient coverage of the entire ontology [57]. Centrality measures have been used in [52] to identify key concepts and produce RDF summaries.…”
Section: Identifying Key Entities In Data Graphsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here, we will follow an approach similar to [26], which imposes a convenient graphtheoretic view of RDF data that is closer to the way the users perceive their datasets. As such, we separate between the schema and the instances of an RDFS KB, represented in separate graphs (G S and G I , respectively).…”
Section: Preliminariesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Having a way to rank the schema nodes of an RDFS KB according to the perceived importance, we then focus on selecting the paths that link those nodes, aiming to produce a valid sub-schema graph. As the main problem of previous approaches [17,26] was the introduction of many additional nodes (besides the top-k ones), in this paper, we focus on selecting the paths that introduce the minimum number of additional nodes to the final summary graph. As such, we model the problem of linking the most important nodes as a variation of the well-known Graph Steiner-Tree problem (GSTP) [27].…”
Section: Linking Important Nodesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Relative Cardinality (RC) Whereas in the above approaches weights are empirically configured, we highlight relative cardinality [18,19], which is a way of automatically weighting edges for calculating weighted degree. In a class graph, the cardinality of an edge which represents a property connecting two classes is the number of the corresponding instances of the classes connected with that specific type of property.…”
Section: Centrality-based Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%