Review Comment:
This paper presents an approach for tagging concepts from correspondences in order to validate alignments and enrich the ontologies involved in the alignment. It proposes to identify potential wrong correspondences based on the notion of unstable correspondences and analysis of similarity matrices. These correspondences are then presented to multiple users which tag the concepts involved in the correspondences. When pairs of concepts from a correspondence share tags, the correspondence is judged as correct. A tag suggestion strategy based on information gain and an initial corpus of concepts from entity annotations is also introduced. The similarity of tags is calculated using clustering techniques. The proposed approach has been evaluated on Conference and Anatomy tracks of OAEI.
This paper presents an interesting piece of work. However, the paper could be improved in several ways.
First, the notion of unstable alignment as it is presented in the paper is not really new. In fact, this refers to the conservativity principle in [1], which proposes that correspondences should not introduce new semantic relationships between concepts from one of input ontologies. The authors should refer to this work in the paper.
Second, the paper has some passages describing details that are not really necessary in the paper (section 3.5.1) while a deeper discussion on the experiments and results is missing (how many concepts have been tagged, the users have used some interface for providing the tags ? how it deals with the collaborative aspect of the tagging process ? could it be re-used ? is it publicly available ? how many clusters have been generated ? what are the thresholds for tag similarity used in the experiments ? what is the initial tag corpus in the case of ekaw ontology which does not have annotations ? etc).
Third, but still on evaluation, I was expecting to have the whole process (wrong correspondence selection, tag suggestion, user tagging and correspondence validation) applied on the same data set. However, these different steps have been evaluated mostly independently of each other. Although it is quite interesting to have the results of each step independently, it is hard to see the real impact of the approach as a whole. As stated above, a more quantitative analysis of the results could be introduced, better explaining the weaknesses of the proposed approach and how they could be addressed (for instance, what are the reasons for having 30% of novelty, how this could be improved ? how to improve the enrichment step what seems does not bring so much (0.03). With respect to the selected matching tool, it could be interesting to see how the proposed approach could improve the alignments provided by (OAEI) state-of-the-art tools.
Finally, as the authors state, "pay as you go technique is time-consuming". Anatomy is a relatively large ontology. How they deal with this aspect in the user tag processing ?
English has to be revised.
Minor remarks (not exhaustive) :
* Abstract
- ontology metadata => ontology annotations
* Introduction
- references to "pay as you go" definitions should be included in the introduction. It is not clear the specificities of this approach with respect to classical user validation and involvement.
- "They restrict users to only evaluate the accuracy" => precision and not accuracy
* Definition of terms
- self-sufficient => self-contained
- the authors refers to "mapping" what is introduced as "correspondence" in this section. This should be corrected in the paper. the same for the "Confidence" (page 4), introduced as "v" in the definition of correspondence.
* Related Work
- "implemented by the current literature" => references
- "techniques tools are employing to reach consensus"
- "instability in the final alignment" => what does it mean "instability" ? Authors should refer to the evaluation conducted on the OAEI conference track for a work on conservativity
- "free form nature" => please rephrase
- "Multiple user evaluation" => see [2]
* TagMatch interactive framework
- First paragraphs of Section 3.2 is a little confusing with respect to the content of this section
- hasExactSynomym, exact_synonym, other_synonym : please, indicate the prefix of this predicates
[1]
@Inbook{Solimando2014,
author="Solimando, Alessandro
and Jim{\'e}nez-Ruiz, Ernesto
and Guerrini, Giovanna",
editor="Mika, Peter
and Tudorache, Tania
and Bernstein, Abraham
and Welty, Chris
and Knoblock, Craig
and Vrande{\v{c}}i{\'{c}}, Denny
and Groth, Paul
and Noy, Natasha
and Janowicz, Krzysztof
and Goble, Carole",
title="Detecting and Correcting Conservativity Principle Violations in Ontology-to-Ontology Mappings",
bookTitle="The Semantic Web -- ISWC 2014: 13th International Semantic Web Conference, Riva del Garda, Italy, October 19-23, 2014. Proceedings, Part II",
year="2014",
publisher="Springer International Publishing",
address="Cham",
pages="1--16",
}
[2]
@inproceedings{Cheatham:2014:CVU:2717260.2717264,
author = {Cheatham, Michelle and Hitzler, Pascal},
title = {Conference V2.0: An Uncertain Version of the OAEI Conference Benchmark},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 13th International Semantic Web Conference - Part II},
series = {ISWC '14},
year = {2014},
isbn = {978-3-319-11914-4},
pages = {33--48},
numpages = {16},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11915-1_3},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-11915-1_3},
acmid = {2717264},
publisher = {Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.},
address = {New York, NY, USA},
}
|