training-less ontology-based text categorization. maciej janik july 1 st, 2008 dissertation defense...
TRANSCRIPT
Training-less Ontology-based Text
Categorization.Maciej Janik
July 1st, 2008Dissertation Defense
Major professor:Dr. Krzysztof J. Kochut
CommitteeDr. John A. MillerDr. Khaled RasheedDr. Amit P. Sheth
LSDIS lab, Computer Science, University of Georgia
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
2
Document categorization
Document classification/categorization is a problem in information science. The task is to assign an electronic document to one or more categories, based on its contents.[Wikipedia]
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
3
Objectives
• Document categorization method– Classification is based on knowledge from
ontology– Do not require training set– Use semantic information for categorization– Explore role of semantic associations in text
categorization– Incorporate user interest (context) into
categorization
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
4
Automatic document categorization• Methods are based on word/phrase statistics, information
gain and other probability or similarity measures 1.• Examples
– Naïve Bayes, SVM, Decision Tree, k-NN• Categorization based on information (frequencies,
probabilities) learned from the training documents.• Vocabulary extension/unification possible by use of
synonyms, homonyms, word groups (eg. from WordNet)
• Document representation for categorization– Set or vector of features - most popular and simple: bag of
words– Does not include information about document structure,
relative position of phrases, etc.
(1) Sebastiani, F. Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 34 (1). 1 - 47.
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
5
Document categorization by people• People categorize document by
understanding its content, using their knowledge and understanding what the category is.
• Categorization is based on:– Document content– Knowledge– Category– Perceived interest
entities and relationshipsontologycategory definitioncategorization context
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
6
OmniCat approach
• Categorization knowledge– Ontology
• Features– Entities, relationships and semantic associations
• Category definitions– Relevant fragments of ontology– Importance of classes, entities, and relationships
• Categorization process– Matching of a document text to find best fit into defined
ontology fragments
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
7
Semantic associations
• Semantic Association– A simple, undirected path that connects two
entities in the knowledge base and describe how they are related.
– Relationships on the path define meaning of this connection.
– Directionality of relationships sets specific interpretation of a path.
– Entities on the path specify the content.
(1) Sheth, A. P., I. B. Arpinar, et al. (2003). Relationships at the Heart of Semantic Web: Modeling, Discovering, and Exploiting Complex Semantic Relationships. Enhancing the Power of the Internet: Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. M. Nikravesh, B. Azvin, R. Yager and L. Zadeh, Springer Verlag.
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
8
Semantic Associations - Paths in RDF
Directed path
Undirected path
Undirected path,but with specific properties anddirectionality
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
9
BRAHMS
Maciej Janik, Krys Kochut. "BRAHMS: A WorkBench RDF Store And High Performance Memory System for Semantic Association Discovery", Fourth International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2005, Galway, Ireland, 6-10 November 2005
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
10
BRAHMS
• Features– Main-memory RDF/S storage– Handle RDF and RDFS data– High performance for accessing RDF/S data– Efficient handling of large onologies– Rich API provide a framework for creating
ontology-based algorithms (e.g. semantic association discovery)
• Separation of schema and instances
– Read-only access to ontology
• Developed for the need of SemDis1 project
(1) http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/projects/semdis/
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
11
Design decisions
• Performance requirements– use main memory for storage – fastest access– create indexes for operations used in graph
traversal algorithms– use C/C++ in implementation instead of Java– instead of string URIs, use simple type [int] as
resource identifiers.
• Ontology size– compact representation for handling large
ontologies – leave some memory for algorithms
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
12
Design decisions
• Handle RDF / S– simplify the design and do not include and
check logic or constraints imposed by OWL
• Separate instance base from schema– represent instances, schema classes and
properties as different object types– have specific methods to access schema or
instances– different types of objects require different
types of statements
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
13
Design decisions• Framework for algorithms
– create rich API of basic operations to access RDF/S data
• Consequences of design decisions– compact knowledge base to minimize memory
usage, no memory fragmentation – use contiguous memory blocks make it read-only
– create snapshot of memory structures for fast start-up (parse* once, use many times)
– handle taxonomy in a special way.
(*) Redland’s Raptor is used as RDF/S parser – http://librdf.org/raptor
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
14
bi-BFS on synthetic Business-Sports-Entertainment
Je
na
; 1
2.8
Je
na
; 3
9.9
Je
na
; 5
9.3
Se
sa
me
; 1
.8
Se
sa
me
; 1
1.9
Se
sa
me
; 2
5.7
Se
sa
me
; 3
86
Re
dla
nd
; 0
.43
Re
dla
nd
; 2
.6
Re
dla
nd
; 5
.2
Re
dla
nd
; 6
4.8
Je
na
; 8
47
BR
AM
S;
1.9
BR
AM
S;
38
BR
AM
S;
0.5
BR
AM
S;
0.1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
associationlength
[relations]
tim
e [
sec]
Jena 12.8 39.9 59.3 847
Sesame 1.8 11.9 25.7 386
Redland 0.43 2.6 5.2 64.8
BRAMS 0.1 0.5 1.9 38
Found paths 8559 131009 1680943 24392420
9 10 11 12
x 1.70
x 10.16
x 22.29
45,000 Instance statements 29,889 instances RDF: 13Mb
Results - timing
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
15
Results - timingbi-BFS search on Univ(700,0) - 6.5Gb file
BR
AH
MS
; 0
.02
BR
AH
MS
; 0
.15
BR
AH
MS
; 0
.33
BR
AH
MS
; 4
6.4
2
BR
AH
MS
; 3
08
.87
32
205
94,152
1,271,857
314,116,239
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
associationlength
[relations]
Tim
e [
se
c]
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
100,000,000
1,000,000,000
Fo
un
d p
ath
s[l
og
sc
ale
]
BRAHMS 0.02 0.15 0.33 46.42 308.87
Paths 32 205 94,152 1,271,857 314,116,239
4 5 6 7 8
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
16
SPARQLeR
Krys Kochut, Maciej Janik. "SPARQLeR: Extended Sparql for Semantic Association Discovery", Fourth European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2007, Innsbruck, Austria, 3-7 June 2007
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
17
SPARQLeR
• Extension of SPARQL for semantic association discovery.
• Seamlessly integrated into the SPARQL syntax.• Graph patterns incorporating simple paths with
constraints.• Support for flexible length paths.• Property constraints (path patterns) are based
on regular expressions over properties.• Additional constraints on entities included in the
path (instances and properties).
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
18
Path patterns in SPARQLeR
• Path is SPARQLeR is a meta-property– Resource –[property] Resource– Resource –[path] Resource
• Path is also a Sequence– Test if a resource is in the path:
• rdfs:member– Test if a resource is at a specific position in the path:
• rdf:_2, rdf:_4, ...
• SPARQLeR-specific path properties– Test all resources or all properties in the path:
• rdfms:entityResource and rdfms:propertyResourceExample: all resources on a path must be of type foo:Person
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
19
SPARQLeR extensions
• Path expressions– use of regular expressions over properties
• Flexible path specification– Undirected– Defined directionality paths
• Directed
– Length restricted
• Complex path patterns– Test of resources and properties on the path– Intersecting paths
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
20
RegExp in path constraints
• Path constraints on properties are based on regular expressions– Uses syntax similar to lex– Easy for grep users
• Examples:a c* d a+ (b|c) a
[abc] c? d ( b a-1 )+ c
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
21
SPARQLeR - exampleSELECT list(%path) WHERE
{<r> %path <s> . %path rdf:_2 <e> . %path rdfms:entityResource ?x .?x rdf:type <foo:A>
FILTER(length(%path)<=6 && regex(%path,“(foo:prop -foo:rel)+”,“dih”) }
foo:prop foo:proper s?x
foo:rel
foo:rel
rdf:type
A
rdfs:subPropertyOf
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
22
Experiments
• Scalability– Modified DBLP datasets in RDF (added random citations)– Test on increasing dataset (adding older years of
publications)– Search for cited publications (transitive)
PREFIX opus: <http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/projects/semdis/opus#>
SELECT ?end_publication WHERE {<http://dblp.uni-trier.de/rec/bibtex/journals/ai/Huber06>
%path ?end_publicationFILTER ( length(%path)<=26 &&
regex(%path, "(opus:cites_publication)*" ) ) }
B. Aleman-Meza et. al. Semantic Analytics on Social Networks: Experiences in Addressing the Problem of Conflict of Interest Detection. (WWW2006)
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
23
Experiments – dataset characteristics
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
24
Experiments – results: single source paths
Search paths up to length 26
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
25
OmniCatMaciej Janik, Krys Kochut. “OmniCat: Automatic Text Classification with Dynamically Defined Categories”, 7th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2008), Karlsruhe, Germany [submitted to] Maciej Janik, Krys Kochut. "Wikipedia in Action: Ontological Knowledge in Text Categorization", Second IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing, ICSC 2008, Santa Clara, CA, USA, August 2008 [to appear]Maciej Janik, Krys Kochut. "Training-less Ontology-based Text Categorization", Workshop on Exploiting Semantic Annotations in Information Retrieval (ESAIR 2008) at the 30th European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR'08), Glasgow, Scotland, 30 March 2008
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
26
Ontology
• “An explicit specification of a conceptualization.” 1
• Ontology is a data model that represents a set of concepts within a domain and the relationships between those concepts. It is used to reason about the objects within that domain. [Wikipedia]
Gruber, T. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5 (2). 199-220, 1993.
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
27
Ontology-based classification• Ontology IS the knowledge base and
THE CLASSIFIER – no need for training set.– Rich instance base defines known universe.– Schema with taxonomy describe categorization
structure.
• Classification is based on recognized entities in text and semantic relationships between them.
• Categories assigned are based on entities types, taxonomy embedded in schema and provided categorization contexts.
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
28
OntoCategorization – bases• Probability
– Document is classified based on probabilities that given feature (word, phrase) belongs to a certain category.
• Similarity– Category is defined as ontology fragment (entities,
classes, structures, etc.)– Similarity of document graph to given ontology fragment
describes closeness to selected category• Connectivity (components)
– Knowledge is based on associations.– Entities in one category should form a connected
component, as they belong to the same subject.• Context
– Specific entities, entity types, or semantic structures may be of different importance for user
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
29
Graph representation of text• Graph representation preserves (selected)
structural information from document– Relative words positions to find close co-occurring
phrases.– Paragraph, formatting (eg. emphasize), part of
document.
• Sample representations– Words form a directed graph, chained in order as they
appear in each sentence.– Words form a weighted graph, where edge connects
words within certain distance and weight determines closeness.
– Connected terms based on NLP processing or co-occurrence.
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
30
Graph-based categorization• Categorization based on similarity metrics 1
– Isomorphism– Maximum common subgraph/ minimum common
supergraph– Graph edit distance– Statistical methods
• Diameter, degree distribution, betwenness– Comparison of node neighbors– Distance preservation measure
• Methods– k-NN – most straightforward– similarity to centroids – graph mean and graph median– term distance to category
(1) Schenker, A., Bunke, H., Last, M. and Kandel, A. Graph-Theoretic Techniques for Web Content Mining. World Scientific, London, 2005.
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
31
Classes and categories
• Classes do not have to be categories• Classes
– Form taxonomy / partonomy– Strict, formal requirements– Membership based on features
• Categories– Can include other categories, intersect with them, etc. –
more set-like approach– Category can be a complex structure of classes,
relationships and instances– Topic of interest that can span multiple, normally
unrelated classes in schema
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
32
OmniCat system
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
33
Algorithm sketch
• Semantic graph construction– Conversion of an unstructured text into
semantic graph
• Thematic graph selection– Setting a topic by selection of graph(s) for
categorization
• Categorization using ontology– Bottom-up approach of category discovery– Top-down approach with categorization context
projection
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
34
Semantic graph construction (1)
• Named entity identification– Matching known phrases
(literals) from ontology and assign initial confidence weight
– Each phrase has assigned a confidence level based on uniqueness of entity identification
– Number of times each phrase is matched suggests its importance in text
– Text-phrase similarity is used when applying stop words removal or stemming
..niiii mpl*sp
w
1
),(1
11
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
35
Ford Motor Co. is in the process of selling
Jaguar and Land Rover, according to Ford
CEO Alan Mulally.
Example of entity matching
Ford Motor Company
Jaguar (animal)
Business process Process (science)
Alan_MulallyChief Executive Officer
Process (computing)
Jaguar Cars Ltd.
Land_RoverFord Motor Company
Sales
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
36
Semantic graph construction (2)• Entity relationship extraction
– NLP parse of each sentence to get dependency tree
– Use previously matched phrases as clues for entities positions
– If matched phrases are close in the parse tree, add a relationship between them in the final graph
• OmniCat does not extract named relationships
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
37
Example – parse tree and triplesFord Motor Co. is in the process of selling Jaguar and Land Rover,
according to Ford CEO Alan Mulally.
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
38
Semantic graph construction (3)• Connectivity
inducement– For each pair of
matched entities find all relationships in the ontology
– Each relationship has importance factor, based on semantics of information it defines
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
39
Example – NLP + ontology knowledgeFord Motor Co. is in the process of selling Jaguar and Land Rover,
according to Ford CEO Alan Mulally.
Ford Motor Company
Jaguar Cars
Land RoverAlan Mulally
Chief Executive OfficerJaguar (animal)
sells
sells
parent_company
parent_company
has_CEO
CEO_of
is_a
named_after
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
40
Thematic graph selection (1)• Removal of specific types of entities
(optional)– Specific for news documents– What? Who?
• Content of the news
– Where? When?• Date, time and place• Entities that may become hotspots in the created
document graph
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
41
Thematic graph selection (2)• Entity weight propagation
– Each entity has assigned initial match weight– Entities are connected by relationships with
given importance factor– Propagate weight using HITS 1 algorithm to find
best hub and authority entities– Best authoritative entities are most important
for document categorization – core of the graph
– Calculate centrality to find entities that are “topic landmarks”
jji
i vvdvCentrality
),(
1)(
(1) Kleinberg, J.M., Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment. in ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, (1998).
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
42
Thematic graph selection (3)• Selection of the dominant thematic graph
for categorization– Select connected component that is largest
and has maximum weight for further categorization
– Based on assumption that entities associated with the same or related topics are interconnected in ontology
– Effectively disambiguate many incorrectly matched entities
– Focus on one or few major topics of a document
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
43
Thematic graph examples
Ford Motor Company
Jaguar Cars
Land RoverAlan Mulally
Chief Executive OfficerJaguar (animal)
Sales
Business
Buyer Newspaper
Announcement
News
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
44
Thematic graph categorization• Categorization concentrates on selected
dominant thematic graph• Proposed methods
– Bottom-up category discovery• Class-category mapping
– Top-down category projection• Categorization based on context projection• Combination of categorization contexts for complex
categories
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
45
Bottom-up categorization (1)• Category discovery approach
– No category definitions are needed, only taxonomy from the ontology
– Bottom-up approach – discover categories based on classification of entities
– Best category should• Cover largest portion of entities in the thematic graph• Be most possible direct class for entities• Include entities from core of the graph
)
),(),(1
11(1)(
2
max
j k Cki
k
ji
jCi
eChw
eCh
whs
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
46
Bottom-up class discovery
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
47
Bottom-up categorization (2)• External categories are given as set of
classes– In case of Wikipedia and external corpora,
categories are defined as mapping of appropriate Wikipedia categories
• Previously discovered categories are matched with categories definitions– Top-k are considered for matching– Matching until one category becomes dominant
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
48
Entities and categories
Ford Motor Company
Jaguar Cars
Land Rover
Alan Mulally
Chief Executive Officer
Jaguar (animal)
Ford
Car Manufacturers
JaguarFord people
Ford executives
Living people
Felines
Panthera
PantherinaeOff-road wehicles
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
49
ExampleFord, utility ready to work on plug-in car Automaker, Southern California Edison to unveil alliance in
response to demand for energy-efficient vehicles.
DETROIT (Reuters) -- Ford Motor Co. and power utility Southern California Edison will announce an unusual alliance Monday aimed at clearing the way for a new generation of rechargeable electric cars, the companies said.
Ford (Charts , Fortune 500) Chief Executive Alan Mulally and Edison International (Charts , Fortune 500) Chief Executive John Bryson are scheduled to meet with reporters at Edison's headquarters in Rosemead, Calif., the companies said.
[...]
Led by Toyota Motor Corp's (Charts) Prius, the current generation of hybrid vehicles uses batteries to power the vehicle at low speeds and in to provide assistance during stop-and-go traffic and hard acceleration, delivering higher fuel economy.
General Motors Corp. (Charts , Fortune 500) has already begun work this year to develop its own plug-in hybrid car, designed to use little or no gasoline over short distances. The company showed off a concept version of the Chevrolet Volt in January at the Detroit Auto show and has awarded contracts to two battery makers to research advanced batteries for a possible production version.
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
50
ExampleFord, utility ready to work on plug-in car Automaker, Southern California Edison to
unveil alliance in response to demand for energy-efficient vehicles.
DETROIT (Reuters) -- Ford Motor Co. and power utility Southern California Edison will announce an unusual alliance Monday aimed at clearing the way for a new generation of rechargeable electric cars, the companies said.
Ford (Charts , Fortune 500) Chief Executive Alan Mulally and Edison International (Charts , Fortune 500) Chief Executive John Bryson are scheduled to meet with reporters at Edison's headquarters in Rosemead, Calif., the companies said.
[...]
Led by Toyota Motor Corp's (Charts) Prius, the current generation of hybrid vehicles uses batteries to power the vehicle at low speeds and in to provide assistance during stop-and-go traffic and hard acceleration, delivering higher fuel economy.
General Motors Corp. (Charts , Fortune 500) has already begun work this year to develop its own plug-in hybrid car, designed to use little or no gasoline over short distances. The company showed off a concept version of the Chevrolet Volt in January at the Detroit Auto show and has awarded contracts to two battery makers to research advanced batteries for a possible production version.
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
51
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
52
Example: graph properties• Initial number of vertexes : 205• Initial number of edges : 361• Largest component : 95• Component for analysis : 35• Central and most important entities:
– Hybrid_vehicle * Centrality 208, * weight 1.516873
– Automobile * Centrality 213, weight 1.249790,
– Internal_combustion_engine* Centrality 233, weight 1.069511
– Ford_Motor_CompanyCentrality 237, * weight 1.451533,
– Southern_California_EdisonCentrality 351, * weight 1.308824
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
53
Example: assigned categories• Category:Automobiles
– CAT instances <13>, (avg. height 2.384615)weight [0.874697]
• Category:Alternative_propulsion– CAT instances <4>, (avg. height 1.250000)
weight [0.873287]• Category:Car_manufacturers
– instances <3> (avg. height 1.000000) weight [0.781271]
• Category:Vehicles– CAT instances <13>, (avg. height 2.923077)
weight [0.647903]• Category:Transportation
– CAT instances <11>, (avg. Height 3.090909) weight [0.629714]
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
54
Top-down approach
• Need externally defined categories– Categories are given as classification contexts– Category can be defined as combination of
contexts
• Categorization process– Each context is projected onto the thematic
graph– Fitness score for each context is calculated– In case when category is defined as linear
combination of contexts, cosine similarity for fitness score is calculated
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
55
Categorization context
• Simplify definition of categories by classes and projection.
• Capture better user interest in categories to specify preferred type of entities.
• Define union, intersection, and difference of contexts for flexible context definition.
• Enable creating combination of contexts for defining more complex categories.
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
56
Hierarchical distance and projection• Distance between entity and
class – number of rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf properties
• Distance between entity and set of classes – minimum distance to all classes in the set
• Entity is not covered by a class (or any class in the set) – distance is zero
• Projection of context on instance base – instances with assigned hierarchical distance
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
57
Categorization into contexts
• Fitness score for context
• Hierarchical distance weighting function
to emphasize the weight of the nearest classes
n
cnHccnk
kHk CedisthwCedisthwTCfs )),((*)),((*),(
)),(()),(( )2,1( CedistNCedisth HH
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
58
Categorization context example
Business
Person
Business Person Business( )
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
59
Complex categories - composition of contexts
b s b s b combined with sLinear combination
of contexts
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
60
Top-down categorization
• For each defined categorization context calculate a fitness score using context projection onto instance base– If there are only “simple” context, fitness
scores can be compared directly to choose category
– Otherwise, create a vector space from the calculated fitness scores and calculate similarity (cosine) between category definition and context vector
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
61
Top-down classification
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
62
Experiments (1)
• Classic text categorization algorithms– BOW statistic classifier 1
– SVM implemented in Weka 2
• Text corpora– CNN (2007-07-03 – 2007-09-04)
• 2,590 news documents in 12 categories
– Reuters RCV1 (1996-08-20 – 1996-09-02)• 2,254 documents in 6 categories
• Mapping for Wikipedia categories– Created manually by mapping top Wikipedia categories
with corpora categories(1) McCallum, A.K. Bow: A toolkit for statistical language modeling, text retrieval, classification and clustering. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mccallum/bow, 1996.(2) Witten, I.H., Frank, E.: Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2005)
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
63
Experiments (2)
• Wikipedia ontology– Includes around 2,000,000 entries
• Multiple entity names (variations for matching)
– Has rich instance base (articles)– Internal href, templates and “infobox” relations
carry semantic connections among entries– Has large schema with categories – over
310,00 categories• They DO NOT form a taxonomy, just a graph (even
include cycles)
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
64
Experiments (3)
• Wikipedia 2 RDF– Created initially by dbpedia.org 1
– Creation of RDF – some modifications• Focus on href, infoboxes and templates
– Special relationships for entities in infoboxes and templates
– Only English version of Wikipedia• Entity name variations for matching
– Name, short name (no brackets), redirect, disambiguation, alternate names
(1) Auer, S. and Lehmann, J., What have Innsbruck and Leipzig in common? Extracting Semantics from Wiki Content. in European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC'07), (Innsbruck, Austria, 2007), Springer, 503-517.
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
65
Wikipedia categories
• Wikipedia categories DO NOT form a taxonomy– It is just a directed graph, that contains cycles.– Not possible to use subsumption for categories.– Thesaurus-like structure 1.
• Categories may be very deep and detailed, or very broad– Hard to pinpoint the cut-off point good for
categorization.– There is no simple mapping between news categories
and categories in Wikipedia.
(1) Voss, J. Collaborative thesaurus tagging the Wikipedia way. ArXiv Computer Science e-prints, cs/0604036.
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
66
Text corpora information
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
67
Text corpora – CNN mapping
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
68
Text corpora – Reuters mapping
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
69
Bottom-up categorization - OmniCat
OmniCat results using Wikipedia-CNN category mapping
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
70
Bottom-up categorization – BOW
BOW results on CNN corpora using Wikipedia training
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
71
Bottom-up categorization – BOW (2)
BOW results on Wikipedia corpora using Wikipedia training
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
72
Bottom-up categorization - Reuters
Comparison of BOW, SVM and OmniCat (bottom-up approach)on selected Reuters corpora
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
73
Top-down categorization - OmniCat
OmniCat results on CNN corpora using top-down approachwith categorization context projection
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
74
OmniCat categorization – CNN
Comparison of CNN corpora categorization results of BOW, SVM, OmniCat bottom-up (Onto), and OmniCat top-down (OmniCat)
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
75
OmniCat categorization – Reuters
Comparison of Reuters corpora categorization results of BOW, SVM, OmniCat bottom-up (Onto), and OmniCat top-down (OmniCat)
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
76
Misclassifications - text corpora and Wikipedia• Original text corpora categories
– Classified by people– Describe mostly article interest, not necessarily
its content• Frequently described reader’s interest rather than
true subject.
– Hard to match to Wikipedia categories
• Wikipedia categories– Content-based– Very detailed and deep– Some regions in ontology are better developed
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
77
Summary of work• Ontology storage and querying
– Brahms RDF/S storage– Sparqler – query language extension with path queries
• For use in Glycomics project
• OmniCat - Ontology-based categorization – Methodology for ontology-based categorization– Proposed two schemes of categorization– Defined categorization context, combination of contexts
for categorization– Implemented OmniCat prototype– Experiments using general-purpose ontology – RDF/S
graph created from the English Wikipedia– Published at ESAIR’08 and ICSC’08, submitted to
ISWC’08
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
78
Proposed work• Experiment with other ontologies and taxonomies for
categorization– Use categories extracted from Freebase or Dmoz– Categorize medical publications to MeSH using Wikipedia
references• Approach to categorization
– Include definitions of interesting structures (e.g. specific semantic associations) into categorization context
– Utilize context information in calculating and selecting the document core entities
– Use other similarity metrics for calculating thematic graph and ontology similarity
• OmniCat beyond text categorization– Study applicability of OmniCat approach for categorizing
ontologies with other (gold standard) ontologies– Document summarization using semantic graph (towards
proposition presented in [1])
(1) Leskovec, J., M. Grobelnik, et al. (2004). Learning Semantic Graph Mapping for Document Summarization. 8th European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (PKDD), Pisa, Italy.
Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Georgia
79
Published papers• Maciej Janik, Krys Kochut. "BRAHMS: A WorkBench RDF Store And High Performance
Memory System for Semantic Association Discovery", Fourth International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2005, Galway, Ireland, 6-10 November 2005
• Krys Kochut, Maciej Janik. "SPARQLeR: Extended Sparql for Semantic Association Discovery", Fourth European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2007, Innsbruck, Austria, 3-7 June 2007
• Matthew Perry, Maciej Janik, Cartic Ramakrishnan, Conrad Ibanez, Budak Arpinar, Amit Sheth. "Peer-to-Peer Discovery of Semantic Associations", Second International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Knowledge Management, San Diego, CA, July 17, 2005
• Maciej Janik, Krys Kochut. "Wikipedia in Action: Ontological Knowledge in Text Categorization", Second IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing, ICSC 2008, Santa Clara, CA, USA, August 2008 [to appear]
• Maciej Janik, Krys Kochut. "Training-less Ontology-based Text Categorization", Workshop on Exploiting Semantic Annotations in Information Retrieval (ESAIR 2008) at the 30th European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR'08), Glasgow, Scotland, 30 March 2008
• Matthew Eavenson, Maciej Janik, Shravya Nimmagadda, John A. Miller, Krys J. Kochut, William S. York. "GlycoBrowser - A Tool for Contextual Visualization of Biological Data and Pathways Using Ontologies", 4-th International Symposium on Bioinformatics Research and Applications (ISBRA2008), Atlanta, Georgia (May 2008)
• S. Nimmagadda, A. Basu, M. Evenson, J. Han, M. Janik, R. Narra, K. Nimmagadda, A. Sharma, K.J. Kochut, J.A. Miller and W. S. York, "GlycoVault: A Bioinformatics Infrastructure for Glycan Pathway Visualization, Analysis and Modeling," Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG'08), Las Vegas, Nevada (April 2008)