2021
DOI: 10.1109/access.2021.3057081
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ontology Matching: State of the Art, Future Challenges, and Thinking Based on Utilized Information

Abstract: Information used in existing ontology matching solutions are usually grouped into four categories: lexical information, structural information, semantic information, and external information, respectively. By summarizing and analyzing the approaches for utilizing the same kind of information, this paper finds that lexical information is mainly analyzed based on text and dictionary similarity. Similarly, structural information and semantic information are mainly analyzed based on graph structure and reasoner, r… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The dataset contained 127, 546 distinct words after preprocessing, presenting a challenge due to its substantial size and potential computational complexity in subsequent analyses. In this study, the WordNet ontology [49], [50] technique was employed to hierarchically organize words based on their semantic relationships and contextual meanings. This method categorized words into clusters or groups according to their similarities in meaning or usage, effectively consolidating redundant or closely related terms.…”
Section: Dataset Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dataset contained 127, 546 distinct words after preprocessing, presenting a challenge due to its substantial size and potential computational complexity in subsequent analyses. In this study, the WordNet ontology [49], [50] technique was employed to hierarchically organize words based on their semantic relationships and contextual meanings. This method categorized words into clusters or groups according to their similarities in meaning or usage, effectively consolidating redundant or closely related terms.…”
Section: Dataset Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…for graph querying (De Virgilio et al, 2013), where one measures the similarity between a small query graph and parts of the a larger RDF graph (representing the dataset on which the query is executed) by looking for the portions of the larger graph most similar to the query. Similar metrics are used in the field of ontology matching (Shvaiko and Euzenat, 2013;Liu et al, 2021), where the aim is to handle the problem of semantic heterogeneity, by finding relations between entities from distinct ontologies that share a similar description. Another possibility to assess the similarity of semantic graph nodes is to use graph embeddings (Trisedya et al, 2019) that map graph nodes into points in a high dimensional metric space, and measure node similarity through the distance between the corresponding points.…”
Section: Semantic Aspectmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is where ontology alignment, also known as ontology matching, plays a crucial role. However, the challenges inherent in the reuse process are also reflected in ontology alignment [13][14][15][16], given that ontologies are developed independently by different knowledge engineers, each with their unique perspectives. Therefore, a holistic approach must be taken when aligning ontologies, accounting for variations in vocabulary, concept semantics, and structures.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%