Participants of this task are expected to create pairwaise alignments between three large subject heading lists. The required alignments links are inspired by the SKOS vocabulary. Results will be evaluated by members of the TELplus project using a gold standard established by the MACS project.
This task is similar, from a methodological perspective, to the OAEI 2008 Library track. It uses however a different dataset.
Results have been submitted. Evaluation is available here.
The vocabularies to align are:
The concepts from the three vocabularies are used as subjects of books. For each concept, the usual SKOS lexical and semantic information is provided: preferred labels, synonyms and notes, broader and related concepts, etc. For the purpose of the alignment, the three thesauri have been represented according to the SKOS model, which provides with all these features. But an OWL version is available (see the appendix for more details).
Even though two of these vocabularies are available online as RDF data, we will provide dumps for the convenience of participants.
We will also make available a part of the MACS manual mappings between these vocabularies, which can be used as a learning set.
The expected alignments shall come in the format defined for the Ontology Alignment API.
As the context of the task is clearly thesaurus-based information systems,
the alignment links to be produced shall be compatible with standard
thesaurus semantic links. Especially expected are alignment links found in
the SKOS vocabulary
namespace (http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#, referred to as
skos:):
skos:exactMatch or skos:closeMatch which denote semantic equivalence (more or less strong) between two
concepts;skos:broadMatch and skos:narrowMatch,
denoting hierarchical generalization and specialization;skos:relatedMatch, denoting general association.It is also possible to handle alignment results in the form of OWL
statements (rdfs:subClassOf,
owl:equivalentClass,...). But these will be interpreted
according to the rules presented in the appendix on
OWL.
Note on alignment cardinality and confidence measure:
Note on the use of learning set: depending on the systems' using the partial MACS learning set, and our own evaluation possibilities, we will try to measure the positive effect of using that learning set. In that case we will ask the participants to submit two versions of their alignments, as done when for subtracks 1 and 4 of the Anatomy track.
A special attention will be given to application relevance. As for last year, criteria for evaluation will be chosen according to specific application scenarios like re-annotation. In particular, we plan to perform automatic evaluation in the context of re-annotation of books from one subject vocabulary to the other, using sets of books that are common to two collections at a time. We will also perform evaluation against a manually built partial gold standard, namely the mappings established by the MACS project.
Within the evaluation we try to focus on the following aspects:
Please notice that this e-mail process is not only expected to ensure compliance with IP situation. It will also help us to keep contact with participants, for instance if a new version of the data is produced, after a complaint by a participant.
Patrice Landry, Genevieve Clavel and Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers for the MACS data. For LCSH, RAMEAU and SWD, respectively, The Library of Congress, The French National Library and the German National Library.
Please send any questions and comments to Antoine Isaac and Shenghui Wang.
In case the participants' tool cannot input or output the proposed SKOS data, OWL versions are provided, and alignments using OWL properties can be evaluated. Notice, however, that this amounts to making specific interpretations of the original data and produced alignments, and might reduce the quality of the final results.
The following conversions were made regarding the SKOS data made available for the track (see also here):
skos:Concept are converted into instances of
owl:Class;skos:prefLabel, skos:altLabel and
skos:hiddenLabel statements are converted to
rdfs:label statements, which removes the subtle distinctions
that exist between these different properties (for instance, many
altLabels are not synonyms at all)skos:notes are converted to
rdfs:comments;skos:broader statements are converted into
rdfs:subClassOf statements;skos:related statements are converted into
rdfs:seeAlso statements.The following interpretations will be made of OWL data sent back by participants:
owl:Class will be interpreted as instances of
skos:Concept;owl:equivalentClass statements will be interpreted as
skos:exactMatch statements;skos:Concept and not owl:Class) using
owl:sameAs, these statements will also be interpreted as
skos:exactMatchs;rdfs:subClassOf statements will be interpreted as
skos:broaderMatch statements;rdfs:seeAlso statements will be interpreted as
skos:relatedMatch statements.Initial location of this page: http://www.few.vu.nl/~aisaac/oaei2009/