1 / 10

Comparing points of view underlying databases

http://geonto.lri.fr http://recherche.ign.fr/labos/cogit. Comparing points of view underlying databases. Sébastien Mustière IGN / COGIT Lab. Institutional context. Research on database integration in a NMA Started in 1993 Reference topographic data / user thematic data

etenia
Download Presentation

Comparing points of view underlying databases

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. http://geonto.lri.fr http://recherche.ign.fr/labos/cogit Comparing points of view underlying databases Sébastien Mustière IGN / COGIT Lab

  2. Institutional context Research on database integration in a NMA Started in 1993 Reference topographic data / user thematic data French research project GeOnto on "Creation, Comparison and Use of Geographic Ontologies" 2008-2011 IGN / COGIT Lab (database integration) INRIA / Univ. Orsay (ontology alignment) CNRS / Univ. Toulouse (natural language processing for ontologies) Univ. Pau (natural language processing and spatial annotation of texts)

  3. Multiplicity of points of view • Need for understanding differences btw pieces of geographic information • For data integration, evaluation of fitness for use, generalisation…

  4. 16 Zimbabwe  14 12 10 Sudan  Tree Height (m) 8 Turkey  Tanzania Mozambique  Morocco  Ethiopia UnitedNations -FRA2000 New Zealand  6 Denmark  PNG  Luxembourg  Netherlands  SADC Namibia  Malaysia  Cambodia  Belgium UNESCO Jamaica  Australia  Somalia  Japan  4 Israel  UnitedStates Gambia  Switzerland  South Africa  Mexico  2 Kyrgyzstan Kenya  Portugal Estonia 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Canopy Cover (%) Comparing schemas is not enough • Schemas define the organisation of data • Schemas do not (sufficiently) define semantics EXAMPLE Unique schema (e.g. INSPIRE schema) Data 1 Data 2 Different data (e.g. National data) from [Comber, Ficher et Wadsworth 2005]

  5. Point of view 1 Point of view 2 Specifications Specifications Global approach DB 1 DB 2 ???

  6. From specifications to taxonomies • Natural Language Processing to semi-automatically create ontologies from textual documents[Laurence 2006] • Done: 2 taxonomies (Fre/Eng) from 2 databases specifications, 700 concepts each • Under dvpt: more general tools • Under dvpt: taxonomy from old travelers books • Under dvpt: heavier ontologies (relations...)

  7. Modeling specifications • Formal model definition [Gesbert 2005] done • Use of some natural language processing tools for instantiating the model [Picard 2007] done “All permanentwatercourses are captured except aqueducts...”

  8. Using formal specifications and taxonomies • Portal for discovering databases [Horel 2007]to be ctd • Data matching [Olteanu 2008] done • Schema matching [Abadie 2009] under dvpt

  9. Ontology/Taxonomy fusion • Alignment (matching) and fusion Ongoing work

  10. Comparing ontologies • Open problem: A distance between ontologies • To answer to... • Same point of view but different vocabularies? • Different thematic areas? • Different levels of detail? • Fusion is pertinent?... • ...in the context of my “real” ontologies • Very light (even taxonomies, list of terms) • Very imperfect (automatically made) • Something specific for geographic ontologies?

More Related