Both of them are widely used to type DBpedia resources but it seems that YAGO has much more classes or concepts organized using rdfs:subClassOf predicate. Despite this, it is not clear if, for example, that class hierarchy is a DAG (like in DBpedia), how many classes conform it, etc.
DBpedia is a community effort to extract structured information from Wikipedia. In this sense, both YAGO and DBpedia share the same goal of generating a structured ontology. The projects differ in their foci. In YAGO, the focus is on precision, the taxonomic structure, and the spatial and temporal dimension. For a detailed comparison of the projects, see Chapter 10.3 of our AI journal paper "YAGO2: A Spatially and Temporally Enhanced Knowledge Base from Wikipedia".
[Link: http://resources.mpi-inf.mpg.de/yago-naga/yago/publications/aij.pdf]
Related
I am looking for an approach in NLP , where i can generate a concept tree from a set of keywords.
Here is the scenario, i have extracted a set of keywords from a research paper. Now i want to arrange these keywords in form of a tree where most general keyword comes on top. At next level of tree will have keywords that are important to understand upper level concept and will be more specific as compared to upper level keywords. And the same way tree will grow.
Something like this :
I know there are many resources that can help me to solve this problem. Like Wikipedia dataset, Wordnet. But i do not know how to proceed with them.
My preferred programming language is Python. Do you know any python library or package which generate this?
I am also very interested to see the use of Machine learning approach to solve this problem.
I will really appreciate your any kind of help.
One way of looking at the problem is, given a set of documents, identify topics from them and also the dependencies between the topics.
So, for example, if you have some research papers as input (large set of documents), the output would be what topics the papers are on and how those topics are related in a hierarchy/tree. One research area that tries to tackle this is Hierarchical topic modeling and you can read more about this here and here.
But if you are just looking at creating a tree out of a bunch of keywords (that are somehow obtained) and no other information is available, then it needs knowledge of real world relationships and can perhaps be a rule-based system where we define Math --> Algebra and so on.
There is no way for a system to understand that algebra comes under math other than by looking at large no. of documents and inferring that relationship (see first suggestion) or if we manually map that relationship (perhaps, a rule-based system). That is how even humans learn those relationships.
I am a beginner in the field of ontologies, ontology alignment and composition of ontologies. What is the purpose of the composition of ontologies and on what basis it is performed and how ?
One of the main advantages of using ontologies is knowledge sharing. Different people from various backgrounds might develop the same ontology. This will often result in having different labels for the same concepts or relations. In order to be able to take advantage of having multiple ontologies in the same domain, for example for having a more comprehensive and expressive domain ontology, ontology matching/alignment comes to play. In the ontology matching, a mapping between concepts an relations of various ontologies is created.
For example, before national cancer institute came up with the first version of their cancer ontology, there were multiple ontologies modelling cancer around. They started by combining the various available ontologies and creating a central, more reliable ontology.
There are various algorithms for ontology matching. The algorithms normally are categorised based on:
input
process
output
Broadly putting it, you can either match on element to element basis, or based on the structure. The tools that can be used for matching can be linguistic resources such as WordNet for semantic matching, or domain specific resources, statistical approaches, taxonomy, various models, and etc.There are too much research in this area and you should really consider using google scholar.
I'm trying to do some date mining with DBpedia. Now I have a dataset with properties of DBpedia ontology and DBpedia mapping and I'm not sure about the difference between those two.
What is the difference between DBpedia ontology and DBpedia mapping?
In short, DBpedia a very valuable resource for the semantic web community, but compared to Wikipedia it is quite small. Also, due to contribution of various people to Wikipedia, the infobox information is no harmonised. Therefore, a mapping language has been created to define synonymy between infobox relations and DBpedia properties.
One of the challenges in extracting information from Wikipedia is that the same concepts can be expressed using different parameters in infobox and other templates, such as |birthplace= and |placeofbirth=. Because of this, queries about where people were born would have to search for both of these properties in order to get more complete results. As a result, the DBpedia Mapping Language has been developed to help in mapping these properties to an ontology while reducing the number of synonyms. Due to the large diversity of infoboxes and properties in use on Wikipedia, the process of developing and improving these mappings has been opened to public contributions.
I have a bunch of text documents that describe diseases. Those documents are in most cases quite short and often only contain a single sentence. An example is given here:
Primary pulmonary hypertension is a progressive disease in which widespread occlusion of the smallest pulmonary arteries leads to increased pulmonary vascular resistance, and subsequently right ventricular failure.
What I need is a tool that finds all disease terms (e.g. "pulmonary hypertension" in this case) in the sentences and maps them to a controlled vocabulary like MeSH.
Thanks in advance for your answers!
Here are two pipelines that are specifically designed for medical document parsing:
Apache cTAKES
NLM's MetaMap
Both use UMLS, the unified medical language system, and thus require that you have a (free) license. Both are Java and more or less easy to set up.
See http://www.ebi.ac.uk/webservices/whatizit/info.jsf
Whatizit is a text processing system that allows you to do textmining
tasks on text. The tasks come defined by the pipelines in the drop
down list of the above window and the text can be pasted in the text
area.
You could also ask biostars: http://www.biostars.org/show/questions/
there are many tools to do that. some popular ones:
NLTK (python)
LingPipe (java)
Stanford NER (java)
OpenCalais (web service)
Illinois NER (java)
most of them come with some predefined models, i.e. they've already been trained on some general datasets (news articles, etc.). however, your texts are pretty specific, so you might want to first constitute a corpus and re-train one of those tools, in order to adjust it to your data.
more simply, as a first test, you can try a dictionary-based approach: design a list of entity names, and perform some exact or approximate matching. for instance, this operation is decribed in LingPipe's tutorial.
Open Targets has a module for this as part of LINK. It's not meant to be used directly so it might require some hacking and tinkering, but it's the most complete medical NER (named entity recognition) tool I've found for python. For more info, read their blog post.
a bash script that has as example a lexicon generated from the disease ontology:
https://github.com/lasigeBioTM/MER
Neo4j is a really fast and scalable graph database, it seems that it can be used on business projects and it is free, too!
At the same time, there are no RDF triple stores that work well with large data or deliver a high-speed access. And what is more, free RDF triple stores perform even worse.
So what is the advantage of RDF and RDF triple stores to Neo4j?
The advantage of using a triple store for RDF rather than Neo4j is that that's what they're designed for. Neo4j is pretty good for many use cases, but in my experience its performance for loading and querying RDF is well below all dedicated RDF databases.
It's a fallacy that RDF databases don't scale or are not fast. Sure, they're not yet up to the performance & scale levels that relational databases have, but they have a 50 year head start. Many triple stores scale into the billions of triples, provide 'standard' enterprise features, and provide great performance for many use cases.
If you're going to use RDF for a project, use a triple store; it's going to provide the best performance and set of features/APIs for working with RDF to build your application.
RDF and SPARQL are standards, so you have a choice of multiple implementations, and can migrate your data from one RDF store to another.
Additionally, version 1.1 of the SPARQL query language is quite sophisticated (more expressive than most SQL implementations) and can do all kinds of queries that would require a lot of code to be written in Neo4J.
If you are going for graph mining (e.g., graph traversal) upon triples, neo4j is a good choice. For the large triples, you might want to use its batchInserter which is fairly fast.
So I think it's all about your use case. Both technologies can and do overlap.
In my mind, there its mostly about the use case. Do you want a full knowledge graph including all the ecosystems from the semantic web? Then go for the triple store.
If you need a general-purpose graph (e.g. store big data as a graph) use the property graph model. My reasoning is, that the underlying philosophy is very much different and this starts with how the data is stored which has implications for your usage scenario.
let's do some out-of-mind bullet points here to compare. Take it with a grain of salt please as this is not a benchmark paper just some experience-based 5 min write down.
Property graph (neo4j):
Think of nodes/Edges as documents
Implemented on top of e.g. linked list, key-value stores (deep searches, large data e.g. via gremlin)
Support for OWL/RDF but not natively (as i see its on a meta layer)
Really great when it comes to having the data in the graph and doing ML (it stores it as linked lists that gives you nice vectors which is cool for ML out of the box)
Made for large data at scale.
Use Cases: (focus is on the data entities and not their classes)
Social Graphs and other scenarios where you need deep traversal
Large data graphs, where you have a lot of documents that need to be searched in a schema-free graph manner .
Analyzing customer funnels from click data etc. You want to move out of your relational schema because actually, you are in a graph use case...
Triple Store (E.g. rdf4j)
Think of data in maximum normal form as triples (no redundant data at all)
Triples are stored in context triples. Works a lot with index.
Broad but searches and specific knowledge extractions. Deep searches are sometimes cumbersome.
Scale is impressive and can scale to trillions of nodes with fast performance. But i would not recommend storing big data in the graph e.g. time-series or so. The reason is the special way how indexes are used and in order to scale horizontally, you may consider working with subgraphs ...
Support for all the ecosystems like SPARQL, SHACL, SWIRL etc. this is a big plus in case
Use cases:
It's really about knowledge graphs. Do you need shape testing, rule evaluation, inference, and reasoning? Go for it because you have to focus on the ontology and class structure!
Also e.g. you have IoT and want to configure relations for logistics and smart factory while the telemetry is stored somewhere else and only referenced in the graph.
I have heard rumors that it takes whole day to load 10M triples into Neo4j (it is actually the slowest one because it's not built primarily for RDF).
Sesame and 4Store are the fastest ones but Jena has powerful API.