Another Word For It Patrick Durusau on Topic Maps and Semantic Diversity

December 24, 2010

idMesh: Graph-Based Disambiguation of Linked Data

Filed under: Entity Resolution,Linked Data,Topic Maps — Patrick Durusau @ 9:21 am

idMesh: Graph-Based Disambiguation of Linked Data Authors: Philippe Cudré-Mauroux, Parisa Haghani, Michael Jost, Karl Aberer, Hermann de Meer

Abstract:

We tackle the problem of disambiguating entities on the Web. We propose a user-driven scheme where graphs of entities – represented by globally identifiable declarative artifacts – self-organize in a dynamic and probabilistic manner. Our solution has the following two desirable properties: i) it lets end-users freely define associations between arbitrary entities and ii) it probabilistically infers entity relationships based on uncertain links using constraint-satisfaction mechanisms. We outline the interface between our scheme and the current data Web, and show how higher-layer applications can take advantage of our approach to enhance search and update of information relating to online entities. We describe a decentralized infrastructure supporting efficient and scalable entity disambiguation and demonstrate the practicability of our approach in a deployment over several hundreds of machines.

Interesting paper but disappointing in that indication of equivalence between links is the only option for indicating equivalence of entities.

While that is true for Linked Data and the Semantic Web in general (see OWL:sameAs), topic maps has long supported a more robust, declarative approach.

The Topic Maps Data Model (TMDM) defines default merging for topics, but leaves open the specification of additional bases for merging.

The Topic Maps Reference Model (TMRM) does not define any merging rules at all but enables legends to make their own choices with regard to bases for merging.

The problem engendered by indicating equivalence by use of IRIs is just that, all you have is an indication of equivalence.

There is no indication of why, on what basis, etc., two (or more), IRIs are thought to indicate the same subject.

Which means there is no basis on which to compare them with other representatives for the same subject.

As well as no basis for perhaps re-using that declaration of equivalence.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress