Identification and resolution of conflicts during ontological integration using rules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Integration of ontologies of information sources and consumers is an important phase in achieving web‐based interoperability. The present work describes an approach for identifying certain semantic conflicts while integrating ontologies of heterogeneous information sources. This paper is focused on the identification of homonymy and synonymy between elements in ontologies. In the present work the concepts of homonymy and synonymy are synonymous to naming conflicts and entity identifier conflicts, respectively, and partial synonymy is synonymous to schema isomorphism conflicts. The concept of the mask of interoperability is introduced for the identification of synonymy. The mask of interoperability is expressed in a declarative way as a set of rules, which can then be used for resolution of conflicts during integration of ontologies. As proof of concept, ontologies are implemented using the XML‐based ontology language Ontology Web Language (OWL), and the rules are implemented using the emerging rule language Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL). This representation in OWL and SWRL allows the ontology to be executable, flexibly extendable and platform‐independent. The OWL facts and SWRL rules are used by the Jess and Bossam reasoning engine to identify semantic homonymy and synonymy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".