1 / 25

Extracting Relations from XML Documents

C. T. Howard Ho. Joerg Gerhardt. Eugene Agichtein*. Vanja Josifovski. Extracting Relations from XML Documents. IBM Almaden and Columbia University*. Extraction for Data Integration: Motivating Example. External Schema. Native Schema. Products. Publications. video. books. music. book.

Télécharger la présentation

Extracting Relations from XML Documents

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. C. T. Howard Ho Joerg Gerhardt Eugene Agichtein* Vanja Josifovski Extracting Relations from XML Documents IBM Almaden and Columbia University*

  2. Extraction for Data Integration: Motivating Example External Schema Native Schema Products Publications video books music book item title author publisher ISBN price booktitle author publisher ISBN price

  3. Why Extract Data from XML? • XML query processing is still in development. Still not as fast as RDBMS • Relational query processing is still standard for many business applications • By extracting into one relational schema, avoid overhead of XML runtime data integration • Extracted relations can be best exploited for relatively static data (e.g., product catalogs)

  4. Related Work • XTRACT (induces DTDs) • Lore/DataGuides • HTML Wrappers (LixTo, RoadRunner, WHISK, STALKER, … ) • Plain Text Information Extraction (Proteus, Snowball, Rapier) • Supervised/Assisted XML Schema Mapping (e.g., Clio)

  5. Outline • Motivation • Problem statement • XMLMiner approach • Training XMLMiner • Extraction from new documents • Some observation from the prototype • Summary

  6. Problem Statement • Given a target flat relation R, extract information for the tuples in R from XML (or HTML) documents, with potentially significant variations in schema. • Problems with current integration/extraction approaches: • Hard-coding the rules/queries requires significant effort; The resulting rules can be brittle. • XML Schema or DTD is not always provided

  7. XMLMiner Approach • Learn signatures from example XML documents • Represent document structure while maintaining flexibility (to allow schema variations) • Assume that a tuple in the target relation corresponds to a subtree rooted at an instancenode.(The subtree may contain more detailed info of the tuple than needed.) • Represent input document nodes as vectors, and then find the closest (i.e., most similar) instance node vector • Use labels and data values to map children of the instance node to target tuple attributes

  8. XMLMiner Architecture: Training and Extraction Canonical Tree Canonical Tree

  9. High Level Description • Training: • Each XML document is merged/split to a schema-like tree, called canonical tree • User identifies the attributes nodes (under instance node), corresponding to the target tuple attributes • System derives the instance node in the tree • Build a model for the structure of the tuple and each attribute • Extracting: • Apply the model to find the most likely instance node and attribute nodes in the new XML documents

  10. Training Stage I: Create Canonical Tree for each Example Document

  11. Canonical Form Conversion Example:Merging Similar Nodes Original Document Structure “Merged” Document • Merge all siblings with the same label (e.g., Item  Item*) • Intuition: Siblings with the same label represent “similar” entities.

  12. Example: Split Heterogeneous Nodes  Canonical Form Canonical Tree:

  13. Training Stage I Result: Canonical Tree OriginalDocument: Canonical Form:

  14. Training Stage II: Generate Instance Node Signatures • Features used to createsignatures for an instance node I(item)in the canonical tree: • A: Ancestors of I • S: Siblings of I • C: Descendants of I • I: Self: Tag of I • Siblings and Ancestors position of I in the document • The Descendants :  internal structure of I

  15. Training Stage (cont.):Example Instance Node Signature Signature (A,S,C,I) for Item:[A: { “Products”, “Books”},S: { “Category_Desc”},C: { “Title”, “Author”, “Publisher”, “New”, “Used”, “ISBN”, “Price”, “Num_Copies” }I: {“Item”} ]

  16. Signature Similarity • Vector Space model, TF*IDF weights for terms • Incorporates structure (similarity-by-region) SX: [ A: { “Products”:1, }, S: { “Music”:0.33, “Video”:0.33}, C: { “Title”:0.33, “Author”:0.33, “Publisher”:0.33, “New”:0.2, “Used”:0.2, “ISBN”:0.6, “Price”:0.2, “Copies”:0.5 }, I: {“Item”} ] SY:[ A: { “Products”:1, “Books”:0.5}, S: { “CDs”:0.5}, C: { “Title”:0.33, “Author”:0.33, “Publisher”:0.33, “ISBN”:0.6, “Price”:0.2, “Copies”:0.5 }, I: {“Book”} ] Similarity(SX, SY) = SX.A *SY.A+ SX.S *SY.S+ +SX.C *SY.C+ SX.I *SY.I

  17. Training Stage III: Attribute Signatures • Structural + Data signature S(D, A, S, C, I) • 1: Data signature Dfor the values of R.X(e.g., can be a histogram of values for X) • Structure signature for attribute X:(A; S; C; I): • Similar to instance signature • Original instance node  “document” root, • A  ancestors (Item, Publisher, New) • I  self (ISBN) • S  siblings (Price, NumCopies) • C  null.

  18. Outline • Motivation • Problem statement • XMLMiner approach • Training XMLMiner • Extraction from new documents • XMLMiner prototype • Summary

  19. Extraction Stage • Assumption: Input documents have internal regularity • Compute canonical tree for some of the input documents • Build signature of each node in the canonical form, and compute similarity with known instance node signatures • Map descendants of highest scoring node to attributes of target table using attribute signatures

  20. Extraction I: Represent test documents in canonical form Canonical Form Test Document Publications Publications book book book* editor title author publisher editor title author publisher ISBN price ISBN price • Intuition: • Robustness (allows “optional” nodes) • Efficiency: Canonical form has fewer nodes that original tree

  21. Extraction II: Find Instance Node in Canonical Tree Publications • For each node K in CT • Compute Signature of KSK • Compute score for K as Similarity( SK , SI ) • SI is the signature of instance node I from training • The node with highest score is the instance node in CT book* editor title author publisher ISBN price

  22. Extraction III: Map children of instance node to attributes book* editor title author publisher • For each node J of subtree at K • For each attribute X of R • ASJ Attribute Signature of J • ASX Attribute Signature of X • Compute score for J as Similarity( ASJ ,ASX ) • Pick mapping such that Product of the scores over attributes of R is maximized. ISBN price

  23. Extraction IV: Generate XPath queries for the new documents • Apply XPath queries to the “new” XML documents • Simple XPath queries can be handled by Xerces parser or more advanced “streaming parser”

  24. XMLMiner Prototype Successfully finds best instance node (“Book”) in test document

  25. Summary • Partially supervised, low effort XML relational extraction • Flexible vector space representation that preserves some original structure • Can potentially be more robust than current state-of-the-art systems that rely on rules

More Related