220 likes | 309 Vues
Explore how descriptive graphs improve web searching by organizing information logically, using ontologies, and measuring precision. Learn about composite antecedents, partial identity, and similarity coefficient in information retrieval.
E N D
Improving Web Searching Using Descriptive Graphs Alain Couchot Cnam, Laboratoire Cedric, Equipe Isid
The web today • Information and services for the user • Excess of information • How find the good information ? • Need of information usable by computers
Semantic web • Semantic annotations • Intelligible by the computers • Need of a consensus • Communication between distant computers • Addition of a « ontology » layer
Ontologies • Set of objects recognized as existing • Relationships between these objects • Two views : • Universal ontology • Ontology depending from the point of view
Drawbacks of ontologies • Global ontology : • Need of a general consensus • Local ontology : • Problem of the inter-ontologies links • Problem of the choice of the « good » ontology for the user
Simple ontology • Set of concepts • Irreflexive, antisymmetric and transitive relation, noted < • Universal concept
Global terminology • Set of simple ontologies • If c1 and c2 belong to Oi, with c1 < c2, then if c1 and c2 belong to Oj,we have c1 < c2, or c1 and c2 are not linked
Descriptive graphs • Oriented graph built with a simple ontology • A node is labelled by a concept of the simple ontology • A node has one incoming node and one outgoing node
Precision of a graph • Subsumption graph • Subsomption hierarchy • Precision of a concept c • Length of the longest path in the subsumption graph from the universal concept to the concept c • Precision of a descriptive graph • The greatest precision of the concepts of the graph
Example • Ontology • Piece of furniture, table, antique dealer, customer, buy, at, (implicit universal concept) • With : table < piece of furniture • Graph • customerbuytable atantique dealer • Precision of the graph • 3
Average and significant precisions • Average precision of a concept • Average of the precisions of the concept for all the ontologies of the terminology • Significant precision of a graph • Average of the average precisions of the concepts of the graph
Example • Ontology O1 • Piece of furniture, table, antique dealer, customer • With table < piece of furniture • Ontology O2 • table, antique dealer, customer • Average precision of « table » • (3+2)/2 = 2.5
Composite antecedent • Precision k antecedent of a concept • Hypernym concept whose precision is k • It is possible to prove that there is always a precision k antecedent • Composite precision k antecedent • Conjunction of all the precision k antecedents
Example • Ontology • Graduate student, student, teacher • With : graduate student < student and graduate student < teacher • Precision 2 composite antecedent of graduate student • student AND teacher
Partial identity • Partial identity of two composite antecedents A and B • A = a1 AND a2 AND … AND am • B = b1 AND b2 AND … AND bn • A and B partieallly identical if there is i, j / ai = bj • Example • A =land-vehicle AND amphibian-vehicle • B = land-vehicle AND flying-vehicle
View of a graph at the level k • A concept whose précision is > k is replaced by its composite precision k antecedent • Notation :V(G, k) • Two views V1 = C1C2…Cn and V2 = D1 D2…Dp are identical if n = p and if the composite concepts Ci and Di are partially identical
Example • Ontology • Piece of furniture, table, antique dealer, customer, buy, at • With: table < piece of furniture • Graph G • customerbuytable atantique dealer • V(G,2) • customerbuypiece of furniture atantique dealer
Similarity of two graphs • We determine k1 and k2 such as • V(G1, k1) and V(G2, k2) are identical • V(G1, k1+1) and V(G2, k2) are not identical • V(G1, k1) and V(G2, k2+1) are not identical • Similarity coefficient • (Sign_Prec(V(G1,k1))+Sign_Prec(V(G2, k2))) / (Sign_Prec(G1)+Sign_Prec(G2))
Example • Ontology O1 • customer, antique dealer, buy, at, piece of furniture, table, leg, decoration, good, seller • With: leg < table < piece of furniture and piece of furniture < good and antique dealer < seller • Ontology O2 • customer, seller, bibelot, decoration, buy, at • With: bibelot < decoration
Example • Graph G1 built with O1 • customerbuylegatantique dealer • V(G1,4) • customerbuytableatantique dealer • V(G1,3) • customerbuypiece of furnitureatantique dealer • V(G1,2) • customerbuydecorationatseller
Example • Graph G2 built with O2 • customerbuybibelotatseller • V(G2,2) • customerbuydecorationatseller • V(G1,2) and V(G2,2) are identical • Similarity coefficient • (2 + 2) / (2.8 + 2.2) = 0.8
Conclusion • Global terminology and simple ontologies • Descriptive graphs • View of a graph • Similarity coefficient • Future work • Automatic buildong of the descriptive graphs associated to the web ressources • Specifcation of the queries using the natural language