Difference between revisions of "A Survey of Current Link Discovery Frameworks"
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
|API=No data available now. | |API=No data available now. | ||
|InfoRepresentation=No data available now. | |InfoRepresentation=No data available now. | ||
+ | |Catalogue=- | ||
|OS=No data available now. | |OS=No data available now. | ||
|vendor=No data available now. | |vendor=No data available now. | ||
Line 37: | Line 38: | ||
|Motivation=No data available now. | |Motivation=No data available now. | ||
|ExperimentSetup=No data available now. | |ExperimentSetup=No data available now. | ||
− | |EvaluationMethod= | + | |EvaluationMethod=- |
|Hypothesis=No data available now. | |Hypothesis=No data available now. | ||
|Description=No data available now. | |Description=No data available now. | ||
− | |Benchmark= | + | |Benchmark=- |
|Results=No data available now. | |Results=No data available now. | ||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 22:39, 11 July 2018
A Survey of Current Link Discovery Frameworks | |
---|---|
A Survey of Current Link Discovery Frameworks
| |
Bibliographical Metadata | |
Subject: | Link Discovery |
Year: | 2017 |
Authors: | Markus Nentwig, Michael Hartung, Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo, Erhard Rahm |
Venue | Semantic Web Journal |
Content Metadata | |
Problem: | Link Discovery |
Approach: | No data available now. |
Implementation: | No data available now. |
Evaluation: | No data available now. |
Contents
Abstract
Links build the backbone of the Linked Data Cloud. With the steady growth in the size of datasets comes an increased need for end users to know which frameworks to use for deriving links between datasets. In this survey, we comparatively evaluate current Link Discovery tools and frameworks. For this purpose, we outline general requirements and derive a generic architecture of Link Discovery frameworks. Based on this generic architecture, we study and compare the features of state-of the-art linking frameworks. We also analyze reported performance evaluations for the different frameworks. Finally, we derive insights pertaining to possible future developments in the domain of Link Discovery.
Conclusion
We investigated ten LD frameworks and compared their functionality based on a common set of criteria. The criteria cover the main steps such as the configuration of linking specifications and methods for matching and runtime optimization. We also covered general aspects such as the supported input formats and link types, support for a GUI and software availability as open source. We observed that the considered tools already provide a rich functionality with support for semi-automatic configuration including advanced learning-based approaches such as unsupervised genetic programming or active learning. On the other side, we found that most tools still focus on simple property-based match techniques rather than using the ontological context within structural matchers. Furthermore, existing links and background knowledge are not yet exploited in the considered frameworks. More comprehensive support of efficiency techniques is also necessary such as the combined use of blocking, filtering and parallel processing. We also analyzed comparative evaluations of the LD frameworks to assess their relative effectiveness and efficiency. In this respect, the OAEI instance matching track is the most relevant effort and we thus analyzed its match tasks and the tool participation and results for the last years. Unfortunately, the participation has been rather low thereby preventing the comparative evaluation between most of the tools. Moreover, the focus of the contest has been on effectiveness so far while runtime efficiency has not yet been evaluated. To better assess the relative effectiveness and efficiency of LD tools it would be valuable to test them on a common set of benchmark tasks on the same hardware. Given the general availability of the tools and the existence of a considerable set of match task definitions and datasets this should be feasible with reasonable effort.
Future work
No Future work exists.
Approach
Positive Aspects: No data available now.
Negative Aspects: No data available now.
Limitations: No data available now.
Challenges: No data available now.
Proposes Algorithm: No data available now.
Methodology: No data available now.
Requirements: No data available now.
Limitations: No data available now.
Implementations
Download-page: No data available now.
Access API: No data available now.
Information Representation: No data available now.
Data Catalogue: -
Runs on OS: No data available now.
Vendor: No data available now.
Uses Framework: No data available now.
Has Documentation URL: No data available now.
Programming Language: No data available now.
Version: No data available now.
Platform: No data available now.
Toolbox: No data available now.
GUI: No
Research Problem
Subproblem of: No data available now.
RelatedProblem: No data available now.
Motivation: No data available now.
Evaluation
Experiment Setup: No data available now.
Evaluation Method : -
Hypothesis: No data available now.
Description: No data available now.
Dimensions: {{{Dimensions}}}
Benchmark used: -
Results: No data available now.
Access API | No data available now. + |
Event in series | Semantic Web Journal + |
Has Benchmark | - + |
Has Challenges | No data available now. + |
Has DataCatalouge | - + |
Has Description | No data available now. + |
Has Dimensions | {{{Dimensions}}} + |
Has DocumentationURL | http://No data available now. + |
Has Downloadpage | http://No data available now. + |
Has Evaluation | No data available now. + |
Has EvaluationMethod | - + |
Has ExperimentSetup | No data available now. + |
Has GUI | No + |
Has Hypothesis | No data available now. + |
Has Implementation | No data available now. + |
Has InfoRepresentation | No data available now. + |
Has Limitations | No data available now. + |
Has NegativeAspects | No data available now. + |
Has PositiveAspects | No data available now. + |
Has Requirements | No data available now. + |
Has Results | No data available now. + |
Has Subproblem | No data available now. + |
Has Version | No data available now. + |
Has abstract | Links build the backbone of the Linked Dat … Links build the backbone of the Linked Data Cloud. With the steady growth in the size of datasets comes an increased need for end users to know which frameworks to use for deriving links between datasets. In this survey, we comparatively evaluate current Link Discovery tools and frameworks. For this purpose, we outline general requirements and derive a generic
architecture of Link Discovery frameworks. Based on this generic architecture, we study and compare the features of state-of the-art linking frameworks. We also analyze reported performance evaluations for the different frameworks. Finally, we derive insights pertaining to possible future developments in the domain of Link Discovery. elopments in the domain of Link Discovery. + |
Has approach | No data available now. + |
Has authors | Markus Nentwig +, Michael Hartung +, Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo + and Erhard Rahm + |
Has conclusion | We investigated ten LD frameworks and comp … We investigated ten LD frameworks and compared their functionality based on a common set of criteria. The criteria cover the main steps such as the configuration of linking specifications and methods for matching and runtime optimization. We also covered general aspects such as the supported input formats and link types, support for a GUI and software availability as open source. We observed that the considered tools already provide a rich functionality with support for semi-automatic configuration including advanced learning-based approaches such as unsupervised genetic programming or active learning. On the other side, we found that most tools still focus on simple property-based match techniques rather than using the ontological context within structural matchers. Furthermore, existing links and background knowledge are not yet exploited in the considered frameworks. More comprehensive support of efficiency techniques is also necessary such as the combined use of blocking, filtering and parallel processing. We also analyzed comparative evaluations of the LD frameworks to assess their relative effectiveness and efficiency. In this respect, the OAEI instance matching track is the most relevant effort and we thus analyzed its match tasks and the tool participation and results for the last years. Unfortunately, the participation has been rather low thereby preventing the comparative evaluation between most of the tools. Moreover, the focus of the contest has been on effectiveness so far while runtime efficiency has not yet been evaluated. To better assess the relative effectiveness and efficiency of LD
tools it would be valuable to test them on a common set of benchmark tasks on the same hardware. Given the general availability of the tools and the existence of a considerable set of match task definitions and datasets this should be feasible with reasonable effort. should be feasible with reasonable effort. + |
Has future work | No Future work exists. + |
Has motivation | No data available now. + |
Has platform | No data available now. + |
Has problem | Link Discovery + |
Has relatedProblem | No data available now. + |
Has subject | Link Discovery + |
Has vendor | No data available now. + |
Has year | 2017 + |
ImplementedIn ProgLang | No data available now. + |
Proposes Algorithm | No data available now. + |
RunsOn OS | No data available now. + |
Title | A Survey of Current Link Discovery Frameworks + |
Uses Framework | No data available now. + |
Uses Methodology | No data available now. + |
Uses Toolbox | No data available now. + |