Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Framework for Quality Assessment of Semantic Annotations of Tabular Data

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
The Semantic Web – ISWC 2021 (ISWC 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12922))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Much information is conveyed within tables, which can be semantically annotated by humans or (semi)automatic approaches. Nevertheless, many applications cannot take full advantage of semantic annotations because of the low quality. A few methodologies exist for the quality assessment of semantic annotation of tabular data, but they do not automatically assess the quality as a multidimensional concept through different quality dimensions. The quality dimensions are implemented in STILTool 2, a web application to automate the quality assessment of the annotations. The evaluation is carried out by comparing the quality of semantic annotations with gold standards. The work presented here has been applied to at least three use cases. The results show that our approach can give us hints about the quality issues and how to address them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://wiki.dbpedia.org/.

  2. 2.

    http://webdatacommons.org/webtables/goldstandardV2.html table index: 14311244_0_7604843865524657408, 49801939_0_6964113429298874283.

  3. 3.

    http://dbpedia.org/resource/Mountain.

  4. 4.

    https://stiltool.disco.unimib.it/.

  5. 5.

    https://www.djangoproject.com/.

  6. 6.

    https://www.mongodb.com/.

  7. 7.

    https://bitbucket.org/disco_unimib/stiltool/.

  8. 8.

    https://hub.docker.com/repository/docker/cremarco/stiltool.

  9. 9.

    http://www.haproxy.org/.

  10. 10.

    https://docs.celeryproject.org/en/latest/userguide/workers.html.

  11. 11.

    https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/isg/challenges/sem-tab/2020/index.html.

  12. 12.

    http://webdatacommons.org/webtables/goldstandardV2.html.

  13. 13.

    http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/isg/challenges/sem-tab/.

  14. 14.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc_(Moon).

References

  1. Cremaschi, M., Siano, A., Avogadro, R., Jimenez-Ruiz, E., Maurino, A.: STILTool: a semantic table interpretation evaLuation tool. In: Harth, A., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2020. LNCS, vol. 12124, pp. 61–66. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62327-2_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Cutrona, V., Bianchi, F., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Palmonari, M.: Tough tables: carefully evaluating entity linking for tabular data. In: Pan, J.Z., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2020. LNCS, vol. 12507, pp. 328–343. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62466-8_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Debattista, J., Auer, S., Lange, C.: Luzzu-a methodology and framework for linked data quality assessment. JDIQ 8(1) (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Debattista, J., Lange, C., Auer, S., Cortis, D.: Evaluating the quality of the LOD cloud: an empirical investigation. SWJ 9(6), 859–901 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dimou, A., et al.: DBpedia mappings quality assessment. In: Poster & Demo at ISWC, vol. 1690. CEUR (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dimou, A., et al.: Assessing and refining mappings to RDF to improve dataset quality. In: Arenas, M., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9367, pp. 133–149. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25010-6_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Fetahu, B., Anand, A., Koutraki, M.: TableNet: an approach for determining fine-grained relations for Wikipedia tables. In: WWW 2019, pp. 2736–2742. ACM (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hogan, A., Umbrich, J., Harth, A., Cyganiak, R., Polleres, A., Decker, S.: An empirical survey of linked data conformance. JWS 14, 14–44 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Hassanzadeh, O., Efthymiou, V., Chen, J., Srinivas, K.: SemTab 2019: resources to benchmark tabular data to knowledge graph matching systems. In: Harth, A., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2020. LNCS, vol. 12123, pp. 514–530. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49461-2_30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Jimenéz-Ruiz, E., Hassanzadeh, O., Efthymiou, V., Chen, J., Srinivas, K., Cutrona, V.: Results of SemTab 2020. In: Proceedings of the Semantic Web Challenge on Tabular Data to Knowledge Graph Matching, vol. 2775, pp. 1–8 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Junior, A.C., Debattista, J., O’Sullivan, D.: Assessing the quality of R2RML mappings. In: Joint Proceedings of the 1st Sem4Tra and the 1st AMAR at SEMANTiCS 2019), vol. 2447. CEUR (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lehmberg, O., Ritze, D., Meusel, R., Bizer, C.: A large public corpus of web tables containing time and context metadata. In: WWW 2016, pp. 75–76. ACM (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Limaye, G., Sarawagi, S., Chakrabarti, S.: Annotating and searching web tables using entities, types and relationships. VLDB 3(1–2), 1338–1347 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Moreau, B., Serrano-Alvarado, P.: Assessing the quality of RDF mappings with EvaMap. In: Harth, A., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2020. LNCS, vol. 12124, pp. 164–167. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62327-2_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Paulheim, H.: Knowledge graph refinement: a survey of approaches and evaluation methods. Semant. Web 8(3), 489–508 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Randles, A., Junior, A.C., O’Sullivan, D.: Towards a vocabulary for mapping quality assessment. In: The 15th OM at (ISWC 2020), vol. 2788, pp. 241–242 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rashid, M., Torchiano, M., Rizzo, G., Mihindukulasooriya, N., Corcho, O.: A quality assessment approach for evolving knowledge bases. SWJ 10(2), 349–383 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sejdiu, G., Rula, A., Lehmann, J., Jabeen, H.: A scalable framework for quality assessment of RDF datasets. In: Ghidini, C., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2019. LNCS, vol. 11779, pp. 261–276. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30796-7_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Zaveri, A., Rula, A., Maurino, A., Pietrobon, R., Lehmann, J., Auer, S.: Quality assessment for linked data: a survey. SWJ 7(1), 63–93 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang, S., Meij, E., Balog, K., Reinanda, R.: Novel entity discovery from web tables. In: WWW 2020, pp. 1298–1308. ACM (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang, Z.: Effective and efficient semantic table interpretation using tableminer+. SWJ 8(6), 921–957 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Milano - Bicocca, Milano, Italy

    Roberto Avogadro & Marco Cremaschi

  2. City, University of London, London, UK

    Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz

  3. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz

  4. University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy

    Anisa Rula

Authors
  1. Roberto Avogadro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco Cremaschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anisa Rula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Cremaschi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    Andreas Hotho

  2. Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    Eva Blomqvist

  3. University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Stefan Dietze

  4. IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research, Hawthorne, CA, USA

    Achille Fokoue

  5. University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

    Ying Ding

  6. Imperial College, London, UK

    Payam Barnaghi

  7. Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Armin Haller

  8. Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Povo, Trento, Italy

    Mauro Dragoni

  9. The Open University Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK

    Harith Alani

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Avogadro, R., Cremaschi, M., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Rula, A. (2021). A Framework for Quality Assessment of Semantic Annotations of Tabular Data. In: Hotho, A., et al. The Semantic Web – ISWC 2021. ISWC 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12922. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88361-4_31

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88361-4_31

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-88360-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-88361-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation