Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal

DIAS Technology Review

The Institute has a unique distinction of publishing a bi-annual International journal DIAS Technology Review – The International Journal for Business and IT. The Editorial Board comprises of...

P-ISSN: 0972-9658 English Since 2004
Current Issue

Vol. 20 No. 1 (2023)

Articles 39th Edition of DTR Apr 2023 – Sep 2023
DOI 10.65301/dias.2023.20.1.3

Cloud-Based Mechanized Method for Developing Semantically Rich Ontologies and Planning Analogies for E-comfort Bids

Authors
113 Views
142 Downloads
Published 2023-09-30
Pages 34-46
Abstract

The ontology framework at the temperament of the semantic web is a powerful method for representing and visualising domain knowledge. Estimating similarity measures between ontologies, determining a threshold, and employing if-then procedures to validate relevance and irrelevance all contribute to the reusability of knowledge. Knowledge visualisation at a reduced level is supplied by simplified semantic representations of the ontology, which is particularly useful for processing and analysing e-health data. Resolving implicit knowledge, which often develops in the attendance of implicit information and polymorphic objects and manifests as non-dominant words and conditionally dependent actions, enables the creation of semantically complex constructs. In this study, we clarify in detail how the automated system constructs and stores ontology structures rich in semantics. Graph Derivation Representation, which is based on dyadic deontic logic, is used to construct ontologies with a high density of meaning. In addition, the usual cosine similarity metric is used to determine the degree of similarity between two ontologies. In response to a document stored in the cloud, basic if-then rules are used to count how many relevant documents there are and retrieve their corresponding metadata. These functional modules are used in e-health applications for document recovery, information removal, and domain dictionary generation, and they will be of great help to authenticated cloud users. According to the diabetes dataset experiments, the suggested framework outdoes the state-of-the-art Graph Derivation Representation methods. The visual representations of the paper's findings provide another perspective for evaluating the usefulness of the proposed methodology.

Keywords
Ontology framework Semantic web Knowledge visualisation E-health data Graph Derivation Representation Dyadic deontic logic Cosine similarity Cloud-based document retrieval
References
  1. i. Aha D. Tolerating noisy, irrelevant and novel attributes in instance-based learning algorithms. Int J Man-Mach Stud 1992;36:267–87.
  2. ii. Al-Mubaid H, Nguyen H. Measuring semantic similarity between biomedical concepts within multiple ontologies. IEEE Trans Syst, Man Cybern C Appl Rev 2009;39(4):389–98, (July).
  3. iii. Allan J. Relevance feedback with too much data. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, (Seattle, Washington, USA), pp. 337–343; 1995.
  4. iv. Aone C, Bennett SW, Gorlinsky J. Multi-media fusion through application of machine learning and NLP. In Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium on Machine Learning in Information Access, (Stanford, CA, USA); 1996.
  5. v. Apte C, Dameru F, Weiss SM. Automated learning of decision rules for text categorization. ACM Trans Inf Syst (TOIS) 1994;12(3):233–50.
  6. vi. Balabanovic M, Shoham Y, Yun Y. An adaptive agent for automated web browsing. Technical Report No. SIDL-WP-1995–0023. California: University of Stanford; 1995.
  7. vii. Chen L, Shadbolt NR, Goble CA. A semantic web-based approach to knowledge management for grid applications. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 2007;19(2):283–96, (February).
  8. viii. D. Vallet, M. Fernandez, P. Castells. An ontology-based information retrieval model. In Proceedings of the 2nd ESWC, Heraklion, Greece; 2005:455–470.
  9. ix. Fensel D. Ontology-based knowledge management. IEEE Comput 2002;35(11):56–9, (November).
  10. x. Gangemi A, Catenacci C, Ciaramita M., and Jos. Lehmann. A theoretical framework for ontology evaluation and validation. In Proceedings SWAP; 2005.
  11. xi. Giunchiglia F, Yatskevich M, Shvaiko P. Semantic matching: algorithms and implementation. J Data Semantics 2007;9:1–38.
  12. xii. Deborah LJegatha, Baskaran R, Kannan A. Deontic logic-based ontology alignment technique for E-learning. Int J Intell Inf Technol 2012;8(3):56–78.
  13. xiii. Deborah LJegatha, Karthika R, Audithan S, Bala BKiran. Enhanced expressivity using deontic logic and reuse measure of ontologies. In Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on data mining and warehousing, Elsevier – Procedia Computer Science; 2015:84:318–326.
  14. xiv. Lozano-Tello A, Gomez-Perez A. OntoMetric: a method to choose the appropriate ontology. J Database Manag 2004;15(2):1–18.
  15. xv. Maedche A, Staab S. Measuring similarity between ontologies. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference EKAW, Sigüenza, Spain; 2002:251–263.
  16. xvi. Maguitman A, Menczer F, Roinestad H, Vespignani A. Algorithmic detection of semantic similarity. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference WWW, pp.107–116; 2005.
  17. xvii. Nagy M, Vargas-Vera M. Multiagent ontology mapping framework for the semantic web. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 2011;41(4):693–704, (July).
  18. xviii. Philippi S, Kohler J. Using XML technology for the ontology-based semantic integration of life science databases. IEEE Trans Info Tech Biomed 2004;8(2):154–60, (June).
  19. xix. Popescu M, Keller JM, Mitchell JA. Fuzzy measures on the gene ontology for gene product similarity. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Bio Bioinfo 2006;3(3):263–74, (July/September).
  20. xx. Qu Y, Cheng G. Falcons concept search: a practical search engine for web ontologies. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 2011;41(4):810–6, (July).
  21. xxi. Razmerita L. An ontology-based framework for modelling user behavior - A case study in knowledge management. IEEE Trans Syst, Man Cybern A Syst, Hum 2011;41(4):772–83, (July).
  22. xxii. Rodriguez A, Egenhofer M. Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from different ontologies. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 2003;15(2):442–56, (March/April).
  23. xxiii. S. Kraines, W. Guo, B. Kemper, Y. Nakamura. EKOSS: A knowledge-user centered to knowledge sharing, discovery, and integration on the semantic Web. In Proceedings of the 5th ISWC, Athens, GA, USA; 2006:833–846.
  24. xxiv. S. Ontology-based integration of information - A survey of existing approaches. In Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence workshop ontologies and information sharing, pp.108–117; 2001.
  25. xxv. Sanchez D, Batet M, Isern D, Valls A. Ontology-based semantic similarity: a new feature-based approach. Expert Syst Appl 2012;39(9):7718–28.
  26. xxvi. Shadbolt N, Berners-Lee T, Hall W. The semantic web revisited. IEEE Intell Syst 2006;21(3):96–101, (January/February).
  27. xxvii. Tartir S, Arpinar IB, Moore M, Sheth AP, Aleman-Meza B. OntoQA: Metric-based ontology quality analysis. In Proceedings IEEE ICDM workshop KADASH; 2005.
✓ Citation copied to clipboard