Abstract

In sematic Web data are represented in Resource Description Framework (RDF) in triple format (Subject, relation, Object) and retrieved using structured query such as SPARQL. These structured queries require complex syntax to formulate. In view of this therefore, several approaches have been researched to enables semantic formulation of natural language to structure query. The process involves the representation of natural language query to structured triple format. However, dues complex nature of natural language, one natural language query may have more than one possible triple format; therefore an effective semantic triple ranking framework is needed for semantic triple ranking. In this study, semantic triple ranking mechanism is proposed. The approach is based on using levenshtien string matching algorithm a reverse engineering approach. The result of the proposed triple ranking has increased precision to 0.04 and recall 0.06.

Keywords:

Concept, information retrieval, predicate, Quran ontology, semantic web, triple,

References

1. Aidan, H., H. Andreas and D. Stefan, 2006. ReConRank: A scalable ranking method for semantic web data with context. Proceeding of the 2nd Workshop on Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems.
   
2. Anna, F., 2012. Linked data, ontologies and services. Proceeding of the Workshop on Semantic Web Technology, Kuala Lumpur.
   
3. Damljanovic, D., M. Agatonovic and H. Cunningham, 2012. FREyA: An interactive way of querying linked data using natural language. In: Garcia-Castro, R. et al. (Eds.), ESWC, 2011 Workshops. LNCS 7117, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 125-138.
   CrossRef    
4. Franz, T., A. Schultz, S. Sizov and S. Staab, 2009. TripleRank: Ranking semantic web data by tensor decomposition. Proceeding of the 8th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’ 2009), pp: 213-228.
   
5. Ivan, H. and K. Miloslav, 2013. SWSNL: Semantic Web Search using Natural Language. Expert Syst. Appl., 40(9): 3649-3664.
   CrossRef    
6. Kemafor, A. and S. Amit, 2002. The ? operator: Discovering and ranking associations on the semantic web. SIGMOD Rec., 31(4): 42-47.
   CrossRef    
7. Lixin, H. and C. Guihai, 2006. The HWS hybrid web search. Inform. Software Tech., 48(8): 687-695.
   CrossRef    
8. Ramakrishnan, C., W. Milnor, M. Perry and A.P. Sheth, 2005. Discovering informative connection subgraphs in multi-relational graphs. ACM SIGKDD Explor. Newslett., 7(2): 56-63.
   CrossRef    
9. Sreeja, G., V.P.E. Eshanna, J. Nidhi and D. Anmesh, 2012. An ontology driven E-counseling system as an implementation of semantic web technology. Proceeding of the International Conference on Computer, Electrical, Electronics and Biomedical Engineering (ICCEEBE'2012). Penang, Malaysia.
   
10. Tim, F., D. Li, P. Rong, J. Anupam, K. Pranam, J. Akshay and P. Yun, 2005. Swoogle: Searching for knowledge on the semantic web. Proceeding of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp: 1682-1683.
    
11. Vanessa, L., P. Michele and M. Enrico, 2005. AquaLoq: An ontology-portable question answering system for the semantic web. Proceeding of the European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC, 2005). Crete, pp: 546-562.
    
12. Vanessa, L., F. Miriam, M. Enrico and S. Nico, 2010. PowerAqua: Supporting users in querying and exploring the semantic web. Semantic Web, 3(3).
    

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Open Access Policy

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Copyright

The authors have no competing interests.