The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from different ontologies
Abstract
Semantic similarity measures play an important role in information retrieval and information integration. Traditional approaches to modeling semantic similarity compute the semantic distance between definitions within a single ontology. This single ontology is either a domain-independent ontology or the result of the integration of existing ontologies. We present an approach to computing semantic similarity that relaxes the requirement of a single ontology and accounts for differences in the levels of explicitness and formalization of the different ontology specifications. A similarity function determines similar entity classes by using a matching process over synonym sets, semantic neighborhoods, and distinguishing features that are classified into parts, functions, and attributes. Experimental results with different ontologies indicate that the model gives good results when ontologies have complete and detailed representations of entity classes. While the combination of word matching and semantic neighborhood matching is adequate for detecting equivalent entity classes, feature matching allows us to discriminate among similar, but not necessarily equivalent entity classes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception
Bornstein, M. H., & Gibson, J. J. (1980) · The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism · doi:10.2307/429816 · Cited by 22,935
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition
Gibson, J. J. (2014) · doi:10.4324/9781315740218 · Cited by 12,132
Tversky, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.4.327 · Cited by 7,414
Applied Nonparametric Statistics
Wozniak, P. J., & Daniel, W. W. (1991) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1268795 · Cited by 4,987
Cognitive representations of semantic categories.
Rosch, E. H. (1975) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.104.3.192 · Cited by 4,756
Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database*
Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. J. (1990) · International Journal of Lexicography · doi:10.1093/ijl/3.4.235 · Cited by 4,197
An Information-Theoretic Definition of Similarity
Lin, D. (1998) · Cited by 3,790
Semantic Similarity Based on Corpus Statistics and Lexical Taxonomy
Jiang, J. J., & Conrath, D. W. (1997) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9709008 · Cited by 2,743
Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations
Sowa, J. F. (1999) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 2,590
Resnik, P. (1999) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.514 · Cited by 2,047
Cited by
Sentence similarity based on semantic nets and corpus statistics
Li, Y., McLean, D., Bandar, Z. A., O'Shea, J. D., & Crockett, K. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2006.130 · Cited by 819
Evolution of Semantic Similarity—A Survey
Chandrasekaran, D., & Mago, V. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3440755 · Cited by 303
Harispe, S., Sánchez, D., Ranwez, S., Janaqi, S., & Montmain, J. (2014) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2013.11.006 · Cited by 142
Metadata
- Authors
- Rodriguez, M. A., & Egenhofer, M. J.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
- Published
- 2003-03
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 442-456
- ISSN
- 1041-4347 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2134126205
- Cited by
- 890
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 66.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from different ontologies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tkde.2003.1185844
- The paper
- Rodriguez, M. A., & Egenhofer, M. J. (2003). Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from different ontologies. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tkde.2003.1185844
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
