4.7 Article

A knowledge-based approach to merging information

期刊

KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 647-674

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.knosys.2006.05.007

关键词

information integration; knowledge fusion; semi-structured information; knowledge merging; conflicting information; inconsistent information

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is an increasing need for technology for merging semi-structured information (such as structured reports) from heterogeneous sources. For this. we advocate a knowledge-based approach when the information to be merged incorporates diverse, and potentially complex, conflicts (inconsistencies). In this paper, we contrast the goals of knowledge-based merging with other technologies such as semantic web technologies, information mediators, and database integration systems. We then explain how a system for knowledge-based merging can be constructed for a given application. To support the use of a knowledgebase, we use fusion rules to manage the semi-structured information that is input for merging. Fusion rules are a form of scripting language that defines how structured reports should be merged. The antecedent of a fusion rule is a call to investigate the information in the structured reports and the background knowledge, and the consequent of a fusion rule is a formula specifying an action to be undertaken to form a merged report. Fusion rules are not necessarily a definitive specification of how the input can be merged. They can be used by the user to explore different ways that the input can be merged. However, if the user has sufficient confidence in the output from a set of fusion rules, they can be regarded as a definitive specification for merging, and furthermore, they can then be treated as a form of meta-knowledge that gives the provenance of the merged reports. The integrated usage of fusion rules with a knowledgebase offers a practical and valuable technology for merging conflicting information. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据