4.4 Article

A topic-specific crawling strategy based on semantics similarity

期刊

DATA & KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 75-93

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.datak.2013.09.003

关键词

Search engine; Focused crawling; Formal concept analysis; Web crawler; Concept context graph; Web information systems; Information retrieval

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation [61271413, 60872089, 61103168]
  2. Chunhui Plan of the Education Department of China [z2011086]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the Internet growing exponentially, search engines are encountering unprecedented challenges. A focused search engine selectively seeks out web pages that are relevant to user topics. Determining the best strategy to utilize a focused search is a crucial and popular research topic. At present, the rank values of unvisited web pages are computed by considering the hyperlinks (as in the PageRank algorithm), a Vector Space Model and a combination of them, and not by considering the semantic relations between the user topic and unvisited web pages. In this paper, we propose a concept context graph to store the knowledge context based on the user's history of clicked web pages and to guide a focused crawler for the next crawling. The concept context graph provides a novel semantic ranking to guide the web crawler in order to retrieve highly relevant web pages on the user's topic. By computing the concept distance and concept similarity among the concepts of the concept context graph and by matching unvisited web pages with the concept context graph, we compute the rank values of the unvisited web pages to pick out the relevant hyperlinks. Additionally, we constitute the focused crawling system, and we retrieve the precision, recall, average harvest rate, and F-measure of our proposed approach, using Breadth First, Cosine Similarity, the Link Context Graph and the Relevancy Context Graph. The results show that our proposed method outperforms other methods. (C) 2013 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

4.4
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