• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Comparing taxonomies for organising collections of documents

Comparing taxonomies for organising collections of documents






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Comparing taxonomies for organising collections of documents Comparing taxonomies for organising collections of documents Document Transcript

    • Comparing taxonomies for organising collections of documents Samuel Fer nando1 M ar k H all 1,2 Eneko Agir r e3 Ai t or Sor oa3 Paul C lough2 M ar k S t evenson1 (1) Department of Computer Science, Regent Court, 211 Portobello, Shefﬁeld, S1 4DP UK , (2) Information School, Regent Court, 211 Portobello, Shefﬁeld, S1 4DP UK , (3) Universidad del País Vasco, Barrio Sarriena s/n, 48940 Leioa, Bizkaia {s.fernando,m.mhall,p.d.clough,m.stevenson}@sheffield.ac.uk {e.agirre, a.soroa}@ehu.esABSTRACTThere is a demand for taxonomies to organise large collections of documents into categoriesfor browsing and exploration. This paper examines four existing taxonomies that have beenmanually created, along with two methods for deriving taxonomies automatically from dataitems. We use these taxonomies to organise items from a large online cultural heritage collection.We then present two human evaluations of the taxonomies. The ﬁrst measures the cohesionof the taxonomies to determine how well they group together similar items under the sameconcept node. The second analyses the concept relations in the taxonomies. The results showthat the manual taxonomies have high quality well deﬁned relations. However the novelautomatic method is found to generate very high cohesion.TITLE AND ABSTRACT IN BASQUE Dokumentu bildumak antolatzeko taxonomien arteko alderaketaDokumentu bildumak kategorietan sailkatzea oso erabilgarria da, dokumentuak arakatzeko etaaztertzeko aukera berriak eskaintzen duen heinean. Hori horrela izanik, dokumentu bildumahandiak sailkatzeko taxonomien behar handia dago. Artikulu honetan eskuz sortutako lautaxonomia aztertzen dira, taxonomiak automatikoki sortzen dituzten bi metodorekin batera.Taxonomia hauek ondare kulturaleko bilduma handiak antolatzeko erabili ditugu. Taxonomienebaluazioa egin dugu galdetegietan oinarritutako bi metodo erabiliaz. Lehenbizikoak tax-onomiaren kohesioa neurtzen du, hau da, antzeko itemak kontzeptu beraren azpian zeinondo taldekatzen diren. Bigarrenak taxonomiako kontzeptuen arteko erlazioak aztertzen ditu.Emaitzek erakusten dute eskuzko taxonomien erlazioen kalitatea, baina metodo automatikoberri batek lortzen du kohesio handiena.KEYWORDS: Semantic network, taxonomy, hierarchy, Wikipedia, WordNet, ontology.KEYWORDS IN BASQUE: Sare semantiko, taxonomia, hierarkia, Wikipedia, WordNet, Ontolo-gia.
    • 1 IntroductionWith increasingly large sets of diverse collections of documents available online a key challengeis organising and presenting these items effectively for information access. To enable thenavigation and exploration of collections, content providers typically provide users with free-text search functionalities, along with some form of browsable subject categories or taxonomy,also useful in organising documents. Providing multiple mechanisms for accessing documentsenables users to conduct various modes of information seeking activity, from locating speciﬁcdocuments to more exploratory forms of searching and browsing behaviour (Hearst, 2009;Marchionini, 2006; Wilson et al., 2010).In this paper we focus on evaluating different taxonomies that could be used to organiseand navigate content from Europeana1 , an online cultural heritage collection. This collectioncomprises many subcollections taken from different providers, and thus contains a very diverseset of cultural heritage items2 . Some of the subcollections are linked to bespoke taxonomies;however, many are not. This therefore represents a very challenging dataset to organise in aconsistent and uniform manner. We focus on two main approaches for organising content: theﬁrst is to map items from Europeana onto existing manually-created taxonomies; the secondis to use data-driven approaches to automatically derive taxonomies from the collection. Thisrequires being able to successfully group items into categories and generate suitable categorylabels. A note on deﬁnitions: the term ‘taxonomy’ is used in this paper as a general termmeaning a conceptual hierarchy. A taxonomy does not necessarily have to be a subsumptionhierarchy (where each child concept is subsumed by its parent concept). Some of the taxonomiesdescribed here are subsumption hierarchies and some are not.There are many different ways of evaluating taxonomies (Snow et al., 2004; Malaisé et al.,2006; Yi, 2008; Nikolova et al., 2010; Ponzetto and Strube, 2011). Here we focus on twoapproaches which capture different qualities of the taxonomies. The ﬁrst evaluation measuresthe cohesion of the taxonomies; how well they group together similar items into the sameconcept node. The second analyses the relationships between concept nodes in the taxonomiesand whether people can understand the concept labels. We believe this is the ﬁrst time thatsuch evaluations have been applied to such taxonomies over large collections of data items.This paper provides three main contributions: (1) the systematic comparison of differenttaxonomies for organising a large cultural heritage collection; (2) a novel data-driven approachbased on using Wikipedia article links as concept nodes in the taxonomy; and (3) the evaluationof cohesion and relationship type between concepts using an approach based on crowdsourcing.The rest of the paper comprises the following. Section 2 describes related work in this area.Section 3 gives a brief overview of the key data resources and tools referenced and Section 4describes the taxonomies and item-to-resource mapping approaches used in the experiments.Section 5 describes the cohesion and relatedness experiments and the results obtained.2 Related workThere are many category systems or taxonomies available, some of which are domain speciﬁc;others aimed at covering more general subjects. For example, one of the most popular andcommonly used resources is the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH)3 . LCSH provides 1 http://www.europeana.eu 2 An item is deﬁned here as a online record of a cultural heritage artifact (usually an image), together with associatedmetadata, such as title, subject, description etc. 3 http://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/subject/
    • a controlled vocabulary of keywords (or subject headings), which are widely used in libraries tocatalogue materials and facilitate information access. Similarly, in the medical domain MeSH4 ,created and maintained by the National Library of Medicine, provides a controlled vocabularyof medical subject headings. In computational linguistics, WordNet (Fellbaum, 1998) is acommonly used lexical knowledge base that links concepts in various ways. WordNet has beenexpanded with WordNet domain labels which group together words from different syntacticcategories and different senses (Bentivogli et al., 2004). These domain labels are organisedinto a hierarchical structure.There is a body of previous work on automatically deriving taxonomies and relations from freetext. Hearst (1992) was perhaps the earliest signiﬁcant effort to derive hyponym-hypernymrelations from free text using the now eponymous Hearst patterns which code common syntacticforms of the hyponymy pattern (e.g. ‘Vehicles such as Cars’). These patterns were hand-crafted.More recently Snow et al. (2004) developed on this work by using an existing knowledge baseto automatically derive lexico-syntactic patterns containing the hyponym-hypernym pairs.An alternative to creating hierarchies of concepts from the pattern-based methods is to usestatistical methods. Sanderson and Croft (1999) used an approach to automatically builda hierarchy of terms or concepts (nouns and noun phrases) based on term co-occurrenceswithin a set of documents. To order the concepts a statistical relation called subsumption wasused to determine which of a co-occurring pair of concepts was most likely to be the parent.Grifﬁths and Tenenbaum (2004) uses Bayesian methods and LDA (Latent Dirichlet Allocation)to derive topic clusters and create a topic hierarchy. Recent work has exploited the informationin Wikipedia to create taxonomies. Ponzetto and Strube (2011) uses the category hierarchyalong with lexical matching methods to create a taxonomy which compares well with manuallycreated resources. DBpedia (Auer et al., 2007) also uses the Wikipedia category hierarchy butalso additionally links in the articles into the hierarchy.One key problem is how to evaluate taxonomies effectively. This is a complex problem sincethere are many aspects to consider. We can consider how users would rate various aspects oftheir experience using a questionnaire. However this subjective study can be misleading sincepeople can underrate or overrate their experience. A more objective approach is to log userinteractions and then infer from these how effective the taxonomy is i.e. time spent on a task,how much of the domain was covered and so on. There have been user studies of taxonomieswhich have used combinations of both of these approaches (Malaisé et al., 2006; Yi, 2008;Nikolova et al., 2010). There is also an important distinction to be made between the datacontent of a taxonomy and the methods used for visualisation. There have been user studieswhich have focussed on evaluation different visualisations while keeping the data constant(Katifori et al., 2007). In this paper we are considering only the data content, the concepts andrelations, so visualisations are kept constant.User studies are certainly important. However these studies often don’t answer certain questionsabout the taxonomy. We can measure aspects of their experience but we might not have aﬁne-grained understanding of which aspects of the taxonomy were positively or negativelyperceived. Also such studies require users to be physically present at a machine speciallyset up for logging. This can make such studies expensive and time-consuming. A differentapproach is to use intrinsic evaluations. Yu et al. (2007) present a wide range of ontologyevaluation approaches as applied to variations of the Wikipedia category structure such as 4 http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/
    • fanout, tangledness, relationship richness, class richness, importance connectivity and cohesion.Cohesion attempts to measure the degree to which similar items are clustered together under asingle node in the taxonomy. This was initially proposed by (Boyd-Graber et al., 2009) and hasalso recently been applied to cultural heritage (Hall et al., 2012).Another evaluation is to measure the accuracy of the child-parent pairs from the taxonomies byasking evaluators to classify them as either isa or notisa relations (Snow et al., 2004; Ponzettoand Strube, 2011). A similar method is used here but expanded to give a more detailedunderstanding of the types of the relations found in the different taxonomies.3 Resources and toolsThis section lists some key resources and tools that are used in this paper.3.1 Wikipedia MinerThe Wikipedia Miner (Milne and Witten, 2008) tool is used in this paper both as a tool to helpmap items into existing taxonomies and as a way to generate a novel taxonomy from scratch.Wikipedia Miner is a Wikiﬁcation tool which adds inline links to Wikipedia articles into free text.The software is trained on Wikipedia articles, and thus learns to disambiguate and detect linksin the same way as Wikipedia editors. Disambiguation of terms within the text is performedﬁrst. A machine-learning classiﬁer is used with several features. The main features used arecommonness and relatedness, as in Medelyan et al. (2008). The commonness of a target sense isdeﬁned by the number of times it is used a destination from some anchor text e.g. the anchortext ‘Tree’ links to the article about the plant more often than the mathematical concept and isthus more common. Relatedness gives a measure of the similarity of two articles by comparingtheir incoming and outgoing links. The performance achieved using their approach is currentlystate of the art for this task. The Wikipedia Miner software is freely available5 .3.2 Europeana cultural heritage collectionCultural heritage items from Europeana are used for the evaluation. Europeana is a largeonline aggregation of cultural heritage collections from across Europe. In this paper a snapshotof the English subset of the data from March 2011 is used. This comprises 547780 items intotal. Each item consists of an XML metadata record. This comprises a number of ﬁelds themost informative of which are dc:title, dc:subject, dc:description which contain thetitle, subject keywords and a textual description of the item. About 74% of the items have anassociated image which is displayed on the portal website. A difﬁculty with this collection isthat a signiﬁcant number of the items have very little associated metadata. In the worst casesome items have only a one-word title, with no subject or description. This problem is dealtwith implicitly in the methods described below, where such sparse records are effectively ﬁlteredout in the mapping and taxonomy generation stages and are not included in the evaluations.4 Taxonomies and mappingsSix taxonomies were tested in these experiments. Four of these were based on existingtaxonomies which have been mostly manually created: the Library of Congress Subject Headings,WordNet Domains, Wikipedia Taxonomy and DBpedia. The remaining two taxonomies wereautomatically derived from the metadata present for the items in the collections: WikiFreq and 5 http://wikipedia-miner.cms.waikato.ac.nz/
    • LDA topics. This section gives a description of each of these taxonomies and how the items inthe collection were mapped into them. Statistics for each taxonomy are presented at the end ofthis section.4.1 Manually created taxonomies4.1.1 Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH)The LCSH comprises a controlled vocabulary maintained by the United States Library ofCongress for use in bibliographic records. They are used in many libraries to organise theircollections as well as for organising materials online.The text from the dc:subject ﬁeld in the Europeana item are used for the mapping. The textis lemmatized using Freeling (Padró, 2011). The text is compared to the category labels for theLCSH concepts. If the text contains any of the category labels then the item is matched to thesecategories. If more than one matching label is found, then the longest matching label is usedfor the mapping.4.1.2 WordNet domainsThe WordNet hierarchy is a ﬁne-grained classiﬁcation which is too detailed for browsing, withmore than a hundred thousand nodes and concepts like entity, natural phenomenon and body ofwater. Instead WordNet domains organises the WordNet concepts into a smaller hierarchy, withonly 164 domain labels which are easily understood by a general user. The domain labels havebeen semi-automatically applied to each of the synsets in WordNet. Each synset is annotatedwith each one label from a set of about two hundred. The information provided by the domainlabels is complementary to the data existing already in WordNet. The domain labels grouptogether words from different syntactic categories (e.g. nouns and verbs), and also may grouptogether different senses of the same word and thus reduce polysemy.WordNet domains lists the domain labels for all open class words in WordNet, but it onlycontains a few proper nouns. Given the large concentration of proper nouns in Europeana, weextend the list of words using Yago2. Yago2 (Hoffart et al., 2011) is a knowledge base derivedfrom Wikipedia with more than 10 million entities, and each entity in Yago2 is linked to aWordNet 3.0 synset. We also used a mapping from WordNet 3.0 synsets to WordNet Domainlabels as provided by the Multilingual Central Repository (MCR) (Atserias et al., 2004). Toperform the mapping, the ﬁrst step is again to use the dc:subject ﬁeld to link Europeanaitems to Yago2 entities (using lemmatization and ﬁnding the longest possible match). Theseare then mapped to the WordNet Domain labels via the Yago2 entity-to-synset and the MCRsynset-to-WordNetDomain mappings.4.1.3 Wikipedia TaxonomyWikipedia Taxonomy (Ponzetto and Strube, 2011) is a taxonomy derived from Wikipediacategories. The authors create the Wikipedia Taxonomy by keeping the isa relations betweenWikipedia categories and discarding the rest. We ﬁrst apply Wikipedia Miner (see Section 3.1)over the Europeana items to ﬁnd the relevant Wikipedia entities in the the dc:subject ﬁeld.Then, we link the Europeana item to all Wikipedia Taxonomy categories which are related tothese entities.
    • 4.1.4 DBpedia ontologyThe DBpedia ontology (Auer et al., 2007) is a small, shallow ontology manually created basedon information derived from Wikipedia. Contrary to the previous vocabularies described above,the DBpedia ontology is a formalised ontology, including inference capabilities. The authorsprovide the instances of each ontology class, i.e. the set of Wikipedia entities pertaining tothis class. For mapping Europeana items to DBpedia ontology classes, we ﬁrst apply WikipediaMiner to ﬁnd the relevant Wikipedia entities to the item, and then link the item to the classesthese entities belong.4.2 Automatically created data-driven taxonomies4.2.1 LDA topic modellingLatent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) is a state-of-the-art topic modelling algorithm, that creates amapping between a set of topics T and a set of items I, where each item i ∈ I is linked to oneor more topics t ∈ T . Each item is input into LDA as a bag-of-words and then represented as aprobabilistic mixture of topics. The LDA model consists of a multinomial distribution of itemsover topics where each topic is itself a multinomial distribution over words. The item-topic andtopic-word distributions are learned simultaneously using collapsed Gibbs sampling based onthe item - word distributions observed in the source collection (Grifﬁths and Steyvers, 2004).LDA has been used to successfully improve result quality in Information Retrieval (Azzopardiet al., 2004; Wei and Croft, 2006) tasks and is thus well suited to support exploration in digitallibraries.To turn the ﬂat LDA topic model into a navigable hierarchy, Grifﬁths and Tenenbaum (2004)describe a hierarchical LDA approach. However this was found to be prohibitively timeconsuming given our large data-set. Instead a recursive divide and conquer approach wasused, which was much more efﬁcient. The number of topic groups at each stage was limitedto a maximum of 9 to make the hierarchy manageable for users to navigate. The algorithm isoutlined below.1) Run LDA over the corpus to determine the document-topic probabilities. The number of topics t opic_n to generate is automatically determined using this equation: d ocuments_in_cor pus t opic_n = min(9, ) (1) 302) For each topic used the document-topic probabilities that LDA outputs to identify the set of documents associated with that topic. Each document is assigned only to its highest- probability topic. While this removes some of the power inherent in the LDA topic model, we believe that from a navigational perspective it is better if each document is located at only one point in the hierarchy and not at multiple points. To give each topic a label, we simply selected the highest-probability word from each topic’s topic-word distribution.3) If a topic set has less than 60 items then stop. Otherwise go back to 1) using the set of items identiﬁed in 2) as the corpus.
    • 4.2.2 Wikipedia link frequenciesThis is a novel method for taxonomy creation which uses Wikipedia article links as the conceptnodes in the taxonomy. The ﬁrst step is to add inline article links to all the item texts in thecollection using Wikipedia Miner (see Section 3.1). A conﬁdence threshold of 0.5 was used tohelp ensure the links were of high quality - that is they are correctly disambiguated and relevantto the topic of the item.The ﬁrst step is to ﬁnd the frequency counts of all article links that occur in the items. Let L bethe set of all links found in the items. Then the frequency function F : L → gives the globalfrequency count for occurrences of the link in all items.The following procedure is then used for each item to create and populate the taxonomy. LetS ⊂ L be the set of links found in that item. The links are ordered in S by order of frequencyaccording to the F function (most frequently occuring ﬁrst) to give an ordered list of linksa1 , a2 , a3 · · · an . The item is then inserted into the tree under the branch a1 → a2 → a3 · · · → an ,with a1 at the top level in the tree and the item appearing under the node an . If this branchdoes not already exist in the tree then it is created.It was found that using this approach the branching factor was very high at some levels so thenumber of child nodes at each level was limited to at most 20. Furthermore only items with atleast 2 links were used to prevent a large number of single-linked items appearing at the toplevel. Concepts with less than 20 items were also ﬁltered out.This method is labelled WikiFreq in the remainder of the paper.4.3 Taxonomy statisticsTable 1 shows some statistics for each taxonomy: • The number of items that are mapped into the taxonomy. • The average number of parents for each item. • The average depth from the root node to an item. • The number of top level nodes in the taxonomy.A problem with some of the manual taxonomies is the very high number of top level nodes,which makes it difﬁcult for users to browse. However there is no obvious way to select suitabletop level nodes in these taxonomies. Additionally some of the taxonomies assign items to manyparent nodes - this means that the data is repeated across the taxonomy. This is not a problemin itself, but is likely to mean that items may often be assigned to incorrect nodes.5 ExperimentsTwo evaluations were performed on the taxonomies. The ﬁrst measured the cohesion of theitem clustering, and the second gathered human judgements of the relations that were foundbetween child-parent concept pairs in the taxonomy. For both evaluations online surveys werecreated using an in-house crowdsourcing interface. Links to the surveys were sent out to amailing list comprising thousands of students and staff members at the University of Shefﬁeld.
    • Type Taxonomy Items Nodes Avg. parents Avg. Depth Top nodes LCSH 99259 285238 1.8 1.97 28901 DBpedia 178312 273 4.2 2 30 Manual Wiki Taxonomy 275359 121359 11.7 1.13 10417 WN domains 308687 170 7.1 7.1 6 LDA topics 545896 22494 1 7.3 9 Automatic Wiki Freq 66558 502 1 3.39 24 Table 1: Statistics for each taxonomy5.1 CohesionA cohesive cluster is deﬁned as one in which the items are similar while at the same time clearlydistinguishable from items in other clusters (Tan et al., 2006). To measure the cohesivenessof the taxonomies we use the intruder detection task originally devised in Boyd-Graber et al.(2009) and recently used for cultural heritage items in Hall et al. (2012). The idea of this is topresent 5 items to an evaluator. Four of these are taken from one concept node in the taxonomyand the other (the intruder) is randomly picked from elsewhere in the taxonomy. The morecohesive the concept in the taxonomy the more obvious it should be which is the intruder item.Each unit was displayed as a list of ﬁve images along with the titles of the items. An example6of a cohesive unit is shown in Figure 1. To generate good quality units for the evaluation theinformativeness of items was calculated as follows: in f or mat iveness(i t em) = l eng th(i t em t i t le )/av g L t i t le ∗ log(N /count(i t em t i t le )) +l eng th(i t emdesc )/av g L desc ∗ log(N /count(i t emdesc )) +l eng th(i t emsub j )/av g Lsub j ∗ log(N /count(i t emsub j ))where t i t l e, desc, sub j refer to the title, description and subject ﬁelds of the metadata, av g L Xis the average length of ﬁeld X over the whole collection, leng th(i t emX ) is the length of thatitem ﬁeld text, and count(i t emX ) gives the frequency of that item ﬁeld text over the wholecollection. The higher the resulting value the more informative the item is. Note that as well astaking into account the length of the ﬁelds, this also weights by the inverse document frequency(idf) value, so very frequently occuring terms will be downweighted.The most informative items were selected for each category. This helped to ensure that the userswere presented with informative items, allowing them to have enough information to decidewhich was most likely to be the intruder. The same also applies to the taxonomy mappingsbeing evaluated; it is difﬁcult to correctly map items with very little information in the metadata.The procedure for selecting the sample units was as follows: 6 Images reproduced from Wikipedia and subject to relevant licenses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:York_Minster_close.jpg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wells_Cathedral,_Wells,_Somerset.jpg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:West_Side_of_Westminster_Abbey,_London_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1406999.jpg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Goatfell_from_Brodick_Harbour.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfec-durham-cathedral-2007-263.JPG
    • 1 2 3 York Minster Westminster Abbey Wells cathedral 4 5 Isle of Arran Durham Cathedral Figure 1: Example of a cohesive unit. Here the intruder item is number 4. 1. Select categories at random that have at least 4 items. 2. For each category: (a) Return the 4 items in the category which were most informative. (b) To ﬁnd the intruder item, select 100 items at random from the whole collection and return the most informative item.Six units were shown on each page, one of which was always a control unit. The control unitswere manually chosen to be examples where the intruder was very obvious. The purpose of thecontrol units was to ensure the quality of the judgements, since if a participant got the controlunit wrong it was an indication that they were not taking the task seriously.Thirty non-control units were created from each taxonomy. Altogether 134 people attemptedthe survey. 23 of the users evaluated at least one control unit wrong, or evaluated less than 5units in total, and so their answers were excluded. The remaining 111 participants contributeda total of 1255 answers. Each unit received a minimum of 5 answers and an average of 6.97answers. A unit was judged as cohesive if more than 80% of the annotators agreed on the sameintruder.
    • Type Taxonomy Coherent units Percentage LCSH 19 63.3 DBpedia 17 56.7 Manual Wiki Taxonomy 18 60.0 WN domains 15 50.0 LDA topics 17 56.7 Automatic Wiki Freq 29 96.7 Table 2: Number of coherent units (out of 30) for each of the taxonomies.The results (Table 2) show that most of the taxonomies achieved roughly the same level ofcohesion for the clusters, roughly between 50 and 63%. However the WikiFreq taxonomyperformed far better, with only one unit of the 30 judged as not coherent. This success showsthat the Wikipedia links are very effective as a means of grouping together similar items. Thismight be explained by considering that items grouped together under the same node will sharea number of keywords which link to the same Wikipedia articles which would ensure that theitems are very similar. In contrast the Wikipedia taxonomy and DBpedia ontology use categoriesrather than articles in Wikipedia as the concept nodes. These are much more loosely deﬁned;each article in Wikipedia can belong to many categories and each category contains manyarticles. The results also indicate that Wikipedia articles as entities are much more clearlydeﬁned than the LDA topic keywords and thus work much better at grouping together thesimilar items.5.2 Relation classiﬁcationPrevious work has evaluated taxonomies by presenting child-parent pairs of concept nodesto evaluators and asking them a simple boolean question - does the pair represents a validhypernymic relation, i.e. is it true that "ChildNode isa ParentNode"? (Ponzetto and Strube,2011; Snow et al., 2004). We would expect the manually created taxonomies to perform wellhere. The automatic methods also intend to create a hierarchical structure, with more generalconcepts at the top nodes going to more speciﬁc in the lower nodes.Here we conduct a slightly deeper analysis of what kinds of relations were present in thesetaxonomies. Instead of a simple boolean question a two-part question was used. Given achild-parent pair A, B the evaluators were asked two questions: 1. Are the two concepts A and B related? (Yes/No/I don’t know) The evaluators were asked to judge the relation within the context of the cultural heritage taxonomy. A positive example was presented: Westminster and London, which were related because Westminster is in London. A negative example was Fish and Bicycle which were unrelated and would not be a useful pair to include in a taxonomy. 2. If Yes, then how would you best deﬁne the relationship? Is A more speciﬁc than B, less speciﬁc than B, neither, or don’t know? Examples were also given to help with this question. Westminster is more speciﬁc than London since Westminster is within London. The term Scientist is less speciﬁc than Physicist, since while all Physicists are Scientists, not all Scientists are Physicists (they could be biologists or chemists for example). For
    • Type Taxonomy Child (A) Parent (B) Work Human Behaviour LCSH Braid Weaving Time Geodetic Astronomy Mountain Range Place DBpedia Fern Plant Congressman Politician Manual Mammals of Africa Wildlife of Africa Wiki Taxonomy Schools in Wiltshire Schools in England British Culture European Culture vehicles transport WN domains mechanics engineering home applied science earthenware dish LDA topics view church tunnel chapel Automatic Corrosion Coin Wiki Freq Interior Design Industrial Design Towpath Waterscape Table 3: Some examples of child-parent pairs from each taxonomy. the ‘neither’ option consider Physicist and Biologist. The concepts are related (both are scientists) but neither is more speciﬁc than the other.Forty non-control pairs from each taxonomy were presented to the evaluators giving a totalof 240 pairs. Examples of concept pairs from each taxonomy are shown in Table 3. As forthe previous experiment control pairs were manually identiﬁed where the answer should beobvious. Five pairs were shown on each page of which one was always a control pair.Altogether 270 people attempted this survey. 97 people evaluated more than half the controlpairs wrong or evaluated less than 5 pairs in total, and so their answers were excluded. Of the173 remaining participants, a total of 3826 evaluations were made for each pair. A minimum of8 evaluations and an average of 15.94 evaluations were made for each instance. Type Taxonomy Yes No Don’t know Agreement LCSH 74.2 8.8 17.0 79.1 DBpedia 86.6 11.2 2.2 88.4 Manual Wiki Taxonomy 96.1 1.7 2.3 95.9 WN domains 77.1 14.5 8.4 83.9 LDA topics 30.3 50.3 19.3 71.6 Automatic Wiki Freq 47.6 16.5 35.8 70.9 Table 4: Are A and B related?The results for the relatedness question (Table 4) show a clear pattern. The manually createdtaxonomies are markedly more likely to contain clearly related pairs of concepts. The Wikipedia
    • taxonomy hierarchy is the highest performing in this regard which suggests that the user-createdcategory hierarchy is of high quality and has easily understood concepts and relations. DBpediascores slightly lower. This difference might be explained due to DBpedia containing articleentities as well as categories. The lower score suggests either that articles are not always placedin the best categories, or that it is harder for users to identify article-category relationships.WordNet domains scores lower. This may be due to the domain concepts being sometimes quitegeneral and possibly harder for general users to understand (for example one pair of conceptswas ‘color’ and ‘factotum’). LCSH scored surprisingly low considering that it is a manuallycreated taxonomy. This suggests that the concepts and relations in this hierarchy are evenharder for users to understand or identify. Finally the two data derived taxonomies score lowerstill. For the WikiFreq taxonomy a high percentage of the relations were classiﬁed as ‘Don’tknow’. This may be because a high number of the article links are about quite obscure conceptswhich most people would not know about. Finally the LDA topics produced the highest numberof deﬁnite ‘No’ judgements which shows that the taxonomy may be difﬁcult or confusing forusers to navigate. Type Taxonomy A< B A> B Neither Don’t know Agreement LCSH 65.4 8.7 23.4 2.5 68.7 DBpedia 76.2 4.9 18.1 0.7 78.9 Manual Wiki Taxonomy 78.3 4.7 16.0 0.9 82.8 WN domains 63.6 6.3 28.0 2.0 67.6 LDA topics 21.4 14.8 62.1 1.6 61.0 Automatic Wiki Freq 30.9 22.6 43.6 2.9 67.0Table 5: Speciﬁcity of the pairs, with A the child node, and B the parent node. A < B means A ismore speciﬁc than B.The results for the speciﬁcity question are shown in Table 5. These follow a roughly similarpattern to the relatedness. The A < B case is the most desirable for the taxonomies since wewould prefer the most general concepts at the top of the hierarchy narrowing down into morespeciﬁc concepts. The Wikipedia taxonomy and DBpedia both score relatively highly here,although both contain a surprisingly high number of cases where neither A or B was identiﬁedas more speciﬁc than the other (16.0 and 18.1% respectively). For the Wikipedia taxonomy thisshows that although almost all child-parent pairs are considered to be related concepts, theyare not always easily identiﬁed with the child as more speciﬁc than the parent. Both WordNetdomains and LCSH fare worse, again with more relations identiﬁed as ‘neither’. The WikiFreqtaxonomy contains a more mixed set of results with quite a high proportion of relations the‘wrong way round’ with A deemed to be less speciﬁc than B, although the highest number fallsinto the ‘neither’ category. This result is a reﬂection of the nature of the links within the items.The taxonomy is ordered with the most frequent occuring links at the top going down towardsthe least. Clearly this is not enough to create the kind of general-to-speciﬁc relationships whichare desirable. Finally the results for the LDA topics show that the majority are deﬁned as‘neither’ - the concepts are topically related but mostly without any speciﬁcity ordering.
    • Conclusion and perspectivesDeveloping effective taxonomies for the purpose of organising large number of data items is acomplex task. Existing manually created taxonomies might be accurate and well structured butmay not be adequate for a speciﬁed domain or may be hard for users to navigate. Automaticmethods for deriving taxonomies have the advantage of closely reﬂecting the nuances of thedata - but organising the derived concepts into meaningful relations remains a problem.The experiments in this paper shows some surprising results. The LCSH taxonomy has beenmanually created for the purpose of organising library collections and so might be the obviouschoice to organise CH data online. However the results show that the relations within LCSH aredeﬁned less clearly than that of the Wikipedia derived taxonomies. WordNet domains performsat a similar level to the LCSH in terms of the quality of the relations. The LDA topic hierarchygave poor results in terms of the identiﬁed topics. The topic pairs were often unrelated, andhad no general-to-speciﬁc structure as would be desirable for this application.The WikiFreq hierarchy performed slightly better in this regard. Just over half the concept pairswere judged to be related. Just under a third were labelled as ‘Don’t know’ which may reﬂectthe obscurity of the concept nodes identiﬁed. It was hoped that organising the frequency countsof the links would organise the hierarchy into a general-to-speciﬁc direction. This was notachieved, although the hierarchy does have the beneﬁt of providing the user with an overviewof the collection by immediately seeing which kind of items are most prevalent.In terms of cohesion all the taxonomies achieved similar results except for the WikiFreqtaxonomy which achieved almost perfect cohesion. This shows how effective the Wikipedialinks are in grouping together similar items.It is also worth noting that WikiFreq and LCSH map signiﬁcantly fewer items into the taxonomy.Future work will continue with different evaluation approaches, such as domain/task coverageand accuracy of the mappings. We also aim to expand the evaluations to include user studies; akey question is how well these taxonomies assist users when used for browsing large collections,such as Europeana. The aim is to see if there is a correlation between the intrinsic results thatwere found here with the extrinsic quality judgements when used in real life applications. Apromising line of work will be to build on the WikiFreq approach by integrating with the highquality Wikipedia taxonomy knowledge base. The hope is that using this approach will generatehighly coherent units along with a well structured conceptual tree.AcknowledgementsThe research leading to these results was supported by the PATHS project(http://paths-project.eu) funded by the European Community’s Seventh Frame-work Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 270082. This research was alsopartially funded by the Ministry of Economy under grant TIN2009-14715-C04-01 (KNOW2project).
    • ReferencesAtserias, J., Villarejo, L., Rigau, G., Agirre, E., Carroll, J., Magnini, B., and Vossen, P (2004). .The meaning multilingual central repository. In Proceedings of GWC, pages 23–30.Auer, S., Bizer, C., Kobilarov, G., Lehmann, J., Cyganiak, R., and Ives, Z. (2007). Dbpedia: Anucleus for a web of open data. The Semantic Web, pages 722–735.Azzopardi, L., Girolami, M., and Van Rijsbergen, C. (2004). Topic based language models forad hoc information retrieval. In Neural Networks, 2004. Proceedings. 2004 IEEE InternationalJoint Conference on, volume 4, pages 3281–3286. IEEE.Bentivogli, L., Forner, P Magnini, B., and Pianta, E. (2004). Revising the wordnet domains .,hierarchy: semantics, coverage and balancing. In Proceedings of the Workshop on MultilingualLinguistic Ressources, pages 101–108. Association for Computational Linguistics.Boyd-Graber, J., Chang, J., Gerrish, S., Wang, C., and Blei, D. (2009). Reading tea leaves:How humans interpret topic models. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on NeuralInformation Processing Systems.Fellbaum, C., editor (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. MIT Press.Grifﬁths, D. and Tenenbaum, M. (2004). Hierarchical topic models and the nested chineserestaurant process. In Advances in neural information processing systems 16: proceedings of the2003 conference, volume 16, page 17. The MIT Press.Grifﬁths, T. and Steyvers, M. (2004). Finding scientiﬁc topics. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(Suppl 1):5228.Hall, M. M., Clough, P D., and Stevenson, M. (2012). Evaluating the use of clustering for .automatically organising digital library collections. In Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries2012.Hearst, M. (1992). Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. In Proceedingsof the 14th conference on Computational linguistics-Volume 2, pages 539–545. Association forComputational Linguistics.Hearst, M. (2009). Search user interfaces. Cambridge Univ Pr.Hoffart, J., Suchanek, F., Berberich, K., Lewis-Kelham, E., De Melo, G., and Weikum, G.(2011). Yago2: exploring and querying world knowledge in time, space, context, and manylanguages. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference companion on World wide web,pages 229–232. ACM.Katifori, A., Halatsis, C., Lepouras, G., Vassilakis, C., and Giannopoulou, E. (2007). Ontologyvisualization methods - a survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 39(4).Malaisé, V Aroyo, L., Brugman, H., Gazendam, L., de Jong, A., Negru, C., and Schreiber, G. .,(2006). Evaluating a thesaurus browser for an audio-visual archive. In Staab, S. and Svátek, V.,editors, Managing Knowledge in a World of Networks, volume 4248 of Lecture Notes in ComputerScience, pages 272–286. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. 10.1007/11891451_25.
    • Marchionini, G. (2006). Exploratory search: from ﬁnding to understanding. Communicationsof the ACM, 49(4):41–46.Medelyan, O., Witten, I. H., and Milne, D. (2008). Topic Indexing with Wikipedia. InProceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Artiﬁcial Intelligence (AAAI) WikiAIworkshop.Milne, D. and Witten, I. H. (2008). Learning to Link with Wikipedia. In Proceeding of the 17thACM conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 509–518.Nikolova, S., Ma, X., Tremaine, M., and Cook, P (2010). Vocabulary navigation made easier. .In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, IUI ’10, pages361–364, New York, NY, USA. ACM.Padró, L. (2011). Analizadores multilingües en freeling. Linguamatica, 3(2):13–20.Ponzetto, S. and Strube, M. (2011). Taxonomy induction based on a collaboratively builtknowledge repository. Artiﬁcial Intelligence, 175(9-10):1737–1756.Sanderson, M. and Croft, B. (1999). Deriving concept hierarchies from text. In Proceedings ofthe 22nd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in informationretrieval, pages 206–213. ACM.Snow, R., Jurafsky, D., and Ng, A. (2004). Learning syntactic patterns for automatic hypernymdiscovery. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 17.Tan, P Steinbach, M., Kumar, V et al. (2006). Introduction to data mining. Pearson Addison ., .,Wesley Boston.Wei, X. and Croft, W. (2006). Lda-based document models for ad-hoc retrieval. In Proceedings ofthe 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in informationretrieval, pages 178–185. ACM.Wilson, M., B, K., MC, S., and B, S. (2010). From keyword search to exploration: Designingfuture search interfaces for the web. Foundations and Trends in Web Science, 2(1):1–97.Yi, M. (2008). Information organization and retrieval using a topic maps-based ontology:Results of a task-based evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science andTechnology, 59(12):1898–1911.Yu, J., Thom, J., and Tam, A. (2007). Ontology evaluation using wikipedia categories forbrowsing. In Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM conference on Conference on information andknowledge management, pages 223–232. ACM.