Paper 199 (Research track)

DBpedia Fusion- Quality-driven data fusion of DBpedia chapters

Author(s): Johannes Frey, Amrapali Zaveri, Magnus Knuth, Marvin Hofer, Sebastian Hellmann

Full text: submitted version

Abstract: Data quality improvement of DBpedia has been in the focus of several publications in the past years. These works cover both knowledge enrichment techniques such as type learning, taxonomy generation, interlinking, etc. and error detection strategies like property or value outlier detection, type checking, ontology constraints, unit-tests, to name just a few. The goal of DBpedia Fusion is to take advantage of Wikipedia articles in different languages, which are independently maintained by authors from the individual language chapters. In this paper we define a set of quality metrics and evaluate them for Wikidata and DBpedia datasets of several language chapters. Moreover, we show that a quality-driven knowledge fusion approach of these datasets increases data richness as well as correctness.

Keywords: Data Fusion; Quality Assessment; DBpedia; Linked Data

Decision: reject

Review 1 (by Hideaki Takeda)

(RELEVANCE TO ESWC) The paper is out of review because no content except the abstract and the reference is provided.
(NOVELTY OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) The paper is out of review because no content except the abstract and the reference is provided.
(CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) The paper is out of review because no content except the abstract and the reference is provided.
(EVALUATION OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART) The paper is out of review because no content except the abstract and the reference is provided.
(DEMONSTRATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PROPOSED APPROACH) The paper is out of review because no content except the abstract and the reference is provided.
(REPRODUCIBILITY AND GENERALITY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL STUDY) The paper is out of review because no content except the abstract and the reference is provided.
(OVERALL SCORE) The paper is out of review because no content except the abstract and the reference is provided.


Review 2 (by Carlos Bobed)

(RELEVANCE TO ESWC) According to the title and abstract, the subject is relevant to ESWC.
(NOVELTY OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) The final paper version has not been submitted.
(CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) The final paper version has not been submitted.
(EVALUATION OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART) The final paper version has not been submitted.
(DEMONSTRATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PROPOSED APPROACH) The final paper version has not been submitted.
(REPRODUCIBILITY AND GENERALITY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL STUDY) The final paper version has not been submitted.
(OVERALL SCORE) The final paper version has not been submitted.


Review 3 (by anonymous reviewer)

(RELEVANCE TO ESWC) Empty submission
(NOVELTY OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) Empty submission
(CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) Empty submission
(EVALUATION OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART) Empty submission
(DEMONSTRATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PROPOSED APPROACH) Empty submission
(REPRODUCIBILITY AND GENERALITY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL STUDY) Empty submission
(OVERALL SCORE) Empty submission


Review 4 (by Jeremy Debattista)

(RELEVANCE TO ESWC) Paper had no content
(NOVELTY OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) Paper had no content
(CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE PROPOSED SOLUTION) Paper had no content
(EVALUATION OF THE STATE-OF-THE-ART) Paper had no content
(DEMONSTRATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PROPOSED APPROACH) Paper had no content
(REPRODUCIBILITY AND GENERALITY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL STUDY) Paper had no content
(OVERALL SCORE) Paper had no content


Metareview by Jorge Gracia

Apparently the paper was not ready for review but the authors forgot to withdraw it


Share on

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *