This paper explores the problem of matching entities across different knowledge graphs. Given a query entity in one knowledge graph, we wish to find the corresponding real-world entity in another knowledge graph. We formalize this problem and present two large-scale datasets for this task based on exiting cross-ontology links between DBpedia and Wikidata, focused on several hundred thousand ambiguous entities. Using a classification-based approach, we find that a simple multi-layered perceptron based on representations derived from RDF2Vec graph embeddings of entities in each knowledge graph is sufficient to achieve high accuracy, with only small amounts of training data. The contributions of our work are datasets for examining this problem and strong baselines on which future work can be based.
Syntactic analysis plays an important role in semantic parsing, but the nature of this role remains a topic of ongoing debate. The debate has been constrained by the scarcity of empirical comparative studies between syntactic and semantic schemes, which hinders the development of parsing methods informed by the details of target schemes and constructions. We target this gap, and take Universal Dependencies (UD) and UCCA as a test case. After abstracting away from differences of convention or formalism, we find that most content divergences can be ascribed to: (1) UCCA's distinction between a Scene and a non-Scene; (2) UCCA's distinction between primary relations, secondary ones and participants; (3) different treatment of multi-word expressions, and (4) different treatment of inter-clause linkage. We further discuss the long tail of cases where the two schemes take markedly different approaches. Finally, we show that the proposed comparison methodology can be used for fine-grained evaluation of UCCA parsing, highlighting both challenges and potential sources for improvement. The substantial differences between the schemes suggest that semantic parsers are likely to benefit downstream text understanding applications beyond their syntactic counterparts.