Using OpenRefine — Save 50%
The essential OpenRefine guide that takes you from data analysis and error fixing to linking your dataset to the Web with this book and ebook
In this article by Max De Wilde and Ruben Verborgh, the authors of the book Using OpenRefine, we dive deeper into dataset repair, demonstrating some of the more sophisticated data operations OpenRefine has to offer. OpenRefine (ex-Google Refine) is a powerful tool for working with messy data, cleaning it, transforming it from one format into another, extending it with web services, and linking it to databases like Freebase. The true power of OpenRefine only emerges when you dive into its more advanced features. This article will therefore shed light on the following:
- Recipe 1 – handling multi-valued cells
- Recipe 3 – clustering similar cells
Let's start with recipe 1.
(For more resources related to this topic, see here.)
Recipe 1 – handling multi-valued cells
It is a common problem in many tables: what do you do if multiple values apply to a single cell? For instance, consider a Clients table with the usual name, address, and telephone fields. A typist is adding new contacts to this table, when he/she suddenly discovers that Mr. Thompson has provided two addresses with a different telephone number for each of them. There are essentially three possible reactions to this:
- Adding only one address to the table: This is the easiest thing to do, as it eliminates half of the typing work. Unfortunately, this implies that half of the information is lost as well, so the completeness of the table is in danger.
- Adding two rows to the table: While the table is now complete, we now have redundant data. Redundancy is also dangerous, because it leads to error: the two rows might accidentally be treated as two different Mr. Thompsons, which can quickly become problematic if Mr. Thompson is billed twice for his subscription. Furthermore, as the rows have no connection, information updated in one of them will not automatically propagate to the other.
- Adding all information to one row: In this case, two addresses and two telephone numbers are added to the respective fields. We say the field is overloaded with regard to its originally envisioned definition. At first sight, this is both complete yet not redundant, but a subtle problem arises. While humans can perfectly make sense of this information, automated processes cannot. Imagine an envelope labeler, which will now print two addresses on a single envelope, or an automated dialer, which will treat the combined digits of both numbers as a single telephone number. The field has indeed lost its precise semantics.
Note that there are various technical solutions to deal with the problem of multiple values, such as table relations. However, if you are not in control of the data model you are working with, you'll have to choose any of the preceding solutions. Luckily, OpenRefine is able to offer the best of both worlds. Since it is also an automated piece of software, it needs to be informed whether a field is multi-valued before it can perform sensible operations on it. In the Powerhouse Museum dataset, the Categories field is multi-valued, as each object in the collection can belong to different categories. Before we can perform meaningful operations on this field, we have to tell OpenRefine to somehow treat it a little different.
Suppose we want to give the Categories field a closer look to check how many different categories are there and which categories are the most prominent. First, let's see what happens if we try to create a text facet on this field by clicking on the dropdown next to Categories and navigating to Facet| Text Facet as shown in the following screenshot. This doesn't work as expected because there are too many combinations of individual categories. OpenRefine simply gives up, saying that there are 14,805 choices in total, which is above the limit for display. While you can increase the maximum value by clicking on Set choice count limit, we strongly advise against this. First of all, it would make OpenRefine painfully slow as it would offer us a list of 14,805 possibilities, which is too large for an overview anyway. Second, it wouldn't help us at all because OpenRefine would only list the combined field values (such as Hen eggs | Sectional models | Animal Samples and Products). This does not allow us to inspect the individual categories, which is what we're interested in.
To solve this, leave the facet open, but go to the Categories dropdown again and select Edit Cells| Split multi-valued cells…as shown in the following screenshot:
OpenRefine now asks What separator currently separates the values?. As we can see in the first few records, the values are separated by a vertical bar or pipe character, as the horizontal line tokens are called. Therefore, enter a vertical bar |in the dialog. If you are not able to find the corresponding key on your keyboard, try selecting the character from one of the Categories cells and copying it so you can paste it in the dialog. Then, click on OK.
After a few seconds, you will see that OpenRefine has split the cell values, and the Categories facet on the left now displays the individual categories. By default, it shows them in alphabetical order, but we will get more valuable insights if we sort them by the number of occurrences. This is done by changing the Sort by option from name to count, revealing the most popular categories.
One thing we can do now, which we couldn't do when the field was still multi-valued is changing the name of a single category across all records. For instance, to change the name of Clothing and Dress, hover over its name in the created Categories facet and click on the edit link, as you can see in the following screenshot:
Enter a new name such as Clothing and click on Apply. OpenRefine changes all occurrences of Clothing and Dress into Clothing, and the facet is updated to reflect this modification.
Once you are done editing the separate values, it is time to merge them back together. Go to the Categories dropdown, navigate to Edit cells| Join multi-valued cells…, and enter the separator of your choice. This does not need to be the same separator as before, and multiple characters are also allowed. For instance, you could opt to separate the fields with a comma followed by a space.
Recipe 3 – clustering similar cells
Thanks to OpenRefine, you don't have to worry about inconsistencies that slipped in during the creation process of your data. If you have been investigating the various categories after splitting the multi-valued cells, you might have noticed that the same category labels do not always have the same spelling. For instance, there is Agricultural Equipment and Agricultural equipment(capitalization differences), Costumes and Costume(pluralization differences), and various other issues. The good news is that these can be resolved automatically; well, almost. But, OpenRefine definitely makes it a lot easier.
The process of finding the same items with slightly different spelling is called clustering. After you have split multi-valued cells, you can click on the Categories dropdown and navigate to Edit cells| Cluster and edit…. OpenRefine presents you with a dialog box where you can choose between different clustering methods, each of which can use various similarity functions. When the dialog opens, key collision and fingerprint have been chosen as default settings.
After some time (this can take a while, depending on the project size), OpenRefine will execute the clustering algorithm on the Categories field. It lists the found clusters in rows along with the spelling variations in each cluster and the proposed value for the whole cluster, as shown in the following screenshot:
Note that OpenRefine does not automatically merge the values of the cluster. Instead, it wants you to confirm whether the values indeed point to the same concept. This avoids similar names, which still have a different meaning, accidentally ending up as the same.
Before we start making decisions, let's first understand what all of the columns mean. The Cluster Size column indicates how many different spellings of a certain concept were thought to be found. The Row Count column indicates how many rows contain either of the found spellings. In Values in Cluster, you can see the different spellings and how many rows contain a particular spelling. Furthermore, these spellings are clickable, so you can indicate which one is correct. If you hover over the spellings, a Browse this cluster link appears, which you can use to inspect all items in the cluster in a separate browser tab. The Merge column contains a checkbox. If you check it, all values in that cluster will be changed to the value in the New Cell Value column when you click on one of the Merge Selected buttons. You can also manually choose a new cell value if the automatic value is not the best choice.
So, let's perform our first clustering operation. I strongly advise you to scroll carefully through the list to avoid clustering values that don't belong together. In this case, however, the algorithm hasn't acted too aggressively: in fact, all suggested clusters are correct. Instead of manually ticking the Merge? checkbox on every single one of them, we can just click on Select All at the bottom. Then, click on the Merge Selected & Re-Cluster button, which will merge all the selected clusters but won't close the window yet, so we can try other clustering algorithms as well.
OpenRefine immediately reclusters with the same algorithm, but no other clusters are found since we have merged all of them. Let's see what happens when we try a different similarity function. From the Keying Function menu, click on ngram fingerprint. Note that we get an additional parameter, Ngram Size, which we can experiment with to obtain less or more aggressive clustering. We see that OpenRefine has found several clusters again. It might be tempting to click on the Select All button again, but remember we warned to carefully inspect all rows in the list. Can you spot the mistake? Have a closer look at the following screenshot:
Indeed, the clustering algorithm has decided that Shirts and T-shirts are similar enough to be merged. Unfortunately, this is not true. So, either manually select all correct suggestions, or deselect the ones that are not. Then, click on the Merge Selected & Re-Cluster button.
Apart from trying different similarity functions, we can also try totally different clustering methods. From the Method menu, click on nearest neighbor. We again see new clustering parameters appear (Radius and Block Chars, but we will use their default settings for now). OpenRefine again finds several clusters, but now, it has been a little too aggressive. In fact, several suggestions are wrong, such as the Lockets / Pockets / Rockets cluster. Some other suggestions, such as "Photocopiers" and "Photocopier", are fine. In this situation, it might be best to manually pick the few correct ones among the many incorrect clusters.
Assuming that all clusters have been identified, click on the Merge Selected & Close button, which will apply merging to the selected items and take you back into the main OpenRefine window. If you look at the data now or use a text facet on the Categories field, you will notice that the inconsistencies have disappeared.
What are clustering methods?
OpenRefine offers two different clustering methods, key collision and nearest neighbor, which fundamentally differ in how they function. With key collision, the idea is that a keying function is used to map a field value to a certain key. Values that are mapped to the same key are placed inside the same cluster. For instance, suppose we have a keying function which removes all spaces; then, A B C, AB C, and ABC will be mapped to the same key: ABC. In practice, the keying functions are constructed in a more sophisticated and helpful way.
Nearest neighbor, on the other hand, is a technique in which each unique value is compared to every other unique value using a distance function. For instance, if we count every modification as one unit, the distance between Boot and Bots is 2: one addition and one deletion. This corresponds to an actual distance function in OpenRefine, namely levenshtein.
In practice, it is hard to predict which combination of method and function is the best for a given field. Therefore, it is best to try out the various options, each time carefully inspecting whether the clustered values actually belong together. The OpenRefine interface helps you by putting the various options in the order they are most likely to help: for instance, trying key collision before nearest neighbor.
In this article we learned about how to handle multi-valued cells and clustering of similar cells in OpenRefine. Multi-valued cells are a common problem in many tables. This article showed us what to do if multiple values apply to a single cell. Since OpenRefine is an automated piece of software, it needs to be informed whether a field is multi-valued before it can perform sensible operations on it.
This article also showed an example of how to go about it. It also shed light on clustering methods. OpenRefine offers two different clustering methods, key collision and nearest neighbor , which fundamentally differ in how they function. With key collision, the idea is that a keying function is used to map a field value to a certain key. Values that are mapped to the same key are placed inside the same cluster.
Resources for Article :
- Business Intelligence and Data Warehouse Solution - Architecture and Design [Article]
- Self-service Business Intelligence, Creating Value from Data [Article]
- Oracle Business Intelligence : Getting Business Information from Data [Article]
|The essential OpenRefine guide that takes you from data analysis and error fixing to linking your dataset to the Web with this book and ebook|
eBook Price: £13.99
Book Price: £21.99
About the Author :
Max De Wilde is a PhD researcher in Natural Language Processing and a teaching assistant at the Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), department of Information and Communication Sciences. He holds a Master's degree in Linguistics from the ULB and an Advanced Master's in Computational Linguistics from the University of Antwerp. Currently, he is preparing a doctoral thesis on the impact of language-independent information extraction on document retrieval. At the same time, he works as a full-time assistant and supervises practical classes for Master's level students in a number of topics, including database quality, document management, and architecture of information systems.
Ruben Verborgh is a PhD researcher in Semantic Hypermedia. He is fascinated by the Web's immense possibilities and tries to contribute ideas that will maybe someday slightly influence the way the Web changes all of us. His degree in Computer Science Engineering convinced him more than ever that communication is the most crucial thing for IT-based solutions. This is why he really enjoys explaining things to those eager to learn. In 2011, he launched the Free Your Metadata project together with Seth van Hooland and Max De Wilde, which aims to evangelize the importance of bringing your data on the Web. This book is one of the assets in this continuing quest.
He currently works at Multimedia Lab, a research group of iMinds, Ghent University, Belgium, in the domains of Semantic Web, Web APIs, and Adaptive
Hypermedia. Together with Seth van Hooland, he's writing Linked Data for Libraries, Archives, and Museums, Facet Publishing, a practical guide for metadata practitioners.