FOEval: Full Ontology Evaluation
|
|
- Elinor Flowers
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 FOEval: Full Ontology Evaluation Model and Perspectives Abderrazak BACHIR BOUIADJRA Computer Science Departement Djilali Liabes University Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria Sidi-Mohamed BENSLIMANE Computer Science Departement Djilali Liabes University Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria Abstract In this research, a new evaluation model to choose adequate ontology that fit user requirements is proposed. The proposed model presents two main features distinct from previous research models: First, it enables users to select from a set of proposed metrics, those who they help in the ontology evaluation process; and to assign weights to each one based on assumed impacts on this process. Second, it enables users to evaluate locally stored ontologies, and/or request search engines for available ontologies. The main goal of this model is to ease the ontology evaluation task, for users wishing to reuse available ontologies, enabling them to choose the more adequate ontology to their requirements. Keywords: ontology, ontology evaluation, ontology ranking, I. INTRODUCTION Ontologies have been shown to be beneficial for representing domain knowledge, and are quickly becoming the backbone of the Semantic Web; this has lead to the development of many ontologies in different domains. Developed ontologies need to be evaluated, to ensure their correctness and quality during their construction process. Likewise, users facing a large number of available ontologies need to have a way of assessing them and deciding which one fits their requirements the best. The need for ontology evaluation approaches and tools is crucial as the ontology development and reuse becomes increasingly important. The rest of the present paper is organized as follows. Section 2 addresses a survey of ontology evolution approaches according to some evaluation criteria. Section 3 reviews different tools developed for ontology evaluation. In section 4, we present our ontology evaluation model FOEval: Full Ontology Evaluation. Finally, we conclude this paper and gives essential future researches in section 5. II. STATE OF THE ART Knowing that there is no single unifying definition of what constitutes ontology evaluation [4], we present in this section a review of the literature of different ontology evaluation approaches by answering four issues that will help us to classify them: A. What should be evaluated? A variety of researches of ontology evaluation have been established depends on the perspective of what should be evaluated. Most of them focus on the evaluation of the whole ontology; others focus on partial evaluation of the ontology, for reuse it in an ontology engineering task [16]. B. Why it should be evaluated? We divide different ontology evaluation goals on validity evaluation and quality evaluation. We define validity evaluation as the process that evaluates ontologies to guarantee its freeness from any formal or semantic error [2], [10]. We define quality evaluation as the process that evaluates the quality and the adequacy of an ontology from the point of view of a particular predefined criteria, for use in a specific context and purpose. A variety of metrics to the ontology quality evaluation have been proposed in the literature, from which: comprehensiveness, richness, completeness, interpretability, adaptability and re-usability [12]. C. When it should be evaluated? Ontology evaluation is an important issue that must be addressed during different ontology lifecycle process; we divide it into four principle steps: Before the ontology building process: to evaluate resources used to build the ontology [5]. During the ontology building process: to guarantee the ontology freeness from all errors [2], [20]. During the ontology evolution process: to assess the effect of changes and to verify whether the ontology quality was increased or decreased; specifically in an automatic or semi-automatic ontology engineering approach [13], [14], [17]. Before reusing the ontology: to choose amongst a set of available ontologies, the most appropriate to user needs [2], [12]. D. Based on what it should be evaluated? We divide the ontology evaluation basis on: Corpus-based evaluation: is used to estimate empirically the accuracy and the coverage of the ontology. Gold-Standard-based evaluation: that compares candidate ontologies to gold-standard ontology that serves as a reference. Task-based evaluation: looks at how the results of the ontology-based application are affected by the use of an ontology. Expert-based evaluation: where ontologies are presented to human experts who have to judge in how far the developed ontology is correct. Criteria-based evaluation: measures in how far an ontology adheres to desirable criteria. 464
2 III. EVALUATION TOOLS Several ontology evaluation tools have been developed during last years. They differ according to the issues described above. We present the most important from them below: Swoogle[3]: is an ontology search engine that offers a limited search facility that can be interpreted as topic coverage. Given a search keyword Swoogle can retrieve ontologies that contain a class or a relation matching (lexically) the given keyword. OntoKhoj [1]: is an ontology search engine that extends the traditional approach (keyword-based search) to consider word senses when ranking ontologies to cover a topic. It accommodates a manual sense disambiguation process, then, according to the sense chosen by the user, hypernyms and synonyms are selected from WordNet. Watson [11]: is an ontology search engine that has an efficient mechanism for finding the best ontologies taking into account the equivalent ontologies. The author considers that two ontologies describing the same vocabulary are semantically equivalent if they express the same meaning, even if they may be written differently from a syntactic point of view. Obtaining non-redundant results is a good way to increase efficiency and improve robustness. OntoQA [6]:OntoQA is a tool that measures the quality of ontology from the consumer perspective, using schema and instance metrics. It takes as input a crawled populated ontology or a set of user supplied search terms and ranks them according to some metrics related to various aspects of an ontology. OntoCAT [7]: OntoCAT provides a comprehensive set of metrics for use by the ontology consumer or knowledge engineer to assist in ontology evaluation for re-use. This evaluation process is focused on the ontology summaries that are based on size, structural, hub and root properties. AKTiveRank [9]: AKTiveRank is a tool that ranks ontologies using a set of ontology structure based metrics. It takes keywords as input, and queries Swoogle for the given keywords in order to extract candidate ontologies; then it applies measures based on the coverage and on the structure of the ontologies to rank them. Its shortcoming is that its measures are at the class level. OS_Rank [15]:OS_Rank is an ontology evaluation system that evaluates ontologies and ranks them based on class name, on detail degree of searched class, on number of semantic relation of searched class, on interest domain based on Wordnet to resolve different semantic problems. IV. FULL ONTOLOGY EVALUATION MODEL In this section, a new evaluation model is described. The main goal of this model is to ease the ontology evaluation task, for users wishing to reuse available ontologies, enabling them to choose the more adequate ontology to their requirements. The proposed model is considered as a ranking and selection tool that presents three main features distinct from other models: First, it enables users to select from a set of proposed metrics, those who they help in the ontology evaluation process; and to assign weights to each one based on assumed impacts on this process. Second, it enables users to evaluate locally stored and/or searched ontologies (from different search engines). Third, it has an advanced mechanism for capturing the structural and semantic information about the user-desired domain class and relations. A. FOEval Architecture: Figure 1 shows the current architecture of FOEval. Figure 1. FOEval Architecture The first step Prepare goal is to decide which ontologies will be evaluated and ranked: (local-stored ontologies and/or searched ontologies). The second step Metrics goal is to decide from a set of proposed metrics, which ones will be used in the evaluation process, and to assign weights to each used metric based on assumed impacts on this process. In the Evaluate step candidate ontologies are evaluated for each used metric, and given a numerical score. An overall score for the ontology is then computed as a weighted sum of its permetric scores. B. FOEval Prepare: The goal of this step is to decide which ontologies will be evaluated and ranked: introduced ontologies and/or searched ontologies. FOEval proposes an advanced ontology search mechanism basing on features below: - FOEval can evaluates only introduced ontologies, - FOEval can evaluates only searched ontologies, - FOEval can evaluates introduced and searched ontologies, - FOEval can request different search engines (Swoogle, Watson) for available ontologies. 465
3 - FOEval request can be only with keywords provided by the user; with user selected synonyms and hypernyms based on WordNet; and with extracted important class of introduced ontologies. We consider a class as important if it has a largest number of hierarchical and semantical relations, it can also considered as important if it has a largest number of other important class linked to it. C. FOEval Metrics: In this research, we propose to evaluate and rank candidate ontologies using a rich set of metrics that include: coverage, richness, detail-level, comprehensiveness, connectedness and computational efficiency. Coverage: coverage of terms consists of class coverage, and relation coverage. Class coverage represents: from searched keywords, how many class name match in the ontology; while relation coverage represents: from searched keywords, how many relation name match in the ontology [19]. COV(T,O) = w1.ccov(t,o) + w2. RCov(T,O) Detail-Level: This measure describes: DL(T,O) = w1.gdl(o) + w2.sdl(t,o) The global detail level (Gdl): is a good indication of how well knowledge is grouped into different categories and subcategories in the ontology. This measure can distinguish a horizontal (flat) ontology from a vertical ontology. Formally, we define global detail level Gdl as the average number of subclasses per class. sub(c,o) is the subclasses number of class c J(ci,cj,t)=1 if relation "t" between ci and cj exist else 0 c, ci, and cj are class, O is an ontology, t and T are searched terms Richness: ontology richness can be measured on three different levels: Relation richness: is the metric that reflects the diversity of relations and placement of relations in the ontology. An ontology that contains many relations other than hierarchical relations is richer than taxonomy with only hierarchical relationships. Attribute richness: is the average number of attributes that are defined for each class that can indicate the amount of information pertaining to instance data; the more attributes that are defined the more knowledge the ontology conveys. Formally, we define ontology richness (OR) as the sum of relationship richness (rr) and attribute richness (ar). The relationship richness (rr) is defined as the ratio of the number of non-hierarchical relationships sp defined in the ontology, divided by the number of all relationships P. The attribute richness (ar) is defined as the number attributes for all class att divided by the number of class C. The specific detail level (Sdl): is a good indication of the searched terms importance in the ontology. We consider that an ontology that contains a searched term student as class with many sub and upper classes is preferred than other ontology that contains the class student without any subclass. Formally, we define specific detail level Sdl as the the sum of four parameters. First, the average number of subclass and upper-class for searched class. Second, the number of relations for searched class. Third, the number of relations for sub-class of searched class. Fourth, the number of relations for upper-class of searched class. sub(t,o) is the subclasses number of class t upp(t,o) is the upper classes number of class t T is the searched terms number Comprehensiveness: is the metric that assess and evaluate content comprehensiveness of ontologies. Formally, we define ontology comprehensiveness (OC) as the average number of annotated class (Ac), the average number of annotated relations (Ar), and the average number of instance per class (Ic). 466
4 w1,w2,and w3 are sub-metric weights Ann(c,O)= 1 if the class c is annotated I(c,O) is the number of instance per class c Ann(ci,cj,O)=1 if a relation between ci and cj exist and it is annotated C is the number of all class in the ontology R is the number of all relations in the ontology Computational Efficiency: this principle prospects an ontology that can be successfully/easily processed, in particular the speed that reasoners need to fulfill the required tasks, be it query answering, classification, or consistency checking, etc. The size of the ontology, class and relations number, and other parameters affect the efficiency of the ontology [4]. Formally, we define Ontology Computational Efficiency (OCE) as the sum of: the average number of class (Anc), the average number of sub-class per class (Ansc), the average number of relations (Anr), the average number of relation per class (Anrc), and the average ontology size (Aos). Finally, FOEval complete the evaluation by computing an overall score of each candidate ontology, as a sum of its metric and sub-metric scores, which will be calculated using normalized values to avoid any disagreeable influence of any metric or sub-metric on another. Formally, we define FOEval ontology evaluation function as below: FOEval(Ok) = k1.ncov(ok) + k2.nor(ok) + k3.ndl(ok) + k4.noc(ok) + k5.noce(ok) k1,k2, k3, k4 and k5 are global per-metric weights Ok are candidate ontologies nmetric is the normalized value of this metric (min=0 & max=1) E. FOEval Results: The last step is to show the evaluation results. We consider this part as an important task that need to many works and enhancements, because users will take decision based on this output; for this, we propose to use a textual and a graphical representation of ranked ontologies, including some helpful information like: class and relations number, size, date, path, global and per-metric result. w1,w2, w3 and w4 are sub-metric weights C(O) is the class number of the evaluated ontology mc(o) is the biggest class number of a candidate ontology sc(c,o) is the subclasses number of all class of the ontology R(O) is the relations number of the evaluated ontology mr(o) is the biggest relations number of a candidate ontology Size(O) is the evaluated ontology size in kilobytes msize(o) is the maximum candidate ontology size in kilobytes D. FOEval Evaluation: The first FOEval evaluation feature is its specific evaluation of candidate ontologies, when users can take into the evaluation process any or all metrics depending on their needs; for each one it calculates a numerical score. The second FOEval evaluation feature is its global and specific metric weights; where each one is globally weighted to give more or less importance to a metric than another, basing on evaluation goals and on user needs. In addition, each submetric has a specific weight that helps users for example, to evaluate only the relation richness of candidate ontologies rather than the global richness that include in addition the attribute richness. The default weight value is one (1), and optionally the user can change it to another value between [0, 10], zero means that this metric or sub-metric is disabled, and ten means that it is very important in the evaluation process. Figure 2. FOEval Textual Result Figure 3. FOEval Graphical Result 467
5 The graphical representation display ontology summaries based on [18] and [21]. We add in this part, two main ideas: (1) Global Summary: that allows the user to show more or less detail degree of an ontology. (2) Partial Summary: that allows the user to show more or less detail degree on a specific part or on a specific class. These two last ideas help users in full or partial ontology evaluation. These two points can be very helpful for FOEval users, because, before taking decisions about the evaluation, its offer an advanced view and important information about what they need. V. CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES In this paper we have addressed a novel classification of ontology evaluation approaches according to four issues. This classification summarized the main efforts performed in this area. We have presented the principal features of FOEval, which is tunable, requires minimal user involvement, and would be very useful in many ontology evaluation scenarios: - Evaluate local stored and/or searched ontologies from different search engines. - Evaluate ontologies to ensure their correctness and to assess their quality during their construction process. - Evaluate ontologies or versions of an ontology to assess the effect of changes during their evolution process. - Evaluate ontologies to choose the most appropriate to user needs before their reuse. FOEval offers several benefits: First, it strengthens the theoretical base for ontology evaluation by proposing a new model and rich metrics. Second, it can evaluate only available ontologies, available and some searched ontologies, and it can evaluate only searched ontology. Third, it requests search engines using searched terms, important class names of available ontologies, hypernyms and synonyms selected from WordNet according to the sense chosen by the user. Fourth, it avoids obtaining redundant results and equivalent ontologies basing on Watson search engine mechanisms [11]. In addition, it enables ontology users to evaluate ontologies easily; to decide which metric will be used in this process; and to assign weights to each used metric and sub-metric depending on their needs. We plan on making it a web-based tool, where users can evaluate ontologies quality using their file s path. We plan also on offering the possibility to introduce corpus or gold-standard ontology that serves as references in the evaluation process. Finally, we plan on adding other metrics, to enhance our model and tool, and to meet user requirements. In our opinion, future works in this area should focus particularly on quality evaluation, as the number of available ontologies is continuing to grow. VI. REFERENCES [1] Patel C., K. Supekar, Y. Lee, and E. K. Park. OntoKhoj: A Semantic Web Portal for Ontology Searching, Ranking and Classification. In Proceeding of the Workshop On Web Information And Data Management. ACM, [2] Gomez-Pérez. Ontology evaluation. In Steffen Staab and Rudi Studer, editors, Handbook on Ontologies, First Edition, chapter 13, pages Springer, [3] Ding, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A., Pan, R., Scott Cost, R., Peng, Y., Reddivari, P., Doshi, V.C., and Sachs, J.: Swoogle: A Search and Metadata Engine for the Semantic Web. In Proceedings of the 13th CIKM, [4] Gangemi, A., Catenacci, C., Massimiliano, C. and Lehmann, J., Ontology Evaluation and Validation: An integrated formal model for the quality diagnostic task, [5] Tarhuni Marwa, Rodolphe Meyer and Cheikh Omar Bagayoko. Master s thesis, Paris V University, [6] Tartir, S. Arpinar, I.B., Moore, M., Sheth, A.P. and Aleman-Meza, B. OntoQA: Metric-Based Ontology Quality Analysis, IEEE Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition from Distributed, Autonomous, Semantically Heterogeneous Data and Knowledge Sources, Houston, TX, USA, [7] Cross V. and A. Pal: OntoCAT: An Ontology Consumer Analysis Tool and Its Use on Product Services Categorization Standards, In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Applications and Business Aspects of the Semantic Web [8] Sabou Marta, Lopez V., Motta E. and Uren V. Ontology Selection: Evaluation on the Real Semantic Web, Fourth International Evaluation of Ontologies for the Web Workshop (EON2006), UK, [9] Jones M. and Alani H., Content-based ontology ranking. In Proceedings of the 9th Int. Protege Conf. CA, [10] Fahad, M., Qadir, M.A., Noshairwan, W. Semantic Inconsistency Errors in Ontologies. Proc. of GRC 07, Silicon Valley USA. IEEE CS [11] d'aquin M., Baldassarre C., Gridinoc L., Sabou M., Angeletou S., and Motta E. : Watson: Supporting next generation semantic web applications in WWW/Internet conference, Spain [12] Obrst Leo, Werner Ceusters, Inderjeet Mani, Steve Ray, and Barry Smith. The evaluation of ontologies. In Christopher J.O. Baker and Kei- Hoi Cheung, editors, Revolutionizing Knowledge Discovery in the Life Sciences, chapter 7, pages Springer, [13] Dellschaft, K. and Staab, S. : Strategies for the Evaluation of Ontology Learning. In Buitelaar, P. and Cimiano, P., editors, Ontology Learning and Population: Bridging the Gap Between Text and Know l edge, p ages I O S Press [14] Djedidi Rim et Marie-Aude Aufaure : Patrons de gestion de changements OWL ; THESE préparée au sein du Département Informatique de Supélec, 3 rue Joliot-Curie, Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France, [15] Wei Y., J.Chen «Ranking Ontology based on Structure Analysis» Second International Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling IEEE, 2009 [16] d'aquin M. and Lewen H.. Cupboard - a place to expose your ontologies to applications and the community. In The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, 6th European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC [17] Murdock J., Buckner C., Allen C.: «TWO METHODS FOR EVALUATING DYNAMIC ONTOLOGIES» Indiana University, Bloomington, [18] Li N., Motta E. and d Aquin M.: Ontology summarization: an analysis and an evaluation. The International Workshop on Evaluation of Semantic Technologies, Shanghai, China. IWEST [19] Sunju Oh; and Heon Y. Yeom: User-Centered Evaluation Model for Ontology Selection IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology 2010 [20] Ohta M., Kozaki K. and Mizoguchi R.: A Quality Assurance Framework for Ontology Construction and Refinement Proc. of 7th Atlantic Web Intelligence Conference. (Switzerland) AWIC [21] Cheng G., Ge W. and Qu Y.: Generating Summaries for Ontology Search in conference companion on World wide web, (India)
Ontology Evaluation and Ranking using OntoQA
Philadelphia University Faculty of Information Technology Ontology Evaluation and Ranking using OntoQA Samir Tartir Philadelphia University, Jordan I. Budak Arpinar University of Georgia Amit P. Sheth
More informationOntoCAT: An Ontology Consumer Analysis Tool and Its Use on Product Services Categorization Standards
OntoCAT: An Ontology Consumer Analysis Tool and Its Use on Product Services Categorization Standards Valerie Cross and Anindita Pal Computer Science and Systems Analysis, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056
More informationWhat makes a good ontology? A case-study in fine-grained knowledge reuse
What makes a good ontology? A case-study in fine-grained knowledge reuse Miriam Fernández, Chwhynny Overbeeke, Marta Sabou, Enrico Motta 1 Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, Milton Keynes,
More informationORES-2010 Ontology Repositories and Editors for the Semantic Web
Vol-596 urn:nbn:de:0074-596-3 Copyright 2010 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted only for private and academic purposes. This volume is published and copyrighted by its
More informationOntoMetrics: Putting Metrics into Use for Ontology Evaluation
Birger Lantow Institute of Computer Science, Rostock University, Albert-Einstein-Str. 22, 18051 Rostock, Germany Keywords: Abstract: Ontology, Ontology Evaluation, Ontology Metrics, Ontology Quality. Automatically
More informationWATSON: SUPPORTING NEXT GENERATION SEMANTIC WEB APPLICATIONS 1
WATSON: SUPPORTING NEXT GENERATION SEMANTIC WEB APPLICATIONS 1 Mathieu d Aquin, Claudio Baldassarre, Laurian Gridinoc, Marta Sabou, Sofia Angeletou, Enrico Motta Knowledge Media Institute, the Open University
More informationSemSearch: Refining Semantic Search
SemSearch: Refining Semantic Search Victoria Uren, Yuangui Lei, and Enrico Motta Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK {y.lei,e.motta,v.s.uren}@ open.ac.uk Abstract.
More informationDownloaded from jipm.irandoc.ac.ir at 5:49 IRDT on Sunday June 17th 2018
5-83 ( ) 5-83 ( ) ISC SCOPUS L ISA http://jist.irandoc.ac.ir 390 5-3 - : fathian000@gmail.com : * 388/07/ 5 : 388/05/8 : :...... : 390..(Brank, Grobelnic, and Mladenic 005). Brank, ).(Grobelnic, and Mladenic
More informationSearching and Ranking Ontologies on the Semantic Web
Searching and Ranking Ontologies on the Semantic Web Edward Thomas Aberdeen Unive rsity Aberdeen, UK ethomas@csd.abdn.ac.uk Harith Alani Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science Uni. of Southampton Southampton,
More informationConstructing Virtual Documents for Keyword Based Concept Search in Web Ontology
Constructing Virtual Documents for Keyword Based Concept Search in Web Ontology Sapna Paliwal 1,Priya.M 2 1 School of Information Technology and Engineering, VIT University, Vellore-632014,TamilNadu, India
More informationSemantic Web. Ontology Engineering and Evaluation. Morteza Amini. Sharif University of Technology Fall 93-94
ه عا ی Semantic Web Ontology Engineering and Evaluation Morteza Amini Sharif University of Technology Fall 93-94 Outline Ontology Engineering Class and Class Hierarchy Ontology Evaluation 2 Outline Ontology
More informationRefining Ontologies by Pattern-Based Completion
Refining Ontologies by Pattern-Based Completion Nadejda Nikitina and Sebastian Rudolph and Sebastian Blohm Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany {nikitina, rudolph, blohm}@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de
More informationOntology Refinement and Evaluation based on is-a Hierarchy Similarity
Ontology Refinement and Evaluation based on is-a Hierarchy Similarity Takeshi Masuda The Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, Osaka University Abstract. Ontologies are constructed in fields
More informationDynamic Ontology Evolution
Dynamic Evolution Fouad Zablith Knowledge Media Institute (KMi), The Open University. Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom. f.zablith@open.ac.uk Abstract. Ontologies form the core of Semantic
More informationTERM BASED WEIGHT MEASURE FOR INFORMATION FILTERING IN SEARCH ENGINES
TERM BASED WEIGHT MEASURE FOR INFORMATION FILTERING IN SEARCH ENGINES Mu. Annalakshmi Research Scholar, Department of Computer Science, Alagappa University, Karaikudi. annalakshmi_mu@yahoo.co.in Dr. A.
More informationSemantic Web. Ontology Engineering and Evaluation. Morteza Amini. Sharif University of Technology Fall 95-96
ه عا ی Semantic Web Ontology Engineering and Evaluation Morteza Amini Sharif University of Technology Fall 95-96 Outline Ontology Engineering Class and Class Hierarchy Ontology Evaluation 2 Outline Ontology
More informationUsing Hash based Bucket Algorithm to Select Online Ontologies for Ontology Engineering through Reuse
Using Hash based Bucket Algorithm to Select Online Ontologies for Ontology Engineering through Reuse Nadia Imdadi Dept. of Computer Science Jamia Millia Islamia a Central University, New Delhi India Dr.
More informationSemantic Cloud Generation based on Linked Data for Efficient Semantic Annotation
Semantic Cloud Generation based on Linked Data for Efficient Semantic Annotation - Korea-Germany Joint Workshop for LOD2 2011 - Han-Gyu Ko Dept. of Computer Science, KAIST Korea Advanced Institute of Science
More informationSWSE: Objects before documents!
Provided by the author(s) and NUI Galway in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite the published version when available. Title SWSE: Objects before documents! Author(s) Harth, Andreas; Hogan,
More information<is web> Information Systems & Semantic Web University of Koblenz Landau, Germany
Information Systems & University of Koblenz Landau, Germany Semantic Search examples: Swoogle and Watson Steffen Staad credit: Tim Finin (swoogle), Mathieu d Aquin (watson) and their groups 2009-07-17
More informationRanking Ontologies with AKTiveRank
Ranking Ontologies with AKTiveRank Harith Alani 1, Christopher Brewster 2, and Nigel Shadbolt 1 1 Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton,
More informationInternational Journal of Engineering Research-Online A Peer Reviewed International Journal Articles available online
RESEARCH ARTICLE ISSN: 2321-7758 AN SCALABLE ONTOLOGY MEASUREMENT APPROACH FOR SEMANTIC ONTOLOGIES USING DISTANCE METRIC G.PRADEEP 1, V.ABARNA 2, R.BHUVANA 3, R.SHARMILA 4, P.VALLABBI 5, 1 Professor -
More informationWhat can be done with the Semantic Web? An Overview of Watson-based Applications
What can be done with the Semantic Web? An Overview of Watson-based Applications Mathieu d Aquin, Marta Sabou, Enrico Motta, Sofia Angeletou, Laurian Gridinoc, Vanessa Lopez, and Fouad Zablith Knowledge
More informationEvolva: A Comprehensive Approach to Ontology Evolution
Evolva: A Comprehensive Approach to Evolution Fouad Zablith Knowledge Media Institute (KMi), The Open University Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom f.zablith@open.ac.uk Abstract. evolution
More informationOntoQA: Metric-Based Ontology Quality Analysis
OntoQA: Metric-Based Ontology Quality Analysis Samir Tartir, I. Budak Arpinar, Michael Moore, Amit P. Sheth, Boanerges Aleman-Meza IEEE Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition from Distributed, Autonomous, Semantically
More informationExtracting knowledge from Ontology using Jena for Semantic Web
Extracting knowledge from Ontology using Jena for Semantic Web Ayesha Ameen I.T Department Deccan College of Engineering and Technology Hyderabad A.P, India ameenayesha@gmail.com Khaleel Ur Rahman Khan
More informationServOMap and ServOMap-lt Results for OAEI 2012
ServOMap and ServOMap-lt Results for OAEI 2012 Mouhamadou Ba 1, Gayo Diallo 1 1 LESIM/ISPED, Univ. Bordeaux Segalen, F-33000, France first.last@isped.u-bordeaux2.fr Abstract. We present the results obtained
More informationAccessing information about Linked Data vocabularies with vocab.cc
Accessing information about Linked Data vocabularies with vocab.cc Steffen Stadtmüller 1, Andreas Harth 1, and Marko Grobelnik 2 1 Institute AIFB, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany {steffen.stadtmueller,andreas.harth}@kit.edu
More informationLODatio: A Schema-Based Retrieval System forlinkedopendataatweb-scale
LODatio: A Schema-Based Retrieval System forlinkedopendataatweb-scale Thomas Gottron 1, Ansgar Scherp 2,1, Bastian Krayer 1, and Arne Peters 1 1 Institute for Web Science and Technologies, University of
More informationA Flexible Biomedical Ontology Selection Tool
53 A Flexible Biomedical Ontology Selection Tool GILBERT MAIGA and DDEMBE WILLIAMS * Faculty of Computing and IT, Makerere University Abstract. The wide adoption and reuse of existing biomedical ontologies
More informationTowards Semantic Data Mining
Towards Semantic Data Mining Haishan Liu Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97401, USA ahoyleo@cs.uoregon.edu Abstract. Incorporating domain knowledge is
More informationOntology Matching with CIDER: Evaluation Report for the OAEI 2008
Ontology Matching with CIDER: Evaluation Report for the OAEI 2008 Jorge Gracia, Eduardo Mena IIS Department, University of Zaragoza, Spain {jogracia,emena}@unizar.es Abstract. Ontology matching, the task
More informationIJCSC Volume 5 Number 1 March-Sep 2014 pp ISSN
Movie Related Information Retrieval Using Ontology Based Semantic Search Tarjni Vyas, Hetali Tank, Kinjal Shah Nirma University, Ahmedabad tarjni.vyas@nirmauni.ac.in, tank92@gmail.com, shahkinjal92@gmail.com
More informationResearch Article. ISSN (Print) *Corresponding author Zhiqiang Wang
Scholars Journal of Engineering and Technology (SJET) Sch. J. Eng. Tech., 2015; 3(2A):117-123 Scholars Academic and Scientific Publisher (An International Publisher for Academic and Scientific Resources)
More informationOntology-Based Web Query Classification for Research Paper Searching
Ontology-Based Web Query Classification for Research Paper Searching MyoMyo ThanNaing University of Technology(Yatanarpon Cyber City) Mandalay,Myanmar Abstract- In web search engines, the retrieval of
More informationEnterprise Multimedia Integration and Search
Enterprise Multimedia Integration and Search José-Manuel López-Cobo 1 and Katharina Siorpaes 1,2 1 playence, Austria, 2 STI Innsbruck, University of Innsbruck, Austria {ozelin.lopez, katharina.siorpaes}@playence.com
More informationDevelopment of an Ontology-Based Portal for Digital Archive Services
Development of an Ontology-Based Portal for Digital Archive Services Ching-Long Yeh Department of Computer Science and Engineering Tatung University 40 Chungshan N. Rd. 3rd Sec. Taipei, 104, Taiwan chingyeh@cse.ttu.edu.tw
More informationGoNTogle: A Tool for Semantic Annotation and Search
GoNTogle: A Tool for Semantic Annotation and Search Giorgos Giannopoulos 1,2, Nikos Bikakis 1,2, Theodore Dalamagas 2, and Timos Sellis 1,2 1 KDBSL Lab, School of ECE, Nat. Tech. Univ. of Athens, Greece
More informationRelevant Pages in semantic Web Search Engines using Ontology
International Journal of Electronics and Computer Science Engineering 578 Available Online at www.ijecse.org ISSN: 2277-1956 Relevant Pages in semantic Web Search Engines using Ontology Jemimah Simon 1,
More informationOntology Research Group Overview
Ontology Research Group Overview ORG Dr. Valerie Cross Sriram Ramakrishnan Ramanathan Somasundaram En Yu Yi Sun Miami University OCWIC 2007 February 17, Deer Creek Resort OCWIC 2007 1 Outline Motivation
More informationContributions to the Study of Semantic Interoperability in Multi-Agent Environments - An Ontology Based Approach
Int. J. of Computers, Communications & Control, ISSN 1841-9836, E-ISSN 1841-9844 Vol. V (2010), No. 5, pp. 946-952 Contributions to the Study of Semantic Interoperability in Multi-Agent Environments -
More informationChapter 5 Ontological Evaluation and Validation
Chapter 5 Ontological Evaluation and Validation Samir Tartir, I. Budak Arpinar, and Amit P. Sheth 5.1 Introduction Building an ontology for a specific domain can start from scratch (Cristani and Cuel,
More informationMERGING BUSINESS VOCABULARIES AND RULES
MERGING BUSINESS VOCABULARIES AND RULES Edvinas Sinkevicius Departament of Information Systems Centre of Information System Design Technologies, Kaunas University of Lina Nemuraite Departament of Information
More informationOntology Evaluation and Ranking using OntoQA
Ontology Evaluation and Ranking using OntoQA Samir Tartir and I. Budak Arpinar Large-Scale Distributed Information Systems Lab Department of Computer Science University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-7404,
More informationSemantic Web. Sumegha Chaudhry, Satya Prakash Thadani, and Vikram Gupta, Student 1, Student 2, Student 3. ITM University, Gurgaon.
International Journal of Information & Computation Technology. ISSN 0974-2239 Volume 4, Number 10 (2014), pp. 1017-1022 International Research Publications House http://www. irphouse.com Semantic Web Sumegha
More informationA Novel Architecture of Ontology-based Semantic Web Crawler
A Novel Architecture of Ontology-based Semantic Web Crawler Ram Kumar Rana IIMT Institute of Engg. & Technology, Meerut, India Nidhi Tyagi Shobhit University, Meerut, India ABSTRACT Finding meaningful
More informationA Lightweight Approach for Evaluating Sufficiency of Ontologies
A Lightweight Approach for Evaluating Sufficiency of Ontologies Lalit Mohan S, Gollapudi VRJ Sai Prasad, Sridhar Chimalakonda, Y. Raghu Reddy and Venkatesh Choppella Software Engineering Research Center,
More informationA Survey on Ontology Evaluation Methods
A Survey on Ontology Evaluation Methods Joe Raad, Christophe Cruz To cite this version: Joe Raad, Christophe Cruz. A Survey on Ontology Evaluation Methods. Proceedings of the International Conference on
More informationSRS: A Software Reuse System based on the Semantic Web
SRS: A Software Reuse System based on the Semantic Web Bruno Antunes, Paulo Gomes and Nuno Seco Centro de Informatica e Sistemas da Universidade de Coimbra Departamento de Engenharia Informatica, Universidade
More informationOntology Modularization for Knowledge Selection: Experiments and Evaluations
Ontology Modularization for Knowledge Selection: Experiments and Evaluations Mathieu d Aquin 1, Anne Schlicht 2, Heiner Stuckenschmidt 2, and Marta Sabou 1 1 Knowledge Media Institute (KMi), The Open University,
More informationComputer-assisted Ontology Construction System: Focus on Bootstrapping Capabilities
Computer-assisted Ontology Construction System: Focus on Bootstrapping Capabilities Omar Qawasmeh 1, Maxime Lefranois 2, Antoine Zimmermann 2, Pierre Maret 1 1 Univ. Lyon, CNRS, Lab. Hubert Curien UMR
More informationVISO: A Shared, Formal Knowledge Base as a Foundation for Semi-automatic InfoVis Systems
VISO: A Shared, Formal Knowledge Base as a Foundation for Semi-automatic InfoVis Systems Jan Polowinski Martin Voigt Technische Universität DresdenTechnische Universität Dresden 01062 Dresden, Germany
More informationA Semi-Automatic Ontology Extension Method for Semantic Web Services
University of Jordan From the SelectedWorks of Dr. Mutaz M. Al-Debei 2011 A Semi-Automatic Ontology Extension Method for Semantic Web Services Mutaz M. Al-Debei Mohammad Mourhaf Al Asswad Available at:
More informationGeneration of Semantic Clouds Based on Linked Data for Efficient Multimedia Semantic Annotation
Generation of Semantic Clouds Based on Linked Data for Efficient Multimedia Semantic Annotation Han-Gyu Ko and In-Young Ko Department of Computer Science, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology,
More informationDevelopment of Contents Management System Based on Light-Weight Ontology
Development of Contents Management System Based on Light-Weight Ontology Kouji Kozaki, Yoshinobu Kitamura, and Riichiro Mizoguchi Abstract In the Structuring Nanotechnology Knowledge project, a material-independent
More informationOpus: University of Bath Online Publication Store
Patel, M. (2004) Semantic Interoperability in Digital Library Systems. In: WP5 Forum Workshop: Semantic Interoperability in Digital Library Systems, DELOS Network of Excellence in Digital Libraries, 2004-09-16-2004-09-16,
More informationThe HMatch 2.0 Suite for Ontology Matchmaking
The HMatch 2.0 Suite for Ontology Matchmaking S. Castano, A. Ferrara, D. Lorusso, and S. Montanelli Università degli Studi di Milano DICo - Via Comelico, 39, 20135 Milano - Italy {castano,ferrara,lorusso,montanelli}@dico.unimi.it
More informationGoNTogle: A Tool for Semantic Annotation and Search
GoNTogle: A Tool for Semantic Annotation and Search Giorgos Giannopoulos 1,2, Nikos Bikakis 1, Theodore Dalamagas 2 and Timos Sellis 1,2 1 KDBS Lab, School of ECE, NTU Athens, Greece. {giann@dblab.ntua.gr,
More informationEffect of log-based Query Term Expansion on Retrieval Effectiveness in Patent Searching
Effect of log-based Query Term Expansion on Retrieval Effectiveness in Patent Searching Wolfgang Tannebaum, Parvaz Madabi and Andreas Rauber Institute of Software Technology and Interactive Systems, Vienna
More informationOpen Research Online The Open University s repository of research publications and other research outputs
Open Research Online The Open University s repository of research publications and other research outputs Bottom-Up Ontology Construction with Contento Conference or Workshop Item How to cite: Daga, Enrico;
More informationMetadata and the Semantic Web and CREAM 0
Metadata and the Semantic Web and CREAM 0 1 Siegfried Handschuh, 1;2 Steffen Staab, 1;3 Alexander Maedche 1 Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/wbs
More informationReducing the Inferred Type Statements with Individual Grouping Constructs
Reducing the Inferred Type Statements with Individual Grouping Constructs Övünç Öztürk, Tuğba Özacar, and Murat Osman Ünalır Department of Computer Engineering, Ege University Bornova, 35100, Izmir, Turkey
More informationUsing the Semantic Web as Background Knowledge for Ontology Mapping
Using the Semantic Web as Background Knowledge for Ontology Mapping Marta Sabou, Mathieu d Aquin, and Enrico Motta Knowledge Media Institute (KMi) The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom {r.m.sabou,
More informationMeasuring The Degree Of Similarity Between Web Ontologies Based On Semantic Coherence
Measuring The Degree Of Similarity Between Web Ontologies Based On Semantic Coherence ABHIK BANERJEE, HAREENDRA MUNIMADUGU, SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN VEDANARAYANAN, LAWRENCE J. MAZLACK Applied Computational Intelligence
More informationAn ontology-based approach for semantics ranking of the web search engines results
An ontology-based approach for semantics ranking of the web search engines results Abdelkrim Bouramoul*, Mohamed-Khireddine Kholladi Computer Science Department, Misc Laboratory, University of Mentouri
More informationCollaborative Ontology Construction using Template-based Wiki for Semantic Web Applications
2009 International Conference on Computer Engineering and Technology Collaborative Ontology Construction using Template-based Wiki for Semantic Web Applications Sung-Kooc Lim Information and Communications
More informationThe Hoonoh Ontology for describing Trust Relationships in Information Seeking
The Hoonoh Ontology for describing Trust Relationships in Information Seeking Tom Heath 1 and Enrico Motta 2 1 Talis Information Limited Knights Court, Solihull Parkway Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB,
More informationMotivating Ontology-Driven Information Extraction
Motivating Ontology-Driven Information Extraction Burcu Yildiz 1 and Silvia Miksch 1, 2 1 Institute for Software Engineering and Interactive Systems, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria {yildiz,silvia}@
More informationThanks to our Sponsors
Thanks to our Sponsors A brief history of Protégé 1987 PROTÉGÉ runs on LISP machines 1992 PROTÉGÉ-II runs under NeXTStep 1995 Protégé/Win runs under guess! 2000 Protégé-2000 runs under Java 2005 Protégé
More informationRequirements for Information Extraction for Knowledge Management
Requirements for Information Extraction for Knowledge Management Philipp Cimiano*, Fabio Ciravegna, John Domingue, Siegfried Handschuh*, Alberto Lavelli +, Steffen Staab*, Mark Stevenson AIFB, University
More informationExperience of Developing a Meta-Semantic Search Engine
2013 International Conference on Cloud & Ubiquitous Computing & Emerging Technologies Experience of Developing a Meta-Semantic Search Engine Debajyoti Mukhopadhyay 1, Manoj Sharma 1, Gajanan Joshi 1, Trupti
More informationDomain-specific Concept-based Information Retrieval System
Domain-specific Concept-based Information Retrieval System L. Shen 1, Y. K. Lim 1, H. T. Loh 2 1 Design Technology Institute Ltd, National University of Singapore, Singapore 2 Department of Mechanical
More informationOntology Creation and Development Model
Ontology Creation and Development Model Pallavi Grover, Sonal Chawla Research Scholar, Department of Computer Science & Applications, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India Associate. Professor, Department
More informationEffective Page Refresh Policies for Web Crawlers
For CS561 Web Data Management Spring 2013 University of Crete Effective Page Refresh Policies for Web Crawlers and a Semantic Web Document Ranking Model Roger-Alekos Berkley IMSE 2012/2014 Paper 1: Main
More informationA Novel Categorized Search Strategy using Distributional Clustering Neenu Joseph. M 1, Sudheep Elayidom 2
A Novel Categorized Search Strategy using Distributional Clustering Neenu Joseph. M 1, Sudheep Elayidom 2 1 Student, M.E., (Computer science and Engineering) in M.G University, India, 2 Associate Professor
More informationShrey Patel B.E. Computer Engineering, Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology 2018 IJSRCSEIT Volume 3 Issue 3 ISSN : 2456-3307 Some Issues in Application of NLP to Intelligent
More informationSemantic Web Technology Evaluation Ontology (SWETO): A test bed for evaluating tools and benchmarking semantic applications
Semantic Web Technology Evaluation Ontology (SWETO): A test bed for evaluating tools and benchmarking semantic applications WWW2004 (New York, May 22, 2004) Semantic Web Track, Developers Day Boanerges
More informationAutomation of Semantic Web based Digital Library using Unified Modeling Language Minal Bhise 1 1
Automation of Semantic Web based Digital Library using Unified Modeling Language Minal Bhise 1 1 Dhirubhai Ambani Institute for Information and Communication Technology, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India Email:
More informationEnabling Semantic Search in Large Open Source Communities
Enabling Semantic Search in Large Open Source Communities Gregor Leban, Lorand Dali, Inna Novalija Jožef Stefan Institute, Jamova cesta 39, 1000 Ljubljana {gregor.leban, lorand.dali, inna.koval}@ijs.si
More informationEfficient approximate SPARQL querying of Web of Linked Data
Efficient approximate SPARQL querying of Web of Linked Data B.R.Kuldeep Reddy and P.Sreenivasa Kumar Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India {brkreddy,psk}@cse.iitm.ac.in Abstract. The web
More informationA Semantic Role Repository Linking FrameNet and WordNet
A Semantic Role Repository Linking FrameNet and WordNet Volha Bryl, Irina Sergienya, Sara Tonelli, Claudio Giuliano {bryl,sergienya,satonelli,giuliano}@fbk.eu Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy Abstract
More informationInternal project report T3.1 Damask Ontology
TIN2009-11005 DAMASK Data-Mining Algorithms with Semantic Knowledge PROYECTO DE INVESTIGACIÓN PROGRAMA NACIONAL DE INVESTIGACIÓN FUNDAMENTAL, PLAN NACIONAL DE I+D+i 2008-2011 ÁREA TEMÁTICA DE GESTIÓN:
More informationOntologies and similarity
Ontologies and similarity Steffen Staab staab@uni-koblenz.de http://west.uni-koblenz.de Institute for Web Science and Technologies, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Germany 1 Introduction Ontologies [9] comprise
More informationImgSeek: Capturing User s Intent For Internet Image Search
ImgSeek: Capturing User s Intent For Internet Image Search Abstract - Internet image search engines (e.g. Bing Image Search) frequently lean on adjacent text features. It is difficult for them to illustrate
More informationEFFICIENT INTEGRATION OF SEMANTIC TECHNOLOGIES FOR PROFESSIONAL IMAGE ANNOTATION AND SEARCH
EFFICIENT INTEGRATION OF SEMANTIC TECHNOLOGIES FOR PROFESSIONAL IMAGE ANNOTATION AND SEARCH Andreas Walter FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik, Haid-und-Neu-Straße 10-14, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany, awalter@fzi.de
More informationSemantic Web Technology Evaluation Ontology (SWETO): A Test Bed for Evaluating Tools and Benchmarking Applications
Wright State University CORE Scholar Kno.e.sis Publications The Ohio Center of Excellence in Knowledge- Enabled Computing (Kno.e.sis) 5-22-2004 Semantic Web Technology Evaluation Ontology (SWETO): A Test
More informationSemantic matching to achieve software component discovery and composition
Semantic matching to achieve software component discovery and composition Sofien KHEMAKHEM 1, Khalil DRIRA 2,3 and Mohamed JMAIEL 1 1 University of Sfax, National School of Engineers, Laboratory ReDCAD,
More informationImproving Ontology Recommendation and Reuse in WebCORE by Collaborative Assessments
Improving Ontology Recommendation and Reuse in WebCORE by Collaborative Assessments Iván Cantador, Miriam Fernández, Pablo Castells Escuela Politécnica Superior Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Campus de
More informationA Method for Semi-Automatic Ontology Acquisition from a Corporate Intranet
A Method for Semi-Automatic Ontology Acquisition from a Corporate Intranet Joerg-Uwe Kietz, Alexander Maedche, Raphael Volz Swisslife Information Systems Research Lab, Zuerich, Switzerland fkietz, volzg@swisslife.ch
More informationOntoXpl Exploration of OWL Ontologies
OntoXpl Exploration of OWL Ontologies Volker Haarslev and Ying Lu and Nematollah Shiri Computer Science Department Concordia University, Montreal, Canada haarslev@cs.concordia.ca ying lu@cs.concordia.ca
More informationPRIOR System: Results for OAEI 2006
PRIOR System: Results for OAEI 2006 Ming Mao, Yefei Peng University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA {mingmao,ypeng}@mail.sis.pitt.edu Abstract. This paper summarizes the results of PRIOR system, which
More informationAn Improving for Ranking Ontologies Based on the Structure and Semantics
An Improving for Ranking Ontologies Based on the Structure and Semantics S.Anusuya, K.Muthukumaran K.S.R College of Engineering Abstract Ontology specifies the concepts of a domain and their semantic relationships.
More informationVIDEO SEARCHING AND BROWSING USING VIEWFINDER
VIDEO SEARCHING AND BROWSING USING VIEWFINDER By Dan E. Albertson Dr. Javed Mostafa John Fieber Ph. D. Student Associate Professor Ph. D. Candidate Information Science Information Science Information Science
More informationAn FCA Framework for Knowledge Discovery in SPARQL Query Answers
An FCA Framework for Knowledge Discovery in SPARQL Query Answers Melisachew Wudage Chekol, Amedeo Napoli To cite this version: Melisachew Wudage Chekol, Amedeo Napoli. An FCA Framework for Knowledge Discovery
More informationSEMANTIC SUPPORT FOR MEDICAL IMAGE SEARCH AND RETRIEVAL
SEMANTIC SUPPORT FOR MEDICAL IMAGE SEARCH AND RETRIEVAL Wang Wei, Payam M. Barnaghi School of Computer Science and Information Technology The University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus {Kcy3ww, payam.barnaghi}@nottingham.edu.my
More informationA Loose Coupling Approach for Combining OWL Ontologies and Business Rules
A Loose Coupling Approach for Combining OWL Ontologies and Business Rules Amina Chniti, 1,2 Patrick Albert, 1 Jean Charlet 2,3 1 CAS France, IBM {amina.chniti,albertpa}@fr.ibm.com 2 INSERM UMRS 872, Eq
More informationNeOn Methodology for Building Ontology Networks: a Scenario-based Methodology
NeOn Methodology for Building Ontology Networks: a Scenario-based Methodology Asunción Gómez-Pérez and Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa Ontology Engineering Group. Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial. Facultad
More informationImage Similarity Measurements Using Hmok- Simrank
Image Similarity Measurements Using Hmok- Simrank A.Vijay Department of computer science and Engineering Selvam College of Technology, Namakkal, Tamilnadu,india. k.jayarajan M.E (Ph.D) Assistant Professor,
More informationBuilding a biomedical ontology recommender web service
JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL SEMANTICS PROCEEDINGS Open Access Building a biomedical ontology recommender web service Clement Jonquet *, Mark A Musen, Nigam H Shah From Bio-Ontologies 2009: Knowledge in Biology
More informationGap analysis of ontology mapping tools and techniques
Loughborough University Institutional Repository Gap analysis of ontology mapping tools and techniques This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repository by the/an author. Citation:
More information