Measures for evaluation of structure and semantics of ontologies

• Autorzy: Waloszek W.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Recently, the topic of ontologies has growing attention from the IT community. Various processes of ontology creation, integration, and deployment have been proposed. As a consequence there appeared an urgent need for evaluating the resulting ontologies in a quantitative way. A number of metrics has been defined along with different approaches to measuring the properties of ontologies. In the first part of this paper we review the state of the art in this domain. Special attention is devoted to discussing differences between syntactic measures (referring to various properties of graphs that represent ontologies) and semantic measures (reflecting the properties of the space of ontology models). In the second part we propose an alternative approach to quantification of semantics of an ontology. The original proposal presented here exploits specific methods of representing the space of semantic models used for optimization of reasoning. We argue that this approach enables us to capture different kinds of relations among ontology terms and offers possibilities of devising new useful measures.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

ontology; description logic; Knowledge Cartography

• Wydawca: Komitet Metrologii i Aparatury Naukowej PAN
• Czasopismo: Metrology and Measurement Systems
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: Vol. 19, nr 2
• Strony: 343--354
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 21 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Waloszek W.

• Gdansk University of Technology, Faculty of Electronics, Telecommunications, and Informatics, Department of Software Engineering, Narutowicza 11/12, 80-233 Gdansk. Poland,

Bibliografia

• [1] Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O. (2001). The Semantic Web. Scientific American, 284(5), 34-43.
• [2] Hendler, J. (2011). Why the Semantic Web will Never Work. http://www.slideshare.net/jahendler/why-the-semantic-web-will-never-work.
• [3] Gruber, T.R. (1993). A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199-220.
• [4] Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P., Ulrike, S. (2008). OWL 2: The next step for OWL. In Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 6(4), 309-322.
• [5] d’Aquin, M., Baldassarre, C., Gridinoc, L., Angeletou, S., Sabou, M., Motta, E. (2007). Characterizing knowledge on the semantic web with Watson. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Evaluation of Ontologies and Ontology-based tools, 1-10.
• [6] Vrandečić, D., Sure, Y. (2007). How to Design Better Ontology Metrics. In The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, Franconi E., Kifer M., May W. (eds.), LNCS 4519, Springer-Verlag, 311-325.
• [7] Baader, F.A., McGuiness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (2003). The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, implementation, and applications, Cambridge University Press.
• [8] Beckett, D. (2004). RDF/XML syntax specification (revised). W3C Recommendation, http://www.w3.org/ TR/REC-rdf-syntax/.
• [9] Gómez-Pérez, A. (2004). Ontology Evaluation. In Handbook on Ontologies, Staab S., Studer R. (eds.), Springer-Verlag, 251-273.
• [10] d'Aquin, M., Holger, L. (2009). Cupboard - a place to expose your ontologies to applications and the community. In The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, 6th European Semantic Web Conference, LNCS 5554, Springer-Verlag, 913-918.
• [11] Vrandečić, D. (2010). Ontology Evaluation. PhD dissertation, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie.
• [12] Guarino, N., Welty, C.A. (2004). An Overview of OntoClean. In Handbook on Ontologies, Staab S., Studer R. (eds.), Springer-Verlag, 151-171.
• [13] Guarino, N., Welty, C.A. (2000). Ontological Analysis of Taxonomic Relationships. In Proceedings of ER-2000: The 19th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Springer-Verlag, LNCS 1920, 210-224.
• [14] Gómez-Pérez, A. (2004). Evaluating Ontology Evaluation. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19(4), 74-76.
• [15] Völker, J., Vrandečić, D., Hotho, A., Sure, Y. (2008). AEON - an approach to the automatic evaluation of ontologies. Applied Ontology, 3(1-2), 41-62.
• [16] Gangemi, A., Catenaccia, C., Ciaramita, M., Lehmann, J. (2006). Modelling ontology evaluation and validation. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Semantic Web Conference, Sure Y., Domingue J. (eds.), LNCS 4011, Springer-Verlag.
• [17] Hartmann, J., Sure, Y., Haase, P., Palma, R., Suárez-Figueroa, M. (2005). OMV - Ontology Metadata Vocabulary. In Ontology Patterns for the Semantic Web Workshop, Welty Ch. (ed.), Galway, Ireland.
• [18] Guarino, N. (2004). Toward a Formal Evaluation of Ontology Quality. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19(4), 78-79.
• [19] Vrandečić, D. (2009). Ontology Evaluation. Handbook on Ontologies, second edition, Staab S., Studer R. (eds.), Springer-Verlag, 293-313.
• [20] Goczyła, K., Grabowska, T., Waloszek, W., Zawadzki, M. (2006). The Knowledge Cartography A New Approach to Reasoning over Description Logics Ontologies. In: SOFSEM 2006: Theory and Practice of Computer Science, LNCS 3831, Springer-Verlag, 293-302.
• [21] Völker, J., Vrandečić, D., Sure, Y., Hotho, A. Learning Disjointness. In The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, Franconi E., Kifer M., May W. (Eds.), LNCS 4519, Springer-Verlag, 175-189.