The Role of Community Acceptance in Assessing Ontology Quality

  • Melinda McDaniel
  • Veda C. Storey
  • Vijayan SugumaranEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9612)


Ontologies are crucial for the Semantic Web to flourish. Several communities are beginning to develop and maintain ontology repositories in different domains. Although a developer can often find multiple ontologies in the library that fit a particular domain, he or she then must select which of the potential ontologies would be most suitable for a specific purpose. Users, therefore, need a way to assess the quality of the ontologies stored in the library based upon a broad set of criteria; for example, the level of acceptance by the community of which it is a part. The history of an ontology’s development and the authority an ontology receives via links from other ontologies can be used to assess the level of endorsement within the group that shares its domain. This research defines metrics for history and authority within a community and shows how they can be weighted for a particular task. A case study demonstrates the usefulness of these metrics and discusses why they should be incorporated in any broad metrics suite that is used to rank ontologies in a library.



This research is supported by the departments of Computer Information Systems and Computer Science, Georgia State University and a 2016 School of Business Administration Spring/Summer Research Fellowship from Oakland University.


  1. 1.
    Berners-Lee, T., Kagal, L.: The fractal nature of the semantic web. AI Mag. 29(3), 29 (2008)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gruber, T.R.: Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 43(5), 907–928 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hepp, M., Bachlechner, D., Siorpaes, K.: OntoWiki: community-driven ontology engineering and ontology usage based on Wikism. In: Proceedings of 2006 International Symposium on Wikis. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andrews, D.C.: Audience-specific online community design. Commun. ACM 45(4), 64–68 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Noy, N.F., Shah, N.H., Whetzel, P.L., Dai, B., Dorf, M., Griffith, N., Jonquet, C., Rubin, D.L., Storey, M.A., Chute, C.G., Musen, M.A.: BioPortal: ontologies and integrated data resources at the click of a mouse. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, 197 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shadbolt, N., Hall, W., Berners-Lee, T.: The semantic web revisited. IEEE Intell. Syst. 21(3), 96–101 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Noy, N.F., Griffith, N., Musen, M.A.: Collecting community-based mappings in an ontology repository. In: Sheth, A.P., Staab, S., Dean, M., Paolucci, M., Maynard, D., Finin, T., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 371–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stvilia, B., et al.: A framework for information quality assessment. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58, 1720–1733 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    History. In: Macmillan Online Dictionary.
  10. 10.
    Sudol, R.: Revising: new essays for teachers of writing. National Council of Teachers of English, 1111 Kenyon Rd., Urbana, IL (1982)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horning, A., Becker, A.: Revision: History, Theory, and Practice. Parlor Press, Anderson (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wellman, B.: An electronic group is virtually a social network. Cult. Internet 4, 179–205 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Su, X., Ilebrekke, L.: A comparative study of ontology languages and tools. In: Pidduck, A., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 761–765. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Sci. Am. 284(5), 28–37 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noy, N.F., Fergerson, R.W., Musen, M.A.: The knowledge model of Protege-2000. In: Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management Methods, pp. 17–32 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.: Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean. Commun. ACM 45, 61–65 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lozano-Tello, A., Gómez-Pérez, A.: Ontometric: a method to choose the appropriate ontology. J. Database Manag. 15, 1–18 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Burton-Jones, A., Storey, V.C., Sugumaran, V., Ahluwalia, P.: A semiotic metrics suite for assessing the quality of ontologies. Data Knowl. Eng. 55(1), 84–102 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tartir, S., Arpinar, I.B., Moore, M., Sheth, A.P., Aleman-Meza, B.: OntoQA: metric-based ontology quality analysis (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alani, H., Brewster, C., Shadbolt, N.R.: Ranking ontologies with AKTiveRank. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gangemi, A., Catenacci, C., Ciaramita, M., Lehmann, J.: Modelling ontology evaluation and validation. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 140–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jonquet, C., Musen, M.A., Shah, N.H.: Building a biomedical ontology recommender web service. Biomed. Seman. 1, S1 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yu, J., Thom, J.A., Tam, A.: Requirements-oriented methodology for evaluating ontologies. Inf. Syst. 34, 766–767 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vrandečić, D.: Ontology evaluation. In: Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 293–313 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Duque-Ramos, A., Fernández-Breis, J.T., Stevens, R., Aussenac-Gilles, N.: OQuaRE: a SQuaRE-based approach for evaluating the quality of ontologies. J. Res. Pract. Inf. Technol. 43, 159 (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    d’Aquin, M., Noy, N.F.: Where to publish and find ontologies? A survey of ontology libraries. Web Seman. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 11, 96–111 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stamper, R., Liu, K., Hafkamp, M., Ades, Y.: Understanding the roles of signs and norms in organizations-a semiotic approach to information systems design. Behav. Inf. Technol. 19(1), 15–27 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ashburner, M., et al.: Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology, the gene ontology consortium. Nat. Genet. 25, 25–29 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melinda McDaniel
    • 1
  • Veda C. Storey
    • 2
  • Vijayan Sugumaran
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer Information Systems, J. Mack Robinson College of BusinessGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.School of Business AdministrationOakland UniversityRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations