Collaborative Ontology Evolution and Data Quality - An Empirical Analysis
Since more than a decade, theoretical research on ontology evolution has been published in literature and several frameworks for managing ontology changes have been proposed. However, there are less studies that analyze widely used ontologies that were developed in a collaborative manner to understand community-driven ontology evolution in practice. In this paper, we perform an empirical analysis on how four well-known ontologies (DBpedia, Schema.org, PROV-O, and FOAF) have evolved through their lifetime and an analysis of the data quality issues caused by some of the ontology changes. To that end, the paper discusses the composition of the communities that developed the aforementioned ontologies and the ontology development process followed. Further, the paper analyses the changes in those ontologies in the 53 versions of them examined in this study. Depending of the use case, the community involved, and other factors different approaches for the ontology development and evolution process are used (e.g., bottom-up approach with high automation or top-down approach with a lot of manual curation). This paper concludes that one model for managing changes does not fit all. Furthermore, it is also clear that none of the selected ontologies follow the theoretical frameworks found in literature. Nevertheless, in communities where industrial participants are dominant more rigorous editorial processes are followed, largely influenced by software development tools and processes. Based on the analysis, the most common quality problems caused by ontology changes include the use of abandoned classes and properties in data and introduction of duplicate classes and properties.
KeywordsOntology Change Evolution Quality DBpedia Schema.org PROV-O FOAF
This work was funded by the BES-2014-068449 grant under the 4V project (TIN2013-46238-C4-2-R).
- 3.Stojanovic, L.: Methods and tools for ontology evolution. Master’s thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany (2004)Google Scholar
- 5.Palma, R.: Ontology metadata management in distributed environments (2009)Google Scholar
- 6.Zablith, F.: Evolva: a comprehensive approach to ontology evolution. In: Aroyo, L., Traverso, P., Ciravegna, F., Cimiano, P., Heath, T., Hyvönen, E., Mizoguchi, R., Oren, E., Sabou, M., Simperl, E. (eds.) ESWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5554, pp. 944–948. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02121-3_87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Haase, P., Harmelen, F., Huang, Z., Stuckenschmidt, H., Sure, Y.: A framework for handling inconsistency in changing ontologies. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 353–367. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11574620_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Pinto, H.S., Staab, S., Tempich, C.: DILIGENT: towards a fine-grained methodology for DIstributed, Loosely-controlled and evolvInG Engineering of oNTologies. In: Proceedings of the 16th Eureopean Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2004, including Prestigious Applicants of Intelligent Systems, PAIS 2004, Valencia, Spain, 22–27 August 2004, pp. 393–397 (2004)Google Scholar
- 9.Dragoni, M., Ghidini, C.: Evaluating the impact of ontology evolution patterns on the effectiveness of resources retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Joint Workshop on Knowledge Evolution and Ontology Dynamics (EvoDyn-2012), vol. 890 (2012)Google Scholar
- 10.Abgaz, Y.M., Javed, M., Pahl, C.: Analyzing impacts of change operations in evolving ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Joint Workshop on Knowledge Evolution and Ontology Dynamics (EvoDyn-2012), vol. 890 (2012). CEUR-WS.org
- 11.Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A., et al.: PROMPTDIFF: a fixed-point algorithm for comparing ontology versions. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence vol. 2002, pp. 744–750 (2002)Google Scholar
- 13.Mihindukulasooriya, N., Rico, M., García-Castro, R., Gómez-Pérez, A.: An analysis of the quality issues of the properties available in the Spanish DBpedia. In: Puerta, J.M., Gámez, J.A., Dorronsoro, B., Barrenechea, E., Troncoso, A., Baruque, B., Galar, M. (eds.) CAEPIA 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9422, pp. 198–209. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24598-0_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Mihindukulasooriya, N., Poveda-Villalón, M., García-Castro, R., Gómez-Pérez, A.: Loupe-an online tool for inspecting datasets in the linked data cloud. In: Demo at the 14th International Semantic Web Conference, Bethlehem, USA (2015)Google Scholar
- 16.Kendall, E., Novacek, V.: Principles of Good Practice for Managing RDF Vocabularies and OWL Ontologies, March 2008Google Scholar