Comparison between Ontology Distances (Preliminary Results)

  • Jérôme David
  • Jérôme Euzenat
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5318)

Abstract

There are many reasons for measuring a distance between ontologies. In particular, it is useful to know quickly if two ontologies are close or remote before deciding to match them. To that extent, a distance between ontologies must be quickly computable. We present constraints applying to such measures and several possible ontology distances. Then we evaluate experimentally some of them in order to assess their accuracy and speed.

References

  1. Alani, H., Brewster, C.: Ontology ranking based on the analysis of concept structures. In: Proc. 3rd International conference on Knowledge Capture (K-Cap), Banff. (CA), pp. 51–58 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. d’Aquin, M., Baldassarre, C., Gridinoc, L., Angeletou, S., Sabou, M., Motta, E.: Watson: a gateway for next generation semantic web applications. In: Proc. Poster session of the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Busan (KR) (2007)Google Scholar
  3. Ehrig, M., Haase, P., Hefke, M., Stojanovic, N.: Similarity for ontologies – a comprehensive framework. In: Proc. 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Information Systems in a Rapidly Changing Economy (ECIS), Regensburg (DE) (2005)Google Scholar
  4. Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology matching. Springer, Heidelberg (DE) (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Euzenat, J., Valtchev, P.: Similarity-based ontology alignment in OWL-lite. In: Proc. 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Valencia (ES), pp. 333–337 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. Gracia, J., Lopez, V., d’Aquin, M., Sabou, M., Motta, E., Mena, E.: Solving semantic ambiguity to improve semantic web based ontology matching. In: Proc. 2nd ISWC Ontology matching workshop (OM), Busan (KR), pp. 1–12 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. Hu, B., Kalfoglou, Y., Alani, H., Dupplaw, D., Lewis, P., Shadbolt, N.: Semantic metrics. In: Staab, S., Svátek, V. (eds.) EKAW 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4248, pp. 166–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jung, J., Euzenat, J.: Towards semantic social networks. In: Franconi, E., Kifer, M., May, W. (eds.) ESWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4519, pp. 267–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jung, J., Zimmermann, A., Euzenat, J.: Concept-based query transformation based on semantic centrality in semantic peer-to-peer environment. In: Dong, G., Lin, X., Wang, W., Yang, Y., Yu, J.X. (eds.) APWeb/WAIM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4505, pp. 622–629. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mädche, A., Staab, S.: Measuring similarity between ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 251–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Robertson, S., Spärck Jones, K.: Relevance weighting of search terms. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 27(3), 129–146 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stuckenschmidt, H., Klein, M.: Structure-based partitioning of large concept hierarchies. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 289–303. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tverski, A.: Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84(2), 327–352 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Valtchev, P.: Construction automatique de taxonomies pour l’aide à la représentation de connaissances par objets. Thèse d’informatique, Université Grenoble 1, Grenoble (FR) (1999)Google Scholar
  15. Vrandečić, D., Sure, Y.: How to design better ontology metrics. In: Franconi, E., Kifer, M., May, W. (eds.) ESWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4519, pp. 311–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jérôme David
    • 1
  • Jérôme Euzenat
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes & LIGGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations