Advertisement

Criteria and Evaluation for Ontology Modularization Techniques

  • Mathieu d’Aquin
  • Anne Schlicht
  • Heiner Stuckenschmidt
  • Marta Sabou
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5445)

Summary

While many authors have argued for the benefits of applying principles of modularization to ontologies, there is not yet a common understanding of how modules are defined and what properties they should have. In the previous section, this question was addressed from a purely logical point of view. In this chapter, we take a broader view on possible criteria that can be used to determine the quality of a modules. Such criteria include logic-based, but also structural and application-dependent criteria, sometimes borrowing from related fields such as software engineering. We give an overview of possible criteria and identify a lack of application-dependent quality measures. We further report some modularization experiments and discuss the role of quality criteria and evaluation in the context of these experiments.

Keywords

Module Extraction Logical Criterion Ontology Module Source Ontology Ontology Editor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brewster, C., Alani, H., Dasmahapatra, S., Wilks, Y.: Data Driven Ontology Evaluation. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chidamber, S.R., Kemerer, C.F.: A Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20(6), 476–493 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: A Logical Framework for Modularity of Ontologies. In: Proc. of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Combining OWL ontologies using E-Connections. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 4(1), 40–59 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Kalyanpur, A.: Automatic Partitioning of OWL Ontologies Using E-Connections. In: Proc. of Description Logic Workshop (DL) (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Kalyanpur, A.: Modularity and Web Ontologies. In: Proc. of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    d’Aquin, M., Sabou, M., Motta, E.: Modularization: a Key for the Dynamic Selection of Relevant Knowledge Components. In: Proc. of the ISWC 2006 Workshop on Modular Ontologies (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dzbor, M., Domingue, J., Motta, E.: Magpie - towards a semantic web browser. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K.P., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 690–705. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Loebe, F.: Requirements for Logical Modules. In: Proc. of the ISWC 2006 Workshop on Modular Ontologies (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lopez, V., Sabou, M., Motta, E.: Ontology Selection on the Real Semantic Web: How to Cover the Queens Birthday Dinner? In: Staab, S., Svátek, V. (eds.) EKAW 2006. LNCS, vol. 4248, pp. 96–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    MacCartney, B., McIlraith, S., Amir, E., Uribe, T.E.: Practical Partition-Based Theorem Proving for Large Knowledge Bases. In: Proc. of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: Specifying Ontology Views by Traversal. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 713–725. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schlicht, A., Stuckenschmidt, H.: Towards Structural Criteria for Ontology Modularization. In: Proc. of the ISWC 2006 Workshop on Modular Ontologies (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seidenberg, J., Rector, A.: Web Ontology Segmentation: Analysis, Classification and Use. In: Proc. of the World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stuckenschmidt, H., Klein, M.: Structure-Based Partitioning of 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
  16. 16.
    Tartir, S., Budak Arpinar, I., Moore, M., Sheth, A.P., Aleman-Meza, B.: OntoQA: Metric-Based Ontology Quality Analysis. In: IEEE ICDM 2005 Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition from Distributed, Autonomous, Semantically Heterogeneous Data and Knowledge Sources (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yao, H., Orme, A.M., Etzkorn, L.: Cohesion metrics for ontology design and application. Journal of Computer Science 1, 107–113 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathieu d’Aquin
    • 1
  • Anne Schlicht
    • 2
  • Heiner Stuckenschmidt
    • 2
  • Marta Sabou
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge Media Institute (KMi) The Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  2. 2.University of MannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations