OntologyTest: A Tool to Evaluate Ontologies through Tests Defined by the User

  • Sara García-Ramos
  • Abraham Otero
  • Mariano Fernández-López
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5518)

Abstract

The ontology evaluation utilities that are currently available allow the user to check the internal consistency of an ontology, its syntactical correctness and, at most, the fulfillment of some philosophical constraints related to rigidity or identity. However, there is no contribution in the ontology evaluation field that proposes a method to dynamically test ontologies with regard to their functional specification. Thus, no software for this task has been built until now. This paper presents a tool, OntologyTest, designed to overcome this drawback. The tool allows the user to define a set of tests to check the ontology’s functional requirements, to execute them, and to inspect the results of the execution. The whole set of tests (or a particular test) can be executed at any time; thus it simplifies the testing of ontology both during its development and during its evolution.

Keywords

ontology test OWL DL SPARQL ontology evaluation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specification. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dean, M., Schreiber, G.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C Recommendation (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
  3. 3.
    Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M., Corcho, O.: Ontological engineering. Springer, London (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ontology Evaluation. Buffalo Ontology site, http://ontology.buffalo.edu/evaulation.html
  5. 5.
    Hartmann, J., Spyns, P., Giboin, A., Maynard, D., Cuel, R., Suárez-Figueroa, M.C., Sure, Y.: Methods for ontology evaluation. Knowledgeweb European Project, D.1.2.3 deliverable (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perry, W.: Effective methods for software testing. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grüninger, M., Fox, M.S.: Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. In: Skuce, D. (ed.) IJCAI 1995 Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, pp. 6.1–6.10 (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Suárez-Figueroa, M.C.(coord.): NeOn Methodology for Building Contextualized Ontology Networks. NeOn European Project Deliverable 5.4.1 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Recommendation (2008), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
  10. 10.
    Gamma, E., Beck, K.: JUnit, http://www.junit.org
  11. 11.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pellet: The Open Source OWL DL Reasoner, http://clarkparsia.com/pellet
  13. 13.
    Unified Medical Language System, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/
  14. 14.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara García-Ramos
    • 1
  • Abraham Otero
    • 1
  • Mariano Fernández-López
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad San Pablo CEU, Escuela Politécnica SuperiorMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations