Advertisement

What Makes a Good Ontology? A Case-Study in Fine-Grained Knowledge Reuse

  • Miriam Fernández
  • Chwhynny Overbeeke
  • Marta Sabou
  • Enrico Motta
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5926)

Abstract

Understanding which ontology characteristics can predict a “good” quality ontology, is a core and ongoing task in the Semantic Web. In this paper, we provide our findings on which structural ontology characteristics are usually observed in high-quality ontologies. We obtain these findings through a task-based evaluation, where the task is the assessment of the correctness of semantic relations. This task is of increasing importance for a set of novel Semantic Web tools, which perform fine-grained knowledge reuse (i.e., they reuse only appropriate parts of a given ontology instead of the entire ontology). We conclude that, while structural ontology characteristics do not provide statistically significant information to ensure that an ontology is reliable (“good”), in general, richly populated ontologies, with higher depth and breadth variance are more likely to provide reliable semantic content.

Keywords

semantic relations knowledge reuse Semantic Web 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alani, H., Brewster, C.: Ontology Ranking Based on the Analysis of Concept Structures. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Capture, K-CAP 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alani, H., Brewster, C., Shadbolt, N.: 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
  3. 3.
    Brank, J., Grobelnik, M., Mladenić, D.: A Survey of Ontology Evaluation Techniques. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Data Mining and Data Warehouses (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brewster, C., Alani, H., Dasmahapatra, S., Wilks, Y.: Data Driven Ontology Evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buitelaar, P., Eigner, T., Declerck, T.: OntoSelect: A Dynamic Ontology Library with Support for Ontology Selection. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burton-Jones, A., Storey, V., Sugumaran, V., Ahluwalia, P.: A Semiotic Metrics Suite for Assessing the Quality of Ontologies. Data and Knowledge Engineering 55(1), 84–102 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    d’Aquin, M., Baldassarre, C., Gridinoc, L., Angeletou, S., Sabou, M., Motta, E.: Characterizing Knowledge on the Semantic Web with Watson. In: Aberer, K., Choi, K.-S., Noy, N., Allemang, D., Lee, K.-I., Nixon, L.J.B., Golbeck, J., Mika, P., Maynard, D., Mizoguchi, R., Schreiber, G., Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) ASWC 2007 and ISWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ding, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A., Pan, R., Cost, R.S., Peng, Y., Reddivari, P., Doshi, V.C., Sachs, J.: Swoogle: A Semantic Web Search and Metadata Engine. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ding, L., Pan, R., Finin, T., Joshi, A., Peng, Y., Kolari, P.: Finding and Ranking Knowledge on the Semantic Web. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 156–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fernández, M., Cantador, I., Castells, P.: CORE: A Tool for Collaborative Ontology Reuse and Evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 4th International EON Workshop (EON 2006) at the 15th International World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.: An Overview of OntoClean. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 151–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hartmann, J., Sure, Y., Giboin, A., Maynard, D., Suarez-Figueroa, M.C., Cuel, R.: Methods for Ontology Evaluation. Knowledge Web Deliverable D1.2.3 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lopez, V., Motta, E., Uren, V.: PowerAqua: Fishing the Semantic Web. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 393–410. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lozano-Tello, A., Gómez-Pérez, A.: ONTOMETRIC: A Method to Choose the Appropriate Ontology. Journal of Database Management 15(2), 1–18 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maedche, 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
  16. 16.
    Patel, C., Supekar, K., Lee, Y., Park, E.: OntoKhoj: A Semantic Web Portal for Ontology Searching, Ranking, and Classification. In: Chiang, R.H.L., Laender, A.H.F., Lim, E.P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th ACM CIKM International Workshop on Web Information and Data Management (WIDM 2003), pp. 58–61. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sabou, M., d’Aquin, M., Motta, E.: Exploring the Semantic Web as Background Knowledge for Ontology Matching. In: Spaccapietra, S., Pan, J.Z., Thiran, P., Halpin, T., Staab, S., Svatek, V., Shvaiko, P., Roddick, J. (eds.) Journal on Data Semantics XI. LNCS, vol. 5383, pp. 156–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sabou, M., Fernández, M., Motta, E.: Evaluating Semantic Relations by Exploring Ontologies on the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, NLDB 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sabou, M., Gracia, J.L., Angeletou, S., d’Aquin, M., Motta, E.: Evaluating the Semantic Web: A Task-Based Approach. In: Aberer, K., Choi, K.-S., Noy, N., Allemang, D., Lee, K.-I., Nixon, L.J.B., Golbeck, J., Mika, P., Maynard, D., Mizoguchi, R., Schreiber, G., Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) ASWC 2007 and ISWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 423–437. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sabou, M., Gracia, Spider, J.: Bringing Non-Equivalence Mappings to OAEI. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM-2008) at the 7th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sabou, M., Lopez, V., Motta, E., Uren, V.: Ontology Selection: Ontology Evaluation on the Real Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 4th International EON Workshop (EON 2006) at the 15th International World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Strasunskas, D., Tomassen, S.: Empirical Insights on a Value of Ontology Quality in Ontology-Driven Web Search. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2008, Part II. LNCS, vol. 5332, pp. 1319–1337. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tartir, S., Arpinar, I., Moore, M., Sheth, A., Aleman-Meza, B.: OntoQA: Metric-Based Ontology Quality Analysis. In: IEEE Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition from Distributed, Autonomous, Semantically Heterogeneous Data and Knowledge Sources, pp. 45–53. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miriam Fernández
    • 1
  • Chwhynny Overbeeke
    • 1
  • Marta Sabou
    • 1
  • Enrico Motta
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge Media InstituteThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations