Ontological Evaluation and Validation

  • Samir Tartir
  • I. Budak Arpinar
  • Amit P. Sheth


In the last few years, the Semantic Web gained scientific acceptance as the means of sharing knowledge in different domains, and the cornerstone of the Semantic Web is ontologies. Currently, users trying to incorporate ontologies in their applications have to rely on their experience to try to find a suitable ontology for their applications. Methods for evaluating ontology quality and validity, ontology characterization and ranking have been developed for that purpose. In this chapter, we introduce several approaches that have been developed to aid in evaluating ontologies. In addition, we present highlights of OntoQA, an ontology evaluation and analysis tool that uses a set of metrics measuring different aspects of the ontology schema and knowledgebase to give an insight to the overall characteristics of the ontology. It is important to keep in mind while reading this chapter that the definition “goodness” or the “validity” of an ontology might vary between different users or different domains.


Class Richness Ontology Design Ontology Schema Relationship Richness Ontology Evaluation 
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.


  1. Alani, H., C. Brewster, and N. Shadbolt. 2006. Ranking ontologies with aktiverank. In Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference, Athens, GA, 5–9 Nov 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Aleman-Meza, B., C. Halaschek, A. Sheth, I.P. Arpinar, and G. Sannapareddy. 2004. SWETO: Large-scale semantic web test-bed. In Proceedings of the 16th Seke 2004: Workshop on Ontology in Action, Banff, AB, 21–24 June 2004, 490–493.Google Scholar
  3. Anyanwu, K., and A. Sheth. 2003. ρ-Queries: Enabling querying for semantic associations on the semantic web. In Proceedings of the 12th International. WWW Conference, Hungary.Google Scholar
  4. Arpinar, I.B., K. Giriloganathan, and B. Aleman-Meza. 2006. Ontology quality by detection of conflicts in metadata. In Proceedings of the 4th International EON Workshop, Edinburgh, 22 May 2006. Edinburgh; International Conference Center.Google Scholar
  5. Boley, H., S. Tabet, and G. Wagner. 2001. Design rationale of ruleml: A markup language for semantic web rules. In Proceeding of the 1st Semantic Web Working Symposium. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  6. Corcho, O. et al. 2004. ODEval: A tool for evaluating RDF(S), DAML+OIL, and OWL concept taxonomies. In Proceedings of the 1st IFIP Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations (AIAI 2004), Toulouse, France, 369–382.Google Scholar
  7. Cristani, M., and R.A. Cuel. 2005. Survey on ontology creation methodologies. International Journal of Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS) 1(2):49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernández, M., A. Gómez-Pérez, J. Pazos, and A. Pazos. 1999. Building a chemical ontology using methontology and the ontology design environment. IEEE Intelligent Systems Applications. 4(1):37–45.Google Scholar
  9. Finin, T., et al. 2005. Swoogle: Searching for knowledge on the semantic web. In Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 05), Pittsburg, PA.Google Scholar
  10. Gangemi, A., C. Catenacci, M. Ciaramita, and J. Lehmann. 2006 Modelling ontology evaluation and validation. In Proceedings of the 2006 European Semantic Web Conference. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. The Gene Ontology.
  12. Gómez-Pérez, A., and M. Rojas-Amaya. 1999. Ontological reengineering for reuse. In Proceedings of the 11th European Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany.Google Scholar
  13. Gómez-Pérez, A., and M.C. Suarez-Figueroa. 2003. Results of taxonomic evaluation of RDF(S) and DAML+OIL ontologies using RDF(S) and DAML+OIL validation tools and ontology platforms import services. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Evaluation of Ontology-Based Tools Workshop, 20th Oct 2003. Sanibel Island, FL: Sundial Resort.Google Scholar
  14. Guarino, N. and C. Welty. 2004. An overview of ontoclean. Handbook on ontologie, eds. S. Staab, and R. Studer, 151–159. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Guha, R., and R. McCool. 2003. TAP: A semantic web test-bed. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1): 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haase, P., F. van Harmelen, Z. Huang, H. Stuckenschmidt, and Y.A. Sure. 2005. Framework for handling inconsistency in changing ontologies. In Proceedings of ISWC2005, Galway, Ireland.Google Scholar
  17. Hartmann, J., P. Spyns, A. Giboin, D. Maynard, R. Cuel, M. Carmen Suárez-Figueroa, and Y. Sure. 2004. Methods for ontology evaluation. Knowledge Web Deliverable, D1.2.3, v. 0.1.Google Scholar
  18. Lozano-Tello, A., and A. Gomez-Perez. 2004. ONTOMETRIC: A method to choose the appropriate ontology. Journal of Database Management 15:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mostowfi, F., and F. Fotouhi. 2006. Improving quality of ontology: An ontology transformation approach. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW’06), Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  20. Noy, N.F., and M. Klein. 2004. Ontology evolution: Not the same as schema evolution. In Knowledge and information systems. Google Scholar
  21. Open Biomedical Ontologies.
  22. Parsia, B., E. Sirin, and A. Kalyanpur. 2005. Debugging OWL ontologies. In Proceedings of WWW 2005, 10–14 May 2005, Chiba, Japan.Google Scholar
  23. Paslaru, E., B. Simperl, C. Tempich, and Y. Sure. 2006. ONTOCOM: A cost estimation model for ontology engineering. In Proceedings of 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2006), Athens, GA.Google Scholar
  24. Plessers, P., and O. De Troyer. 2005. Ontology change detection using a version log. In Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-05).Google Scholar
  25. Sabou, M., V. Lopez, E. Motta, and V. Uren. 2005. Ontology selection: Ontology evaluation on the real semantic web. In Proceedings of the 15th International World Wide Web Conference 2005, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  26. Sheth. A., et al. 2004. Semantic web technology in support of bioinformatics for glycan expression. W3C Workshop on Semantic Web for Life Sciences, 27–28 Oct 2004, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  27. Supekar, K., C. Patel, and Y. Lee. 2004. Characterizing quality of knowledge on semantic web. In Proceedings of AAAI Florida AI Research Symposium (FLAIRS-2004), 17–19 May 2004, Miami Beach, FL.Google Scholar
  28. Tartir, S., I.B. Arpinar, M. Moore, A.P. Sheth, and B. Aleman-Meza. 2005. OntoQA: Metric-based ontology quality analysis. In IEEE ICDM 2005 Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition from Distributed, Autonomous, Semantically Heterogeneous Data and Knowledge Sources, 27 Nov 2005, Houston, TX.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samir Tartir
    • 1
  • I. Budak Arpinar
    • 2
  • Amit P. Sheth
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Information TechnologyPhiladelphia UniversityAmmanJordan
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUGAAthensUSA
  3. 3.Kno.e.sis Center, Department of Computer Science & EngineeringWright State UniversityDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations