An Evaluation Method for Ontology Complexity Analysis in Ontology Evolution

  • Dalu Zhang
  • Chuan Ye
  • Zhe Yang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4248)


Ontology evolution becomes extremely important with the tremendous application of ontology. Ontology’s size and complexity change a lot during its evolution. Thus it’s important for ontology developers to analyze and try to control ontology’s complexity to ensure the ontology is useable. In this paper, an evaluation method for analyzing ontology complexity is suggested. First, we sort all the concepts of an ontology according to their importance degree (a definition we will give below), then by using a well-defined metrics suite which mainly examines the concepts and their hierarchy and the quantity, ratio of concepts and relationships, we analyze the evolution and distribution of ontology complexity. In the study, we analyzed different versions of GO ontology by using our evaluation method and found it works well. The results indicate that the majority of GO’s complexity is distributed on the minority of GO’s concepts, which we call “important concepts” and the time when GO’s complexity changed greatly is also the time when its “important concepts” changed greatly.


Important Concept Class Diagram Complexity Evolution Ontology Evolution Connectivity Degree 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Das, A., Wu, W., McGuinness, D.: Industrial Strength Ontology Management. The Emerging Semantic Web. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Daniel, E., Leary, O.: Impediments in the use of explicit ontologies for KBS development. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 46(2-3), 327–337 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sheth, A., Ramakrishnan, C.: Semantic (Web) Technology In Action: Ontology Driven Information Systems for Search Integration and Analysis. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, Special issue on Making the Semantic Web Real, 40–48 (December, 2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Gene Ontology Homepage,
  5. 5.
    Kang, D., Xu, B., Lu, J., Chu, W.C.: A Complexity Measure for Ontology Based on UML. In: 10th IEEE International Workshop on Future Trends of Distributed Computing Systems (FTDCS 2004), pp. 222–228 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    His, I.: Analyzing the Conceptual Coherence of Computing Applications through Ontological Excavation. PhD Thesis Proposal (May 13, 2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mungall, C.: BDGP / GO Consortium, Increased complexity in GO,
  8. 8.
    His, I., Potts, C., Moore, M.: Ontological Excavation: Unearthing the core concepts of the application. In: Proceedings of WCRE 2003, November 13-16, pp. 345–352 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baziz, M., Boughanem, M., Aussenac-Gilles, N., Chrisment, C.: Semantic Cores for Representing Documents in IR. In: SAC 2005, pp. 1020–1026. ACM Press, USA (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dalu Zhang
    • 1
  • Chuan Ye
    • 1
  • Zhe Yang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and TechnologyTongji UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations