Ranking Ontologies with AKTiveRank

  • Harith Alani
  • Christopher Brewster
  • Nigel Shadbolt
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4273)


Ontology search and reuse is becoming increasingly important as the quest for methods to reduce the cost of constructing such knowledge structures continues. A number of ontology libraries and search engines are coming to existence to facilitate locating and retrieving potentially relevant ontologies. The number of ontologies available for reuse is steadily growing, and so is the need for methods to evaluate and rank existing ontologies in terms of their relevance to the needs of the knowledge engineer. This paper presents AKTiveRank, a prototype system for ranking ontologies based on a number of structural metrics.


Search Term Partial Match Ranking Measure Semantic Similarity Measure 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. 1.
    Alani, H.: Ontology construction from online ontologies. In: Proc. 15th International World Wide Web Conference, Edinburgh (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alani, H., Brewster, C.: Ontology ranking based on the analysis of concept sructures. In: 3rd Int. Conf. Knowledge Capture (K-Cap), Banff, Canada, pp. 51–58 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewster, C., Alani, H., Dasmahapatra, S., Wilks, Y.: Data driven ontology evaluation. In: Int. Conf. on Language Resources and Evaluation, Lisbon, Portugal (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen, P.R., Kjeldsen, R.: Information retrieval by constrained spreading activation in semantic networks. Information Processing & Management 23(4), 255–268 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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: Proc. 13th ACM Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management (November 2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Freeman, L.: A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40, 35–41 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gangemi, A., Catenacci, C., Ciaramita, M., Lehmann, J.: A theoretical framework for ontology evaluation and validation. In: Semantic Web Applications and Perspectives (SWAP) – 2nd Italian Semantic Web Workshop, Trento, Italy (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gomez-Perez, A.: Some ideas and examples to evaluate ontologies. In: 11th Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Applications. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.: Evaluating ontological decisions with ontoclean. Communications of the ACM 45(2), 61–65 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones, M., Alani, H.: Content-based ontology ranking. In: Proceedings of the 9th Int. Protege Conf., Stanford, CA (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Cuenca-Grau, B., Hendler, J.: Swoop: A ’web’ ontology editing browser. Journal of Web Semantics 4(2) (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lozano-Tello, A., Gomez-Perez, A.: Ontometric: A method to choose the appropriate ontology. Journal of Database Management 15(2) (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    Noy, N.F., Sintek, M., Decker, S., Crubezy, M., Fergerson, R.W., Musen, M.A.: Creating semantic web contents with protege-2000. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 60–71 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patel, C., Supekar, K., Lee, Y., Park, E.: Ontokhoj: A semantic web portal for ontology searching, ranking, and classification. In: Proc. 5th ACM Int. Workshop on Web Information and Data Management, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, pp. 58–61 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rada, R., Mili, H., Bicknell, E., Blettner, M.: Development and application of a metric on semantic nets. IEEE Trans. on Systems Management and Cybernetics 19(1), 17–30 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Resnik, P.: Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: An information-based measure and its application to problems of ambiguity in natural language. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 11, 95–130 (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosch, E.: Principles of Categorization. In: Rosch, E., Lloyd, B.B. (eds.) Cognition and Categorization. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1978)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spanoudakis, G., Constantopoulos, P.: Similarity for analogical software reuse: A computational model. In: Proc. 11th European Conf. on AI, ECAI 1994, pp. 18–22 (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Supekar, K.: A peer-review approach for ontology evaluation. In: 8th Int. Protege Conf., Madrid, Spain, pp. 77–79 (July 2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tversky, A.: Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84(4) (1977)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weinstein, P.C., Birmingham, W.P.: Comparing concepts in differentiated ontologies. In: Proc. 12th Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management (KAW 1999), Banff, Alberta, Canada (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harith Alani
    • 1
  • Christopher Brewster
    • 2
  • Nigel Shadbolt
    • 1
  1. 1.Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia, School of Electronics and Computer ScienceUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations