Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparative Application of Multi-criteria Decision Making in Ontology Ranking

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Business Information Systems (BIS 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 353))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The number of available ontologies on the web has increased tremendously in recent years. The choice of suitable ontologies for reuse is a decision-making problem. However, there has been little use of decision-making on ontologies to date. This study applies three Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) algorithms in ontology ranking. A number of ontologies/alternatives and the complexity metrics or attributes of these ontologies are used in the decision. The experiments are carried out with 70 ontologies and the performance of the algorithms are analysed and compared. The results show that all the algorithms have successfully ranked the input ontologies based on their degree/level of complexity. Furthermore, the results portray a strong correlation between the ranking results of the three MCDM algorithms, thereby, providing more insights on the performance of MCDM algorithms in ontology ranking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Trokanas, N., Cecelja, F.: Ontology evaluation for reuse in the domain of process systems engineering. Comput. Chem. Eng. 85, 177–187 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lonsdale, D., Embley, D.W., Ding, Y., Xu, L., Hepp, M.: Reusing ontologies and language components for ontology generation. Data Knowl. Eng. 69, 318–330 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bontas, E.P., Mochol, M., Tolksdorf, R.: Case studies on ontology reuse. In: 5th International Conference on Knowledge Management (I-Know 2005), Graz, Austria (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Groza, A., Dragoste, I., Sincai, I., Jimborean, I., Moraru, V.: An ontology selection and ranking system based on the analytical hierarchy process. In: The 16th International Symposium on Symbolic and Numerical Algorithms for Scientific Computing, Timisoara, Romania (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Esposito, A., Zappatore, M., Tarricone, L.: Applying multi-criteria approaches to ontology ranking: a comparison with AKtiveRank. Int. J. Metadata Semant. Ontol. 7, 197–208 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/11926078_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Naskar, D., Dutta, B.: Ontology and ontology libraries: a study from an ontofier and an ontologist perspective. In: Proceedings of 19th International Symposium on Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETD 2016 “Data and Dissertations”), Lille, France, pp. 1–12 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. d’Aquin, M., Noy, N.F.: Where to publish and find ontologies? A survey of ontology libraries. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 11, 96–111 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ensan, F., Du, W.: A semantic metrics suite for evaluating modular ontologies. Inf. Syst. 38, 745–770 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang, H., Li, Y.F., Tan, H.B.K.: Measuring design complexity of semantic web ontologies. J. Syst. Softw. 83, 803–814 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Liao, L., Shen, G., Huang, Z., Wang, F.: Cohesion metrics for evaluation semantic web ontologies. Int. J. Hybrid Inf. Technol. 9, 369–380 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Leea, H.C., Chang, C.T.: Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 92, 883–896 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chou, J.R.: A weighted linear combination ranking technique for multi-criteria decision analysis. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci. Spec. 16, 28–41 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Park, J., Ohb, S., Ahn, J.: Ontology selection ranking model for knowledge reuse. Expert. Syst. Appl. 38, 5133–5144 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sridevi, K., Umarani, R.: Ontology ranking algorithms on semantic web: a review. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Commun. Eng. 2, 3471–3476 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Butt, A.S., Haller, A., Xie, L.: DWRank: learning concept ranking for ontology search. Semant. Web 7, 447–461 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yu, W., Cao, J., Chen, J.: A novel approach for ranking ontologies on the semantic web. In: 1st International Symposium on Pervasive Computing and Applications, Urumchi, Xinjiang, China, pp. 608–612 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Yu, W., Chen, J.: Ontology ranking for the semantic web. In: 3rd International Symposium on Intelligent Information Technology Application, NanChang, China, pp. 573–574 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jones, M., Alani, H.: Content-based ontology ranking. In: 9th International Protégé Conference, Stanford, CA, USA, pp. 1–4 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Subhashini, R., Akilandeswari, J., Haris, S.: An integrated ontology ranking method for enhancing knowledge reuse. Int. J. Eng. Technol. (IJET) 6, 1424–1431 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vrandečić, D., Sure, Y.: How to design better ontology metrics. In: Franconi, E., Kifer, M., May, W. (eds.) ESWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4519, pp. 311–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72667-8_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Duque-Ramos, A., Boeker, M., Jansen, L., Schulz, S., Iniesta, M., Fernandez-Breis, J.T.: Evaluating the good ontology design guideline (GoodOD) with the ontology quality requirements and evaluation method and metrics (OQuaRE). PLoS One 9, 1–14 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Kildiene, S.: State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 20, 165–179 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Taha, R.A., Daim, T.: Multi-criteria applications in renewable energy analysis, a literature review. Res. Technol. Manag. Electr. Ind. 8, 17–30 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kumara, A., et al.: A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 69, 596–609 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mulliner, E., Malys, N., Maliene, V.: Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega 59, 146–156 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Balcerzak, A.P., Pietrzak, M.B.: Application of TOPSIS method for analysis of sustainable development in European Union countries. In: Proceedings of 10th International Days of Statistics and Economics, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 82–92 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ochs, C., et al.: An empirical analysis of ontology reuse in BioPortal. J. Biomed. Inform. 71, 165–177 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, King Edward Avenue, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg, 3209, South Africa

    Jean Vincent Fonou-Dombeu

Authors
  1. Jean Vincent Fonou-Dombeu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean Vincent Fonou-Dombeu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poznań, Poland

    Witold Abramowicz

  2. ETSI Informática, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

    Rafael Corchuelo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Fonou-Dombeu, J.V. (2019). A Comparative Application of Multi-criteria Decision Making in Ontology Ranking. In: Abramowicz, W., Corchuelo, R. (eds) Business Information Systems. BIS 2019. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 353. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20485-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20485-3_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20484-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20485-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation