Dependencies Between Modularity Metrics Towards Improved Modules

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10024)


Recent years have seen many advances in ontology modularisation. This has made it difficult to determine whether a module is actually a good module; it is unclear which metrics should be considered. The few existing works on evaluation metrics focus on only some metrics that suit the modularisation technique, and there is not always a quantitative approach to calculate them. Overall, the metrics are not comprehensive enough to apply to a variety of modules and it is unclear which metrics fare well with particular types of ontology modules. To address this, we create a comprehensive list of module evaluation metrics with quantitative measures. These measures were implemented in the new Tool for Ontology Module Metrics (TOMM) which was then used in a testbed to test these metrics with existing modules. The results obtained, in turn, uncovered which metrics fare well with which module types, i.e., which metrics need to be measured to determine whether a module of some type is a ‘good’ module.


Module Type Evaluation Metrics Information Hiding Ontology Match Ontology Module 
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.
    Borgo, S.: Goals of modularity: a voice from the foundational viewpoint. In: Fifth International Workshop on Modular Ontologies (WOMO 2011). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 230, pp. 1–6. IOS Press, ljubljana, August 2011Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Kalyanpur, A.: Modularity and web ontologies. In: 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pp. 198–209. AAAI Press, Lake District, 2–5 June 2006Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    d’Aquin, M., Schlicht, A., Stuckenschmidt, H., Sabou, M.: Ontology modularization for knowledge selection: experiments and evaluations. In: Wagner, R., Revell, N., Pernul, G. (eds.) DEXA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4653, pp. 874–883. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    d’Aquin, M., Schlicht, A., Stuckenschmidt, H., Sabou, M.: Criteria and evaluation for ontology modularization techniques. In: Stuckenschmidt, H., Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S. (eds.) Modular Ontologies. LNCS, vol. 5445, pp. 67–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ensan, F., Du, W.: A semantic metrics suite for evaluating modular ontologies. Inf. Syst. 38(5), 745–770 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freeman, L.C.: Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc. Netw. 1(3), 215–239 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    García, J., García-Peñalvo, F.J., Therón, R.: A survey on ontology metrics. In: Lytras, M.D., Ordonez De Pablos, P., Ziderman, A., Roulstone, A., Maurer, H., Imber, J.B. (eds.) WSKS 2010. CCIS, vol. 111, pp. 22–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gennari, J.H., Musen, M.A., Fergerson, R.W., Grosso, W.E., Crubézy, M., Eriksson, H., Noy, N.F., Tu, S.W.: The evolution of Protégé: an environment for knowledge-based systems development. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 58(1), 89–123 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: Modular reuse of ontologies: theory and practice. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 31, 273–318 (2008)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hodgson, R., Keller, P.J.: QUDT-quantities, units, dimensions and data types in OWL and XML (2011). Accessed September 2011
  11. 11.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Cuenca Grau, B., Hendler, J.A.: Swoop: a web ontology editing browser. J. Web Semant. 4(2), 144–153 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan, Z.C., Keet, C.M.: The foundational ontology library ROMULUS. In: Cuzzocrea, A., Maabout, S. (eds.) MEDI 2013. LNCS, vol. 8216, pp. 200–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khan, Z.C., Keet, C.M.: Feasibility of automated foundational ontology interchangeability. In: Janowicz, K., Schlobach, S., Lambrix, P., Hyvönen, E. (eds.) EKAW 2014. LNCS, vol. 8876, pp. 225–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khan, Z.C.: Evaluation metrics in ontology modules. In: 29th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2016), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1577, Cape Town, South Africa., 22–25 April 2016Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khan, Z.C., Keet, C.M.: An empirically-based framework for ontology modularisation. Appl. Ontology 10(3–4), 171–195 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loebe, F.: Requirements for logical modules. In: First International Workshop on Modular Ontologies (WoMO 2006), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 232, Athens, Georgia, USA., 5 November 2006Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McComb, D.: Gist: the minimalist upper ontology. In: Semantic Technology Conference, San Francisco, CA, 21–25 June 2010Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: Specifying ontology views by traversal. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 713–725. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oh, S., Ahn, J.: Ontology module metrics. In: International Conference on e-Business Engineering, (ICEBE 2009), pp. 11–18. IEEE Computer Society, Macau, 21–23 October 2009Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oh, S., Yeom, H.Y., Ahn, J.: Cohesion and coupling metrics for ontology modules. Inf. Technol. Manag. 12(2), 81–96 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Orme, A.M., Yao, H., Etzkorn, L.H.: Coupling metrics for ontology-based systems. IEEE Softw. 23(2), 102–108 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pathak, J., Johnson, T.M., Chute, C.G.: Survey of modular ontology techniques and their applications in the biomedical domain. Integr. Comput.-Aided Eng. 16(3), 225–242 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rospocher, M.: An ontology for personalized environmental decision support. In: Formal Ontology in Information Systems FOIS 2014, pp. 421–42, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 22–25 September, 2014Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schlicht, A., Stuckenschmidt, H.: Towards structural criteria for ontology modularization. In: First International Workshop on Modular Ontologies, (WoMO 2006), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 232, Athens, Georgia, USA., 5 November 2006Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tartir, S., Arpinar, I.B., Moore, M., Sheth, A.P., Aleman-Meza, B.: OntoQA: metric-based ontology quality analysis. In: IEEE Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition from Distributed, Autonomous, Semantically Heterogeneous Data and Knowledge Sources, vol. 9 (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vescovo, C.D.: The modular structure of an ontology: atomic decomposition towards applications. In: 24th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2011), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 745, Barcelona, Spain., 13–16 July 2011Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yao, H., Orme, A.M., Etzkorn, L.: Cohesion metrics for ontology design and application. J. Comput. Sci. 1(1), 107 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
  2. 2.Council for Scientific and Industrial ResearchPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations