Ontology Similarity in the Alignment Space

  • Jérôme David
  • Jérôme Euzenat
  • Ondřej Šváb-Zamazal
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6496)


Measuring similarity between ontologies can be very useful for different purposes, e.g., finding an ontology to replace another, or finding an ontology in which queries can be translated. Classical measures compute similarities or distances in an ontology space by directly comparing the content of ontologies. We introduce a new family of ontology measures computed in an alignment space: they evaluate the similarity between two ontologies with regard to the available alignments between them. We define two sets of such measures relying on the existence of a path between ontologies or on the ontology entities that are preserved by the alignments. The former accounts for known relations between ontologies, while the latter reflects the possibility to perform actions such as instance import or query translation. All these measures have been implemented in the OntoSim library, that has been used in experiments which showed that entity preserving measures are comparable to the best ontology space measures. Moreover, they showed a robust behaviour with respect to the alteration of the alignment space.


Query Translation Ontology Entity Alignment Space Proximity Order Target Ontology 
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.
    David, J., Euzenat, J.: Comparison between ontology distances (preliminary results). In: Sheth, A.P., Staab, S., Dean, M., Paolucci, M., Maynard, D., Finin, T., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 245–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Euzenat, J., Allocca, C., David, J., d’Aquin, M., Le Duc, C., Svab-Zamazal, O.: Ontology distances for contextualisation. deliverable 3.3.4, NeOn (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mädche, 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
  5. 5.
    Hu, B., Kalfoglou, Y., Alani, H., Dupplaw, D., Lewis, P., Shadbolt, N.: Semantic metrics. In: Staab, S., Svátek, V. (eds.) EKAW 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4248, pp. 166–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Euzenat, J., Valtchev, P.: Similarity-based ontology alignment in OWL-lite. In: Proc. 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Valencia (ES), pp. 333–337 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ehrig, M., Haase, P., Hefke, M., Stojanovic, N.: Similarity for ontologies – a comprehensive framework. In: Proc. 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Information Systems in a Rapidly Changing Economy (ECIS), Regensburg, DE (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    d’Aquin, M.: Formally measuring agreement and disagreement in ontologies. In: Proc. 5th International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP), Redondo Beach (CA US), pp. 145–152 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Delbru, R., Toupikov, N., Catasta, M., Tummarello, G., Decker, S.: Hierarchical link analysis for ranking web data. In: Aroyo, L., Antoniou, G., Hyvönen, E., ten Teije, A., Stuckenschmidt, H., Cabral, L., Tudorache, T. (eds.) ESWC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6089, pp. 225–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Euzenat, J.: Algebras of ontology alignment relations. In: Sheth, A.P., Staab, S., Dean, M., Paolucci, M., Maynard, D., Finin, T., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 387–402. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tverski, A.: Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84(2), 327–352 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Šváb, O., Svátek, V., Berka, P., Rak, D., Tomášek, P.: Ontofarm: Towards an experimental collection of parallel ontologies. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kendall, M.: Rank correlation methods, Griffin, London, UK (1970)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bouquet, P., Giunchiglia, F., van Harmelen, F., Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H.: Contextualizing ontologies. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1), 325–343 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jérôme David
    • 1
  • Jérôme Euzenat
    • 1
  • Ondřej Šváb-Zamazal
    • 2
  1. 1.INRIA & LIGGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.University of EconomicsPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations