Impact of Using Relationships between Ontologies to Enhance the Ontology Search Results

  • Carlo Allocca
  • Mathieu d’Aquin
  • Enrico Motta
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7295)


Using semantic web search engines, such as Watson, Swoogle or Sindice, to find ontologies is a complex exploratory activity. It generally requires formulating multiple queries, browsing pages of results, and assessing the returned ontologies against each other to obtain a relevant and adequate subset of ontologies for the intended use. Our hypothesis is that at least some of the difficulties related to searching ontologies stem from the lack of structure in the search results, where ontologies that are implicitly related to each other are presented as disconnected and shown on different result pages. In earlier publications we presented a software framework, Kannel, which is able to automatically detect and make explicit relationships between ontologies in large ontology repositories. In this paper, we present a study that compares the use of the Watson ontology search engine with an extension, Watson+Kannel, which provides information regarding the various relationships occurring between the result ontologies. We evaluate Watson+Kannel by demonstrating through various indicators that explicit relationships between ontologies improve users’ efficiency in ontology search, thus validating our hypothesis.


Ontology Relation Explicit Relationship Ontology Alignment Ontology Relationship 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.
    Allocca, C.: Making explic semantic relations between ontologies in large ontology repositories. PhD Symposium at the European Semantic Web Conference (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allocca, C.: Automatic Identification of Ontology Versions Using Machine Learning Techniques. In: Antoniou, G., Grobelnik, M., Simperl, E., Parsia, B., Plexousakis, D., De Leenheer, P., Pan, J. (eds.) ESWC 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6643, pp. 352–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allocca, C., d’Aquin, M., Motta, E.: Door - towards a formalization of ontology relations. In: Proc. of the Inter. Conf. on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development, KEOD, pp. 13–20 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buitelaar, P., Eigner, T., Declerck, T.: Ontoselect: A dynamic ontology library with support for ontology selection. In: Proceedings of the Demo Session at the International Semantic Web Conference (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chintan, P., Kaustubh, S., Yugyung, L., Park, E.K.: 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
  6. 6.
    d’Aquin, M.: Formally measuring agreement and disagreement in ontologies. In: K-CAP, pp. 145–152. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    d’Aquin, M., Ding, L., Motta, E.: Semantic web search engines. In: Domingue, J., Fensel, D., Hendler, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies, pp. 659–700. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    d’Aquin, M., Motta, E.: Watson, more than a semantic web search engine. Semantic Web Journal 2(1), 55–63 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    David, J., Euzenat, J., Šváb-Zamazal, O.: Ontology Similarity in the Alignment Space. In: Patel-Schneider, P.F., Pan, Y., Hitzler, P., Mika, P., Zhang, L., Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I., Glimm, B. (eds.) ISWC 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6496, pp. 129–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ding, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A., Pan, R., Cost, R.S., Peng, Y., Reddivari, P., Doshi, V.C., Sachs, J.: Swoogle: A Search and Metadata Engine for the Semantic Web. In: Proc. of the 13th ACM Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM Press (November 2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ehrig, M.: Ontology Alignment: Bridging the Semantic Gap. Semantic Web and Beyond, vol. 4. Springer, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Gangemi, A., Catenacci, C., Ciaramita, M., Lehmann, J.: A theoretical framework for ontology evaluation and validation. In: Proceedings of SWAP 2005, the 2nd Italian Semantic Web Workshop, Trento, Italy, December 14-16. CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gangemi, A., Pisanelli, D.M., Steve, G.: An overview of the onions project: Applying ontologies to the integration of medical terminologies. Technical report. ITBM-CNR, V. Marx 15, 00137, Roma, Italy (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gonçalves, R.S., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: Analysing multiple versions of an ontology: A study of the nci thesaurus. In: Description Logics (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gordon, M., Pathak, P.: Finding information on the World Wide Web: the retrieval effectiveness of search engines. Information Processing & Management 35(2), 141–180 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heflin, J., Pan, Z.: A Model Theoretic Semantics for Ontology Versioning. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 62–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ingwersen, P.: Information Retrieval Interaction. Taylor Graham (1992)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kleshchev, A., Artemjeva, I.: An analysis of some relations among domain ontologies. Int. Journal on Inf. Theories and Appl. 12, 85–93 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lozano-Tello, A., Gómez-Pérez, A.: ONTOMETRIC: A Method to Choose the Appropriate Ontology. Journal of Database Management 15(2) (April-June 2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maedche, A., Staab, S.: Comparing ontologies-similarity measures and a comparison study. In: Proc. of EKAW 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Motta, E., Mulholland, P., Peroni, S., d’Aquin, M., Gomez-Perez, J.M., Mendez, V., Zablith, F.: A Novel Approach to Visualizing and Navigating Ontologies. In: Aroyo, L., Welty, C., Alani, H., Taylor, J., Bernstein, A., Kagal, L., Noy, N., Blomqvist, E. (eds.) ISWC 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7031, pp. 470–486. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: Promptdiff: A fixed-point algorithm for comparing ontology versions. In: 18th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sabou, M., Lopez, V., Motta, E.: Ontology Selection for the Real Semantic Web: How to Cover the Queen’s Birthday Dinner? In: Staab, S., Svátek, V. (eds.) EKAW 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4248, pp. 96–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sabou, M., Lopez, V., Motta, E., Uren, V.: Ontology selection: Ontology evaluation on the real semantic web. In: 15th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2006), Edinburgh, Scotland, May 23-26 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tummarello, G., Delbru, R., Oren, E.: Weaving the Open Linked Data. In: Aberer, K., Choi, K.-S., Noy, N., Allemang, D., Lee, K.-I., Nixon, L.J.B., Golbeck, J., Mika, P., Maynard, D., Mizoguchi, R., Schreiber, G., Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) ASWC 2007 and ISWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 552–565. Springer, Heidelberg (2007), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hong, T.-P., Chang, W.-C., Lin, J.-H.: A Two-Phased Ontology Selection Approach for Semantic Web. In: Khosla, R., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3684, pp. 403–409. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Volkel, M.: D2.3.3.v2 SemVersion Versioning RDF and Ontologies. EU-IST Network of Excellence (NoE) IST-2004-507482 KWEBGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xiaodong, W., Guo, L., Fang, J.: Automated ontology selection based on description logic. In: CSCWD, pp. 482–487 (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhang, Y., Vasconcelos, W., Sleeman, D.H.: Ontosearch: An ontology search engine. In: Bramer, M., Coenen, F., Allen, T. (eds.) SGAI Conf., pp. 58–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zimmermann, A., Krötzsch, M., Euzenat, J., Hitzler, P.: Formalizing ontology alignment and its operations with category theory. In: Proceeding of the 4th Inter. Conf. on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, FOIS, pp. 277–288. IOS Press (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlo Allocca
    • 1
  • Mathieu d’Aquin
    • 1
  • Enrico Motta
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge Media Institute (KMi)The Open UniversityMilton KeynesUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations