Abstract
Ontologies now play an important role for many knowledge-intensive applications for which they provide a source of precisely defined terms. However, with their wide-spread usage there come problems concerning their proliferation. Ontology engineers or users frequently have a core ontology that they use, e.g., for browsing or querying data, but they need to extend it with, adapt it to, or compare it with the large set of other ontologies. For the task of detecting and retrieving relevant ontologies, one needs means for measuring the similarity between ontologies. We present a set of ontology similarity measures and a multiple-phase empirical evaluation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
E. Agirre and G. Rigau. Word sense disambiguation using conceptual density. In Proc. of COLING-96, 1996.
G. Bisson. Learning in FOL with a similarity measure. In Proc. of AAAI-1992, pages 82–87, 1992.
R. Dieng and S. Hug. Comparison of personal ontologies represented through conceptual graphs. In Proceedings of ECAI 1998, pages 341–345, 1998.
E. Hovy. Combining and standardizing large-scale, practical ontologies for machine translation and other uses. In Proc. of the First Int. Conf. on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 1998.
I. V. Levenshtein. Binary Codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Cybernetics and Control Theory, 10(8):707–710, 1966.
A. Maedche, B. Motik, N. Silva, and R. Volz. MAFRA-A MApping FRamework for Distributed Ontologies. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management EKAW-2002, Madrid, Spain, 2002.
A. Maedche and V. Zacharias. Clustering Ontology-based Metadata in the Semantic Web. In Proceedings of the Joint Conferences 13th European Conference on Machine Learning (ECML’02) and 6th European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (PKDD’02), Springer, LNAI, Finland, Helsinki, 2002.
R. Rada, H. Mili, E. Bicknell, and M. Blettner. Development and application of a metric on semantic nets. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 19(1), 1989.
E. Rahm and P. Bernstein. A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB Journal, 10(4):334–350, 2001.
R. W. Schvanefeldt. Pathfinder Associative Networks: Studies in Knowledge Organization. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey, 1989.
G. Spanoudakis and P. Constantopoulos. Similarity for analogical software reuse: A computational model. In Proc. of ECAI-1994, pages 18–22, 1994.
Y. Sure, M. Erdmann, J. Angele, S. Staab, R. Studer, and D. Wenke. Ontoedit: Collaborative ontology development for the semantic web. In Proceedings of the 1st International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2002), June 9–12th, 2002, Sardinia, Italia, LNCS 2342, pages 221–235. Springer, 2002.
P. Weinstein and W. Birmingham. Comparing concepts in differentiated ontologies. In Proc. of KAW-99, 1999.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Maedche, A., Staab, S. (2002). Measuring Similarity between Ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds) Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management: Ontologies and the Semantic Web. EKAW 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2473. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45810-7_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45810-7_24
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-44268-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45810-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive