ontology metrics
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

10
(FIVE YEARS 4)

H-INDEX

4
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Prashant Kumar Sinha ◽  
Sagar Bhimrao Gajbe ◽  
Sourav Debnath ◽  
Subhranshubhusan Sahoo ◽  
Kanu Chakraborty ◽  
...  

PurposeThis work provides a generic review of the existing data mining ontologies (DMOs) and also provides a base platform for ontology developers and researchers for gauging the ontologies for satisfactory coverage and usage.Design/methodology/approachThe study uses a systematic literature review approach to identify 35 DMOs in the domain between the years 2003 and 2021. Various parameters, like purpose, design methodology, operations used, language representation, etc. are available in the literature to review ontologies. Accompanying the existing parameters, a few parameters, like semantic reasoner used, knowledge representation formalism was added and a list of 20 parameters was prepared. It was then segregated into two groups as generic parameters and core parameters to review DMOs.FindingsIt was observed that among the 35 papers under the study, 26 papers were published between the years 2006 and 2016. Larisa Soldatova, Saso Dzeroski and Pance Panov were the most productive authors of these DMO-related publications. The ontological review indicated that most of the DMOs were domain and task ontologies. Majority of ontologies were formal, modular and represented using web ontology language (OWL). The data revealed that Ontology development 101, METHONTOLOGY was the preferred design methodology, and application-based approaches were preferred for evaluation. It was also observed that around eight ontologies were accessible, and among them, three were available in ontology libraries as well. The most reused ontologies were OntoDM, BFO, OBO-RO, OBI, IAO, OntoDT, SWO and DMOP. The most preferred ontology editor was Protégé, whereas the most used semantic reasoner was Pellet. Even ontology metrics for 16 DMOs were also available.Originality/valueThis paper carries out a basic level review of DMOs employing a parametric approach, which makes this study the first of a kind for the review of DMOs.


2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 138-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prasant Kumar Sinha ◽  
Biswanath Dutta

The article identifies the core literature available on flood ontologies and presents a review on these ontologies from various perspectives like its purpose, type, design methodologies, ontologies (re)used, and also their focus on specific flood disaster phases. The study was conducted in two stages: i) literature identification, where the systematic literature review methodology was employed; and, ii) ontological review, where the parametric approach was applied. The study resulted in a set of fourteen papers discussing the flood ontology (FO). The ontological review revealed that most of the flood ontologies were task ontologies, formal, modular, and used web ontology language (OWL) for their representation. The most (re)used ontologies were SWEET, SSN, Time, and Space. METHONTOLOGY was the preferred design methodology, and for evaluation, application-based or data-based approaches were preferred. The majority of the ontologies were built around the response phase of the disaster. The unavailability of the full ontologies somewhat restricted the current study as the structural ontology metrics are missing. But the scientific community, the developers, of flood disaster management systems can refer to this work for their research to see what is available in the literature on flood ontology and the other major domains essential in building the FO.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 473-485
Author(s):  
Manuel Franco ◽  
Juana María Vivo ◽  
Manuel Quesada-Martínez ◽  
Astrid Duque-Ramos ◽  
Jesualdo Tomás Fernández-Breis

Abstract The development and application of biological ontologies have increased significantly in recent years. These ontologies can be retrieved from different repositories, which do not provide much information about quality aspects of the ontologies. In the past years, some ontology structural metrics have been proposed, but their validity as measurement instrument has not been sufficiently studied to date. In this work, we evaluate a set of reproducible and objective ontology structural metrics. Given the lack of standard methods for this purpose, we have applied an evaluation method based on the stability and goodness of the classifications of ontologies produced by each metric on an ontology corpus. The evaluation has been done using ontology repositories as corpora. More concretely, we have used 119 ontologies from the OBO Foundry repository and 78 ontologies from AgroPortal. First, we study the correlations between the metrics. Second, we study whether the clusters for a given metric are stable and have a good structure. The results show that the existing correlations are not biasing the evaluation, there are no metrics generating unstable clusterings and all the metrics evaluated provide at least reasonable clustering structure. Furthermore, our work permits to review and suggest the most reliable ontology structural metrics in terms of stability and goodness of their classifications. Availability: http://sele.inf.um.es/ontology-metrics


Author(s):  
Jeff Z. Pan ◽  
Carlos Bobed ◽  
Isa Guclu ◽  
Fernando Bobillo ◽  
Martin J. Kollingbaum ◽  
...  

In this article, the authors introduce the notion of ABox intensity in the context of predicting reasoner performance to improve the representativeness of ontology metrics, and they develop new metrics that focus on ABox features of OWL 2 EL ontologies. Their experiments show that taking into account the intensity through the proposed metrics contributes to overall prediction accuracy for ABox intensive ontologies.


2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (8) ◽  
pp. 6706-6711 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.A. Sicilia ◽  
D. Rodríguez ◽  
E. García-Barriocanal ◽  
S. Sánchez-Alonso
Keyword(s):  

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 2319-2328 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Manouselis ◽  
M.A. Sicilia ◽  
D. Rodríguez

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document