Automatic Evaluation of Ontologies

We can observe that the focus of modern information systems is moving from “data processing” towards “concept processing,” meaning that the basic unit of processing is less and less an atomic piece of data and is becoming more a semantic concept which carries an interpretation and exists in a context with other concepts. An ontology is commonly used as a structure capturing knowledge about a certain area by providing relevant concepts and relations between them. Analysis of textual data plays an important role in construction and usage of ontologies, especially with the growing popularity of semi-automated ontology construction (here referred to also as ontology learning). Different knowledge discovery methods have been adopted for the problem of semi-automated ontology construction [10] including unsupervised, semi-supervised and supervised learning over a collection of text documents, using natural language processing to obtain semantic graph of a document, visualization of documents, information extraction to find relevant concepts, visualization of context of named entities in a document collection.

[1]  D6.6.1 Report on the integration of ML, HLT and OM , 2005 .

[2]  Steffen Staab,et al.  Measuring Similarity between Ontologies , 2002, EKAW.

[3]  李幼升,et al.  Ph , 1989 .

[4]  Michael J. Prietula,et al.  Simulating organizations: computational models of institutions and groups , 1998 .

[5]  R. Porzel,et al.  A Task-based Approach for Ontology Evaluation , 2022 .

[6]  William M. Rand,et al.  Objective Criteria for the Evaluation of Clustering Methods , 1971 .

[7]  Yorick Wilks,et al.  Data Driven Ontology Evaluation , 2004, LREC.

[8]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean , 2002, CACM.

[9]  Yugyung Lee,et al.  OntoKhoj: a semantic web portal for ontology searching, ranking and classification , 2003, WIDM '03.

[10]  Dunja Mladenic,et al.  Machine Learning on non-homogeneous, distributed text data , 1998 .

[11]  Kaustubh Supekar,et al.  A Peer-review Approach for Ontology Evaluation , 2005 .

[12]  Dunja Mladenic,et al.  Feature selection on hierarchy of web documents , 2003, Decis. Support Syst..

[13]  Roy Rada,et al.  Development and application of a metric on semantic nets , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[14]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Towards a framework to verify knowledge sharing technology , 1996 .

[15]  M. Fox,et al.  An Organization Ontology for Enterprise Modelling , 2002 .

[16]  Jennifer Widom,et al.  Change detection in hierarchically structured information , 1996, SIGMOD '96.

[17]  Marc Ehrig,et al.  Similarity for Ontologies - A Comprehensive Framework , 2005, ECIS.

[18]  Timothy W. Finin,et al.  Swoogle: a search and metadata engine for the semantic web , 2004, CIKM '04.

[19]  York Sure-Vetter,et al.  Automatic Evaluation of Ontologies (AEON) , 2005, SEMWEB.

[20]  A. Gomez-Perez,et al.  Some ideas and examples to evaluate ontologies , 1995, Proceedings the 11th Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Applications.

[21]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  ONTOMETRIC: A Method to Choose the Appropriate Ontology , 2004, J. Database Manag..

[22]  Marina Meila,et al.  Comparing clusterings: an axiomatic view , 2005, ICML.

[23]  Vladimir I. Levenshtein,et al.  Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals , 1965 .

[24]  Paola Velardi,et al.  Evaluation of OntoLearn, a Methodology for Automatic Learning of Domain Ontologies , 2005 .

[25]  Dunja Mladenic,et al.  Automated knowledge discovery in advanced knowledge management , 2005, J. Knowl. Manag..

[26]  Vijayan Sugumaran,et al.  A semiotic metrics suite for assessing the quality of ontologies , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

[27]  David Haussler,et al.  Convolution kernels on discrete structures , 1999 .

[28]  Marina Meila,et al.  Comparing Clusterings by the Variation of Information , 2003, COLT.