A comprehensive framework for the evaluation of ontology modularization

Highlights? We propose a new evaluation framework for ontology modularization tools. ? Three aspects of tool evaluation: tool performance, data performance, and usability. ? Implicit comparison and empirical analysis are performed. ? We perform an empirical analysis using analytic hierarchy process. The Semantic Web and ontologies have received increased attention in recent years. The delivery of well-designed ontologies enhances the effect of Semantic Web services, but building ontologies from scratch requires considerable time and effort. Modularizing ontologies and integrating ontology modules to a given context help users effectively develop ontologies and revitalize ontology dissemination. Therefore, various tools for modularizing ontologies have been developed. However, selecting an appropriate tool to fit a given context is difficult because the assumptions for the approaches greatly vary. Therefore, a suitable framework is required to compare and help screen the most suitable modularization tool.In this research, we propose a new evaluation framework for selecting an appropriate ontology modularization tool. We present three aspects of tool evaluation as the main dimensions for the assessment of modularization tools: tool performance, data performance, and usability.This study provides an implicit evaluation and an empirical analysis of three modularization tools. It also provides an evaluation method for ontology modularization, enabling ontology engineers to compare different modularization tools and easily choose an appropriate one for the production of qualifying ontology modules.The experimental results indicate that the proposed evaluation criteria for ontology modularization tools are valid and effective. This research provides a useful method for assessing and selecting ontology modularization tools. Modularization performance, data performance, and usability are the three modularization aspects designed and applied to the context of ontology. We provide a new focus on the comprehensive framework to evaluate the performance and usability of ontology modularization tools. The proposed framework should be of value to both ontology engineers, who are interested in ontology modularization, and to practitioners, who need information on how to evaluate and select a specific type of ontology tool in accordance with the requirements of the individual environment.

[1]  Valentina A. M. Tamma,et al.  An entropy inspired measure for evaluating ontology modularization , 2009, K-CAP '09.

[2]  Norman E. Fenton,et al.  Software Metrics: A Rigorous Approach , 1991 .

[3]  Letha H. Etzkorn,et al.  Indicating ontology data quality, stability, and completeness throughout ontology evolution: Research Articles , 2007 .

[4]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  An Environment for Merging and Testing Large Ontologies , 2000, KR.

[5]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Automatic Partitioning of OWL Ontologies Using E-Connections , 2005, Description Logics.

[6]  Alex Norta,et al.  Utility Evaluation of Tools for Collaborative Development and Maintenance of Ontologies , 2010, 2010 14th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops.

[7]  Alan L. Rector,et al.  Web ontology segmentation: analysis, classification and use , 2006, WWW '06.

[8]  Valentina A. M. Tamma,et al.  Task Oriented Evaluation of Module Extraction Techniques , 2009, SEMWEB.

[9]  Christopher G. Chute,et al.  Survey of modular ontology techniques and their applications in the biomedical domain , 2009, Integr. Comput. Aided Eng..

[10]  Enrico Motta,et al.  Modularization: a Key for the Dynamic Selection of Relevant Knowledge Components , 2006, WoMO.

[11]  Vasant Honavar,et al.  A Semantic Importing Approach to Knowledge Reuse from Multiple Ontologies , 2007, AAAI.

[12]  Michel C. A. Klein,et al.  Structure-Based Partitioning of Large Concept Hierarchies , 2004, SEMWEB.

[13]  Mathieu d'Aquin,et al.  Criteria and Evaluation for Ontology Modularization Techniques , 2009, Modular Ontologies.

[14]  James A. Thom,et al.  Requirements-oriented methodology for evaluating ontologies , 2009, Inf. Syst..

[15]  Richard Fikes,et al.  The Ontolingua Server: a tool for collaborative ontology construction , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[16]  Valentina A. M. Tamma,et al.  SOMET: Algorithm and Tool for SPARQL Based Ontology Module Extraction , 2008, WoMO.

[17]  Mark A. Musen,et al.  Specifying Ontology Views by Traversal , 2004, International Semantic Web Conference.

[18]  Letha H. Etzkorn,et al.  Indicating ontology data quality, stability, and completeness throughout ontology evolution , 2007, J. Softw. Maintenance Res. Pract..

[19]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Just the right amount: extracting modules from ontologies , 2007, WWW '07.

[20]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[21]  Chen-Fu Chien,et al.  An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection , 2005 .

[22]  Mathieu d'Aquin,et al.  Ontology Modularization for Knowledge Selection: Experiments and Evaluations , 2007, DEXA.

[23]  Luigi Iannone,et al.  Ontology module extraction for ontology reuse: an ontology engineering perspective , 2007, CIKM '07.

[24]  Rajendra M. Sonar,et al.  Evaluating and selecting software packages: A review , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[25]  Eric W. T. Ngai,et al.  Evaluation of knowledge management tools using AHP , 2005, Expert Syst. Appl..

[26]  Geoffrey C. Fox,et al.  Software tool evaluation methodology , 1995, Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems.

[27]  Hongyu Zhang,et al.  Measuring design complexity of semantic web ontologies , 2010, J. Syst. Softw..

[28]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Combining OWL ontologies using epsilon-Connections , 2006, J. Web Semant..

[29]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Towards Structural Criteria for Ontology Modularization , 2006, WoMO.

[30]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  A Logical Framework for Modularity of Ontologies , 2007, IJCAI.

[31]  Martin Bichler,et al.  Design science in information systems research , 2006, Wirtschaftsinf..

[32]  Enrico Motta,et al.  Towards a Parametric Ontology Modularization Framework Based on Graph Transformation , 2007, WoMO.

[33]  Mark A. Musen,et al.  Evaluating Ontology-Mapping Tools: Requirements and Experience , 2002, EON.