Metrics and methods for comparative ontology evaluation

While progress has been made toward describing the need for ontology evaluation and offering proposals concerning what properties to measure and how, work remains to develop ontology evaluation as a rigorous discipline. Ontologies as information artifacts have a variety of aspects that can inform their evaluation, both in terms of what is evaluated and the metrics used. Ontology evaluation as a discipline requires (1) having a systematic account of the different aspects of ontologies and the properties relevant to those aspects, (2) critically developing methods for examining those properties, (3) developing comparative metrics that allow ontology engineers to compare the effects of various modeling choices and allow users to compare the merits of existing ontologies, and (4) charting possible pitfalls of evaluation. This paper considers various properties of ontologies that have been proposed and organizes these properties according to different aspects of ontologies. To begin bringing previous work together and to illustrate where pitfalls and potential solutions might enter into a rigorous evaluation, I offer a more in depth (though still partial) analysis of evaluating the correctness of ontologies. I conclude with a discussion of next steps in systematizing ontology evaluation.

[1]  Chunhua Weng,et al.  Design and Evaluation of a Bacterial Clinical Infectious Diseases Ontology , 2013, AMIA.

[2]  Robert Arp,et al.  Building Ontologies with Basic Formal Ontology , 2015 .

[3]  Marcela Vegetti,et al.  Towards ontology evaluation across the life cycleThe Ontology Summit 2013 , 2013, Appl. Ontology.

[4]  Júlio Cesar dos Reis,et al.  Towards natural language question generation for the validation of ontologies and mappings , 2016, J. Biomed. Semant..

[5]  Wei Ma,et al.  RxNorm: prescription for electronic drug information exchange , 2005, IT Professional.

[6]  Wojciech Waloszek Measures for Evaluation of Structure and Semantics of Ontologies , 2012 .

[7]  Erik Schultes,et al.  The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship , 2016, Scientific Data.

[8]  Mark S. Fox,et al.  The Role of Competency Questions in Enterprise Engineering , 1995 .

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

[10]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  WonderWeb Deliverable D17. The WonderWeb Library of Foundational Ontologies and the DOLCE ontology , 2002 .

[11]  Emanuele Pianta,et al.  Corpus-based terminological evaluation of ontologies , 2012, Appl. Ontology.

[12]  Chunhua Weng,et al.  A review of auditing methods applied to the content of controlled biomedical terminologies , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[13]  York Sure-Vetter,et al.  How to Design Better Ontology Metrics , 2007, ESWC.

[14]  A. Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Evaluation of ontologies , 2001, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[15]  Michel Dumontier,et al.  Towards quantitative measures in applied ontology , 2012, ArXiv.

[16]  Aldo Gangemi,et al.  A theoretical framework for ontology evaluation and validation , 2005, SWAP.

[17]  George A. Miller,et al.  WordNet: A Lexical Database for English , 1995, HLT.

[18]  Cui Tao,et al.  Modulated evaluation metrics for drug-based ontologies , 2017, J. Biomed. Semant..

[19]  Leo Obrst,et al.  The Evaluation of Ontologies: Toward Improved Semantic Interoperability , 2006 .

[20]  G. Miller,et al.  Semantic networks of english , 1991, Cognition.