Semantic Network Analysis of Ontologies

A key argument for modeling knowledge in ontologies is the easy reuse and re-engineering of the knowledge. However, current ontology engineering tools provide only basic functionalities for analyzing ontologies. Since ontologies can be considered as graphs, graph analysis techniques are a suitable answer for this need. Graph analysis has been performed by sociologists for over 60 years, and resulted in the vivid research area of Social Network Analysis (SNA).While social network structures currently receive high attention in the Semantic Web community, there are only very few SNA applications, and virtually none for analyzing the structure of ontologies. We illustrate the benefits of applying SNA to ontologies and the Semantic Web, and discuss which research topics arise on the edge between the two areas. In particular, we discuss how different notions of centrality describe the core content and structure of an ontology. From the rather simple notion of degree centrality over betweenness centrality to the more complex eigenvector centrality, we illustrate the insights these measures provide on two ontologies, which are different in purpose, scope, and size.

[1]  Harith Alani,et al.  Identifying Communities of Practice through Ontology Network Analysis , 2003, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[2]  B. Wellman,et al.  Social Impacts of Electronic Mail in Organizations: A Review of the Research Literature , 1995 .

[3]  Bernardo A. Huberman,et al.  E-Mail as Spectroscopy: Automated Discovery of Community Structure within Organizations , 2005, Inf. Soc..

[4]  John C. Paolillo,et al.  The Social Semantics of LiveJournal FOAF: Structure and Change from 2004 to 2005 , 2005 .

[5]  Phillip Bonacich,et al.  Eigenvector-like measures of centrality for asymmetric relations , 2001, Soc. Networks.

[6]  Norman,et al.  Structural Models: An Introduction to the Theory of Directed Graphs. , 1966 .

[7]  Enrico Motta,et al.  The Semantic Web - ISWC 2005, 4th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2005, Galway, Ireland, November 6-10, 2005, Proceedings , 2005, SEMWEB.

[8]  B. Wellman.  The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science , 2008 .

[9]  Christoph Schmitz.  Self-Organization of a Small World by Topic , 2004, LWA.

[10]  S. Wasserman,et al.  Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis: Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences , 2005 .

[11]  Bernardo A. Huberman,et al.  Email as spectroscopy: automated discovery of community structure within organizations , 2003 .

[12]  Christoph Schmitz,et al.  W8: Semantic Network Analysis , 2005 .

[13]  Friedhelm Meyer auf der Heide,et al.  Algorithmic Aspects of Large and Complex Net- works , 2013 .

[14]  Sergey Brin,et al.  The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine , 1998, Comput. Networks.

[15]  Michael F. Schwartz,et al.  Discovering shared interests using graph analysis , 1993, CACM.

[16]  Peter Mika.  Ontologies Are Us: A Unified Model of Social Networks and Semantics , 2005, International Semantic Web Conference.

[17]  S. Borgatti,et al.  The centrality of groups and classes , 1999 .

[18]  James A. Hendler,et al.  The Semantic Web — ISWC 2002 , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[19]  G. Barnett,et al.  Longitudinal non-euclidean networks: Applying Galileo , 1985 .

[20]  Andreas Hotho,et al.  Towards Semantic Web Mining , 2002, SEMWEB.

[21]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[22]  Li Ding,et al.  How the Semantic Web is Being Used: An Analysis of FOAF Documents , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[23]  Andreas Geyer-Schulz,et al.  Eigenspectral Analysis of Hermitian Adjacency Matrices for the Analysis of Group Substructures , 2005 .

[24]  Linton C. Freeman,et al.  Uncovering Organizational Hierarchies , 1997, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

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