PerfectO: An Online Toolkit for Improving Quality …
171
3.3 Ontology Evaluation
There is a need for tools supporting ontology evaluation research approaches, also
referenced in Table 1.
Gruninger et al. [29] are the pioneer working on ontology evaluation in 1995 and
define the competency of the ontology as a set of questions that an ontology answers.
The competency of the ontology can be evaluated by proving completeness theorems
for the competency questions.
Vrandecic et al. [45] design a conceptual framework for ontology evaluation to
assess the quality of an ontology for the Web. Eight criteria have been defined which
are accuracy, adaptability, clarity, completeness/competency, computational efficiency, conciseness, consistency/coherence and organizational fitness/commercial
accessibility. Evaluating ontologies can be done to deal with six different aspects:
vocabulary, syntax, structure, semantics, representation, and context. The implementation of the work has been done within the Semantic MediaWiki, an extension of
the MediaWiki which provides collaborative creation and maintenance of ontologies.
Another innovative idea is the introduction of unit tests for ontologies by the same
authors [46].
3.4 Ontology Metrics
Ontology metrics have been defined in [9, 11]. However, there is a need to classify
and prioritize metrics. Ontology metric works are also referenced in Table 1.
OntoMetric is a methodology to choose the appropriate ontology for a specific
system [44]. Five dimensions are provided: (1) the content of the ontology and its
organization, (2) the language used for the implementation, (3) the development
methodology employed to build the ontology, (4) the software tools used to design
the ontology, and (5) the costs to develop and maintain the ontology. The OntoMetric
framework defines 160 characteristics according to those five dimensions.
Burton et al. [43] define ten metrics for ontology quality: lawfulness, richness,
interpretability, consistency, clarity, comprehensiveness, accuracy, relevance, authority, and history.
3.5 Ontology Quality
Tools are emerging to evaluate the ontology quality (also referenced in Table 1),
but not enough known outside from the semantic web community. There is a real
necessity to disseminate those tools and test their usability.
Fernandez et al. [39] define the term of “good” and high-quality ontology which
means the easy reuse of some parts of a given ontology instead of the entire ontology.
171
3.3 Ontology Evaluation
There is a need for tools supporting ontology evaluation research approaches, also
referenced in Table 1.
Gruninger et al. [29] are the pioneer working on ontology evaluation in 1995 and
define the competency of the ontology as a set of questions that an ontology answers.
The competency of the ontology can be evaluated by proving completeness theorems
for the competency questions.
Vrandecic et al. [45] design a conceptual framework for ontology evaluation to
assess the quality of an ontology for the Web. Eight criteria have been defined which
are accuracy, adaptability, clarity, completeness/competency, computational efficiency, conciseness, consistency/coherence and organizational fitness/commercial
accessibility. Evaluating ontologies can be done to deal with six different aspects:
vocabulary, syntax, structure, semantics, representation, and context. The implementation of the work has been done within the Semantic MediaWiki, an extension of
the MediaWiki which provides collaborative creation and maintenance of ontologies.
Another innovative idea is the introduction of unit tests for ontologies by the same
authors [46].
3.4 Ontology Metrics
Ontology metrics have been defined in [9, 11]. However, there is a need to classify
and prioritize metrics. Ontology metric works are also referenced in Table 1.
OntoMetric is a methodology to choose the appropriate ontology for a specific
system [44]. Five dimensions are provided: (1) the content of the ontology and its
organization, (2) the language used for the implementation, (3) the development
methodology employed to build the ontology, (4) the software tools used to design
the ontology, and (5) the costs to develop and maintain the ontology. The OntoMetric
framework defines 160 characteristics according to those five dimensions.
Burton et al. [43] define ten metrics for ontology quality: lawfulness, richness,
interpretability, consistency, clarity, comprehensiveness, accuracy, relevance, authority, and history.
3.5 Ontology Quality
Tools are emerging to evaluate the ontology quality (also referenced in Table 1),
but not enough known outside from the semantic web community. There is a real
necessity to disseminate those tools and test their usability.
Fernandez et al. [39] define the term of “good” and high-quality ontology which
means the easy reuse of some parts of a given ontology instead of the entire ontology.