ontology evaluation and ranking using ontoqa n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Ontology Evaluation and Ranking using OntoQA PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Ontology Evaluation and Ranking using OntoQA

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 22

Ontology Evaluation and Ranking using OntoQA - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 103 Views
  • Uploaded on

Ontology Evaluation and Ranking using OntoQA. By. Samir Tatir and I.Budak Arpinar Department of Industrial Engineering Park Jihye. Why “ OntoQA ?”. More and more ontologies are being introduced Difficult to find good ontology related to user’s work

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Ontology Evaluation and Ranking using OntoQA' - agatha


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
ontology evaluation and ranking using ontoqa

Ontology Evaluation and Ranking using OntoQA

By. SamirTatir and I.BudakArpinar

Department of Industrial Engineering

Park Jihye

why ontoqa
Why “OntoQA?”
  • More and more ontologies are being introduced
  • Difficult to find good ontology related to user’s work
  • Need tools for evaluating and ranking the ontologies
  • Provides a flexible technique to rankontologies based on user’s contents and relevance
  • OntoQA is the first approach that evaluates ontologies using their instances as well as schemas
contents
Contents
  • Architecture
  • Terminology
  • The Metrics
    • Schema Metrics
    • Instance Metrics
  • Ontology Score Calculation
  • Experiments and Evaluation
  • Conclusion
architecture
Architecture
  • Input Ontology
    • OntoQA calculates metric values
architecture1
Architecture
  • Input Ontology and Keywords
    • OntoQA calculates metric values

Uses metric values to evaluate the overall contents of the ontology and obtain its relevance to the keywords

Uses WordNet to expand the keywords to include any related keywords that might exist in the ontology

architecture2
Architecture
  • Input Keywords
    • OntoQA uses Swoogle to find the RDF and OWL ontologies in the top 20 results returned by Swoogle

OntoQA then evaluates each of the ontologies

OntoQA finally displays the list of ontologiesranked by their score

terminology
Terminology
  • Schema
    • A set of classes,
    • A set of relationships,
    • A set of class-ancestor pairs,
  • Knowledgebase
    • A set of instances,
    • A class instantiation function,
    • A relationship instantiation function,
metrics
Metrics
  • Two dimension
    • Schema

Ontology design and its potential for rich knowledge representation

    • Instances

Placement of instance data and distribution of the data

      • Overall Knowledgebase
      • Class-specific metrics
      • Relationship-specific metrics
schema metrics 1
Schema Metrics (1)
  • Relationship Diversity(RD)

: Whether user prefers a taxonomy or diverse relationships

If RD value is close to 0, most of the relationships are inheritance relationship

IF RD value is close to 1, most of the relationships are non-inheritance

schema metrics 2
Schema Metrics (2)
  • Schema Deepness(SD)

: Distinguish Shallow ontology from a deep ontology

If SD value is low, ontology would be deep, and covers specific domain in detailed manner

IF SD value is high, ontology would be shallow, and represents a wide range of general knowledge

?

instance metrics 1 overall kb metrics
Instance Metrics (1) Overall KB Metrics
  • Class Utilization(CU)

: Indicate how classes defined in the schema are being utilized in the Knowledgebase

C’ is the set of populated classes

If CU value is low, knowledgebase does not have data that exemplifies all the knowledge that exists in the schema

instance metrics 1 overall kb metrics1
Instance Metrics (1) Overall KB Metrics
  • Cohesion(Coh)

: Represents the number of connected components in the KB

  • Class Instance Distribution(CID)

: Indicate how instances are spread across the classes on the schema

Standard deviation in the number of instances per class

instance metrics 2 class specific metrics
Instance Metrics (2) Class Specific Metrics
  • Class Connectivity(Conn)

: Indicate centrality of a class

NIREC (C) is the set of relationships, instances of the class have

with instances of other classes

instance metrics 2 class specific metrics1
Instance Metrics (2) Class Specific Metrics
  • Class Importance (Imp)

: Indicate what parts of the ontology are considered focal and what parts are on the edge

Number of instances that belong to the inheritance subtree rooted

at in the KB,

compared to the total number of class instances in the KB

instance metrics 2 class specific metrics2
Instance Metrics (2) Class Specific Metrics
  • Relationship Utilization(RU)

: Reflects how the relationships defined for each class in the schema are being used at instance level

is the set of distinct relationships used by instances of a class ,

is the set of relationships a class has with another class

,

instance metrics 3 relationship specific metrics
Instance Metrics (3) Relationship-Specific Metrics
  • Relationship Importance(Imp)

: Measures percentage of importance of the current relationship

Number of instances of relationship in the KB,

compared to the total number of property instances in the KB (RI)

ontology score calculation
Ontology Score Calculation
  • Evaluation of Ontology based on the entered keywords
    • The terms entered by the user are extended by addinganyrelated terms
    • Determines the class and relationship whose name contain any term of the extended set of terms
    • Aggregate the overall metrics to get overall score for the ontology
experiments and evaluation
Experiments and Evaluation
  • Compare the ranking of the ontoQA, OntoRank of Swoogle, group of expert users.
  • OntoRank1)
    • Similar to Google’s pageRank approach
    • Gives preference to PopularOntologies

wPR(a) is weighted PageRank variation

1)Finin T., et all. Swoogle:Searching for knowledge on the Semantic Web

experiments and evaluation1
Experiments and Evaluation
  • Problem of OntoRank1)
    • If two copies of the same ontology are placed in two different locations and one of these locations is cited more than the other, it will rank the copy at this popular location higher than the other copy
  • OntoQA will give both ontologies the same ranking

1)Finin T., et all. Swoogle:Searching for knowledge on the Semantic Web

experiments and evaluation2
Experiments and Evaluation

With Balanced Weight

With Higher Weight for Schema Size

OntoQA

Swoogle

Swoogle

OntoQA

user

user

conclusion
Conclusion
  • Different from other approaches in that it is tunable, requires minimal user involvement
  • Consider both the schema and the instances of a populated ontology
review
Review
  • Ranking result depends highly on the Weight
  • Difficult to decide proper Weight
    • Due to inconsistent metrics, every metric has its own range

=> “same weight” doesn’t mean “same preference”

    • About 10 kinds of metrics, too many cases of combination