Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0022310577 = product of:
  0.0133863455 = sum of:
    0.0133863455 = weight(_text_:in in 161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0133863455 = score(doc=161,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 161, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=161)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In the area of semantic technologies, benchmarking and systematic evaluation is not yet as established as in other areas of computer science, e.g., information retrieval. In spite of successful attempts, more effort and experience are required in order to achieve such a level of maturity. In this paper, we report results and lessons learned from the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI), a benchmarking initiative for ontology matching. The goal of this work is twofold: on the one hand, we document the state of the art in evaluating ontology matching methods and provide potential participants of the initiative with a better understanding of the design and the underlying principles of the OAEI campaigns. On the other hand, we report experiences gained in this particular area of semantic technologies to potential developers of benchmarking for other kinds of systems. For this purpose, we describe the evaluation design used in the OAEI campaigns in terms of datasets, evaluation criteria and workflows, provide a global view on the results of the campaigns carried out from 2005 to 2010 and discuss upcoming trends, both specific to ontology matching and generally relevant for the evaluation of semantic technologies. Finally, we argue that there is a need for a further automation of benchmarking to shorten the feedback cycle for tool developers.

0.001682769 = product of:
  0.010096614 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=172,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 172, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=172)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this document we provide an overall view of the state of the art in ontology alignment. It is organised as a description of the need for ontology alignment, a presentation of the techniques currently in use for ontology alignment and a presentation of existing systems. The state of the art is not restricted to any discipline and consider as some form of ontology alignment the work made on schema matching within the database area for instance. Heterogeneity problems on the semantic web can be solved, for some of them, by aligning heterogeneous ontologies. This is illustrated through a number of use cases of ontology alignment. Aligning ontologies consists of providing the corresponding entities in these ontologies. This process is precisely defined in deliverable D2.2.1. The current deliverable presents the many techniques currently used for implementing this process. These techniques are classified along the many features that can be found in ontologies (labels, structures, instances, semantics). They resort to many different disciplines such as statistics, machine learning or data analysis. The alignment itself is obtained by combining these techniques towards a particular goal (obtaining an alignment with particular features, optimising some criterion). Several combination techniques are also presented. Finally, these techniques have been experimented in various systems for ontology alignment or schema matching. Several such systems are presented briefly in the last section and characterized by the above techniques they rely on. The conclusion is that many techniques are available for achieving ontology alignment and many systems have been developed based on these techniques. However, few comparisons and few integration is actually provided by these implementations. This deliverable serves as a basis for considering further action along these two lines. It provide a first inventory of what should be evaluated and suggests what evaluation criterion can be used.