Abstract---
With the persistent growth of the World Wide Web,the difficulty is increased in the retrieval of relevant information for auser’s query. Present search engines offer the user with several webpages, but different levels of relevancy. To overcome this, theSemantic Web has been proposed by various authors to retrieve andutilize additional semantic information from the web. As theSemantic Web adds importance for sharing knowledge on the internetthis has guide to the development and publishing of severalontologies in different domains. Using the database terminology, itcan be said that the web-ontology of a semantic web system isschema of that system. As web ontology is an integral aspect of semantic web systems, hence, design quality of a semantic websystem can be deliberated by measuring the quality of its web-ontology. This survey focuses on developing good ontologies. Thissurvey draws upon semiotic theory to develop a suite of metrics thatassess the syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and social aspects of ontology quality. This research deliberates about the metrics that maycontribute in developing a high quality semantic web system.
Keywords---
Quality Metrics, Web ontology, Semiotic Metrics,Semantic Quality, Domain modularity.
I.
I
NTRODUCTION
EMANTIC Web is nothing but the extension of thepresent web in which the web resources are prepared withformal semantics about their interpretation for the machines.These web resources are combined in the form of webinformation systems, and their formal semantics are usuallycharacterized in the form of web-ontologies. By means of thedatabase terminology, it can be said that the web-ontology of asemantic web system is representation of that system [11].Design quality of a semantic web system can be calculated bycomputing the quality of its web-ontology because webontology is the integral element of semantic web systems [25].The main concern is that when the design of a web-ontology iscompleted, it is suitable time to assess its quality so that incase, the design is of low quality, it can be enhanced before itsinstantiation. This helps in saving of considerable amount of cost and effort for developing high quality semantic websystems. Metrics are considered as the appropriate tools forestimating quality. This survey focuses on several metrics forweb ontology quality evaluation.II.
L
ITERATURE
S
URVEY
Ahluwalia
et al.,
[1]
presented
a Semiotic Metrics Suite forAssessing the Quality of Ontologies. Table 1 shows some of the metrics for quality evaluation [1, 3].As a decisive construct, overall quality (Q) is a subjectivefunction of its syntactic (S), semantic (E), pragmatic (P), andsocial (O) qualities [1] (i.e., Q = b1×S + b2×E + b3×P +b4×O). The addition of weight is equal to 1. In the absence of pre-specified weights, the weights are assigned to be equal.Syntactic Quality (S) evaluates the quality of the ontologyaccording to the way it is written. Lawfulness is the extent towhich an ontology language’s rules have been obeyed. Notevery ontology editors have error-checking capabilities;however, without correct syntax, the ontology cannot be readand used. Richness is nothing but the proportion of features inthe ontology language that have been used in ontology (e.g.,whether it includes terms and axioms, or only terms). Richerontologies are more valuable to the user (e.g., agent).Semantic Quality (E) estimates the meaning of terms in theontology library. Three attributes are used here areinterpretability, consistency, and clarity. Interpretability dealswith the meaning of terms (e.g., classes and properties) in theontology. In the real world, the knowledge provided by theontology can map into meaningful concepts. This isaccomplished by checking that the words used by the ontologybe present in another independent semantic source, such as adomain-specific lexical database or a comprehensive, genericlexical database such as WordNet. Consistency is nothing butwhether terms having a consistent meaning in the ontology.For example, if an ontology claims that X is a subclass of Y,and that Y is a property of X, then X and Y have incoherentmeanings and are of no semantic value. For example,ontological terms such as IS-A is often used inconsistently.Clarity is the term which determines whether the context of terms is clear. For example, if ontology claims that class“Chair” has the property “Salary,” an agent must know thatthis illustrate academics, not furniture.Pragmatic Quality (P) deals with the ontology’s usefulnessfor users or their agents, irrespective of syntax or semantics.Three criteria are used for determining P. Accuracy is whetherthe claims on ontology makes are ‘true.’ This is very tricky todetermine automatically without a learning mechanism ortruth maintenance system. Currently, a domain expertevaluates accuracy. The measure of the size of the ontology is
A Survey on Designing Metrics suite to Asses theQuality of Ontology
K.R Uthayan G.S.Anandha Mala, Professor & Head,Department of Information Technology, Department of Computer Science & EngineeringSSN College of Engineering St.Joseph’s College of Engineering,Chennai, India Chennai, Indiauthayankr@yahoo.com gs.anandhamala@gmail.com
S
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 8, November 2010179http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
called as Comprehensiveness. Larger ontologies are moreprobable to be complete representations of their domains, andprovide more knowledge to the agent. Relevance indicateswhether the ontology satisfies the agent’s specificrequirements.
T
ABLE
1:
D
ETERMINATION OF
M
ETRIC
V
ALUES
Attributes Determination
Overall Quality (Q) Q = b1.S + b2.E + b3.P + b4.OSyntactic Quality (S) S = bs1.SL + bs2.SRLawfulness (SL)Let X be total syntactical rules. Let X
b
be total breached rules. Let NSbe the number of statements in the ontology. Then SL = X
b
/ NS.Richness (SR)Let Y be the total syntactical features available in ontology language.Let Z be the total syntactical features used in this ontology.Then SR = Z/Y.Semantic Quality (E) E = be1.EI + be2.EC + be3.EAInterpretability (EI)Let C be the total number of terms used to define classes and propertiesin ontology.Let W be the number of terms that have a sense listed in WordNet. ThenEI = W/C.Consistency (EC)Let I = 0. Let C be the number of classes and properties in ontology.
∀
Ci, if meaning in ontology is inconsistent, I+1. Therefore, I = numberof terms with inconsistent meaning. Ec = I/C.Clarity (EA)Let Ci = name of class or property in ontology.
∀
Ci, count Ai, (thenumber of word senses for that term in WordNet). Then EA = A/C.Pragmatic Quality (P) P = bp1.PO + bp2.PU + bp3.PRComprehensiveness (PO)Let C be the total number of classes and properties in ontology. Let Vbe the average value for C across entire library. Then PO = C/V.Accuracy (PU)Let NS be the number of statements in ontology. Let F be the number of false statements. PU = F/NS. Requires evaluation by domain expertand/or truth maintenance system.Relevance (PR)Let NS be the number of statements in the ontology. Let S be the type of syntax relevant to agent. Let R be the number of statements within NSthat use S. PR = R / NS.Social Quality (O) O = bo1.OT + bo2.OHAuthority (OT)Let an ontology in the library be OA. Let the set of other ontologies inthe library be L. Let the total number of links from ontologies in L toOA be K. Let the average value for K across ontology library be V.Then OT = K/V.History (OH)Let the total number of accesses to an ontology be A. Let the averagevalue for A across ontology library be H. Then OH = A/H.Cohesion (Coh)Coh=|SCC|Where SCC is separate connected componentsFullness (F)
Readability (Rd)
For the purpose of evaluation, it needs some knowledge of the agent’s requirements. This metric is coarse as it verifies forthe type of information the agent uses by ontology (e.g.,property, subclass, etc), rather than the semantics needed for
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 8, November 2010180http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
specific tasks (e.g., the particular subclasses needed tointerpret a user’s specific query).Social quality (O) imitates the fact that agents andontologies exist in communities. The authority of an ontologyis nothing but the number of other ontologies that link to it(define their terms using its definitions). More authoritativeontologies indicate that the knowledge they provide isaccurate or useful. The history indicates the number of timesthe ontology is accessed. Ontologies are more dependablewhen they are with longer histories.The cohesion (Coh) of a KB is nothing but the number of separate connected components (SCC) of the graphrepresenting the KB.The fullness (F) of a class C
i
is defined as the actual numberof instances that belong to the subtree rooted at C
i
(C
i
(I))compared to the expected number of instances that belong tothe subtree rooted at C
i
(C
i
`(I)).The readability (Rd) of a class C
i
is defined as the total of the number attributes that are comments and the number of attributes that are labels the class has.Amjad
et al.,
[2] provided the Web-Ontology DesignQuality Metrics. The author proposes design metrics for web-ontology [21] by maintaining certain recommended principleslike a metric may reach its highest value for perfect quality forexcellent case and vice versa that is it may reach its lowestlevel for worst case. It is supposed to be monotonic, clear, andintuitive. It must correlate well with human decisions and itshould be automated if possible. The proposed metrics maygive notification about how much knowledge can be derivedfrom a given webontology; how much it is relevant to a user’sspecific necessities and how much it is effortless to reuse,manage, trace and adapt. The metrics provided by the authorare Knowledge Enriched (KnE), Characteristics Relevancy(ChR) and Domains modularity (DoM).
Knowledge Enriched metric
The reasoning capability of a web-ontology is determinedby Knowledge Enriched (KnE) metric, and it is based on twosub-metrics so-called Isolated Axiom Enriched (IAE) metricand Overlapped Axiom Enriched (OAE) metric. There arethree parts in this axiom namely, predicate, resource andobject. If none of these is similar with any other axiom of identical domain then that axiom is termed as isolated axiom.If the two axioms have some similar parts, it is said to beoverlapped. There may be more than a few transitivelyoverlapped axioms in any domain. This metric determines thepercentage of IAE and OAE, and if the former is greater thanthe later one, then the web-ontology can be regarded as lessknowledge enriched. IAE is officially defined as the ratio of total number of isolated axioms (tIAs) to the total number of domain axioms (tDAs).
(1)In the above equation, n is total number of sub-domains of web-ontology. Similarly, the OAE metric is officially definedas ratio of total number of overlapped axioms (tOAs) to thetotal number of domain axioms. It can be written as follows:
(2)In the equation given above, n is total number of sub-domains of web-ontology. Lastly, the KnE metric is thedifference of total number of overlapped axioms and the totalnumber of isolated axioms. It may be written as follows:
(3)If the resultant KnE value is positive, then the web-ontologyis more knowledge enriched, if it is zero, then the web-ontology is average knowledge enriched, and if it is negative,then the web-ontology is less knowledge enriched.
Characteristics Relevancy metric
Characteristics Relevancy (ChR) metric gives us thesuggestion about how much a given web-ontology is close to auser’s specific necessities and the degree of reusability of theweb-ontology. Formally, it is termed as the ratio of thenumber of relevant attributes (nRAs) in a class to the totalnumber of attributes (TnAs) of that class. It can be written asfollows:
(4)where n in above equation represents the total number of classes in the provided web-ontology. ChR metric reveals theproportion of relevant attributes in the web-ontology, and thisnumber gives insights how much a web-ontology is relevant.
Domain Modularity metric
Domain modularity (DoM) metric denotes the component-orientation feature of a web-ontology. This metric specifiesthe grouping of knowledge in different components of web-ontology. The webontology is best manageable, traceable,reusable and adaptable, if it is designed in components(subdomains). Formally, the DoM metric is given as thenumber of sub-domains (NSD) contained in a webontology.This metric also depends on the coupling and cohesion [25]levels of sub-domains, and it is directly proportional to itscohesion level and inversely proportional to its coupling level.
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 8, November 2010181http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
A Survey on Designing Metrics suite to Asses the Quality of Ontology
With the persistent growth of the World Wide Web, the difficulty is increased in the retrieval of relevant information for a user’s query. Present search engines offer the user with several web pages, but different levels…
(More)
359
Reads
0
Readcasts
1
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
