A Methodological Approach to Compare Ontologies

Cardinale, Yudith; Cornejo-Lupa, Maria A.; Ticona-Herrera, Regina; Barrios-Aranibar, Dennis

doi:10.1145/3428757.3429091

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a previous study (Cardinale et al, 2020), we propose a methodological process to compare ontologies considering Correctness and Quality perspectives (Hlomani and Stacey, 2014) at three levels on the ontology, that group the majority of levels proposed by prior works:…”

Section: Methodological Process For a Comparative Evaluation Of Ontologies: Our Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The methodological comparative process proposed by (Cardinale et al, 2020) is summarized in the following phases:…”

Section: Step-by-step Comparative Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To overcome these limitations, in previous work we propose a methodological process to qualitatively and quantitatively compare ontologies at Lexical, Structural and Domain Knowledge Modeling levels, considering Correctness and Quality perspectives (Cardinale et al, 2020). Our methodological process represents a systematic guideline to perform the comparison of ontologies, based on a golden-standard (GS), which allows being customized to compare ontologies in any domain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Application of a methodological approach to compare ontologies

Cardinale

Cornejo-Lupa

Gala

et al. 2021

IJWIS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to the OQuaRE quality model to the developed methodology. Design/methodology/approach Ontologies are formal, well-defined and flexible representations of knowledge related to a specific domain. They provide the base to develop efficient and interoperable solutions. Hence, a proliferation of ontologies in many domains is unleashed. Then, it is necessary to define how to compare such ontologies to decide which one is the most suitable for the specific needs of users/developers. As the emerging development of ontologies, several studies have proposed criteria to evaluate them. Findings In a previous study, the authors propose a methodological process to qualitatively and quantitatively compare ontologies at Lexical, Structural and Domain Knowledge levels, considering correctness and quality perspectives. As the evaluation methods of the proposal are based on a golden-standard, it can be customized to compare ontologies in any domain. Practical implications To show the suitability of the proposal, the authors apply the methodological approach to conduct comparative studies of ontologies in two different domains, one in the robotic area, in particular for the simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) problem; and the other one, in the cultural heritage domain. With these cases of study, the authors demonstrate that with this methodological comparative process, we are able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of ontologies, as well as the gaps still needed to fill in the target domains. Originality/value Using these metrics and the quality model from OQuaRE, the authors are incorporating a standard of software engineering at the quality validation into the Semantic Web.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Process For a Comparative Evaluation Of Ontologies: Our Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The methodological comparative process proposed by (Cardinale et al, 2020) is summarized in the following phases:…”

Section: Step-by-step Comparative Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Application of a methodological approach to compare ontologies

Cardinale

Cornejo-Lupa

Gala

et al. 2021

IJWIS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

An Ontology for Modeling Cultural Heritage Knowledge in Urban Tourism

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban tourism information available on Internet has been of enormous relevance to motivate the tourism in many countries. There exist many applications focused on promoting and preserving the cultural heritage, through urban tourism, which in turn demand a well-defined and standard model for representing the whole knowledge of this domain, thus ensuring interoperable and flexible applications. Current studies propose the use of ontologies to formally model such knowledge. Nonetheless, most of them only represent partial knowledge of cultural heritage or are restrictive to an indoor perspective (i.e., museum ontologies). In this context, we propose the ontology CURIOCITY (Cultural Heritage for Urban Tourism in Indoor/Outdoor environments of the CITY), to represent the cultural heritage knowledge based on UNESCO's definitions. CURIOCITY ontology has a three-level architecture (Upper, Middle, and Lower ontologies) in accordance with a purpose of modularity and levels of specificity. In this paper, we describe in detail all modules of CURIOCITY ontology and perform a comparative evaluation with state-of-the-art ontologies. Additionally, to demonstrate the suitability of CURIOCITY ontology, we show several touristic services offered through a framework supported in the ontology. The framework includes an automatic population process, that allows transforming a museum data repository (in CSV format) into RDF triples of CURIOCITY ontology to automatically populate the CURIOCITY repository, and facilities to develop a set of tourism applications and services, following the UNESCO's definitions.

show abstract