Skip to main content
No Access

A framework for evaluating and ranking ontologies

Published Online:pp 155-168

Reusing the increasing number of available ontologies is extremely important for the advancement and the growth of Semantic Web, because it reduces the required costs, efforts and amount of time to build new ontologies. However, the lack of standard frameworks to assess their quality and their suitability for being used in a specific context remains a barrier to their wide adoption and reuse. To address this problem, we present in this paper a framework for evaluating and ranking ontologies, with three distinctive features. First, it provides an advanced retrieval mechanism that gathers the best set of candidate ontologies. Second, it defines a rich set of metrics for assessing several ontology aspects. Third, it supplies a helpful way for visualising and interpreting the results. We implemented and evaluated the proposed metrics. The results of these evaluations are presented, indicating the usefulness of the overall framework.


ontology evaluation, ontology ranking, ontology reuse, ontology quality, ontology retrieval, evaluation metrics, semantic web, knowledge engineering


  • 1. Alani, H. , Brewster, C. , Shadbolt, N. (2006). ‘Ranking ontologies with AKTiveRank’. proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference. Athens, USA, 1-15 Google Scholar
  • 2. Bachir Bouiadjra, A. , Benslimane, S.M. (2011). ‘FOEval: full ontology evaluation model and perspectives’. proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering. 27–29 November 2011, Tokushima Japan, 464-468 Google Scholar
  • 3. Brank, J. , Grobelnik, M. , Mladenic, D. (2005). ‘A survey of ontology evaluation techniques’. proceedings of the Conference on Data Mining and Data Warehouses at the 7th International Multi-conference on IS. Ljubljana, Slovenia Google Scholar
  • 4. Buitelaar, p. , Eigner, T. , Declerck, T. (2004). ‘OntoSelect: a dynamic ontology library with support for ontology selection’. proceedings of the Demo Session at the International Semantic Web Conference. Hiroshima, Japan Google Scholar
  • 5. Cheng, G. , Qu, Y. (2009). ‘Searching linked objects with falcons: approach implementation and evaluation’. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems. 5, 3, 50-71 Google Scholar
  • 6. Côté, R.G. , Jones, p. , Martens, L. , Apweiler, R. , Hermjakob, H. (2008). ‘The ontology lookup service: more data and better tools for controlled vocabulary queries’. Nucleic Acids Research. 36, Suppl. 2, 372-376 Google Scholar
  • 7. d’Aquin, M. , Lewen, H. (2009). ‘Cupboard: a place to expose your ontologies to applications and the community’. proceedings of the 6th European Semantic Web Conference. Heraklion, Greece, 913-918 Google Scholar
  • 8. d’Aquin, M. , Motta, E. (2011). ‘Watson more than a semantic web search engine’. Semantic Web. 2, 1, 55-63 Google Scholar
  • 9. Ding, L. , Finin, T. , Joshi, A. , pan, R. , Cost, S.R. , peng, Y. , Reddivari, p. , Doshi, V. , Sachs, J. (2004). ‘Swoogle: a search and metadata engine for the semantic web’. proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. Washington, USA, 652-659 Google Scholar
  • 10. Dividino, R. , Sonntag, D. (2008). ‘Controlled ontology evolution through semiotic-based ontology evaluation’. proceedings of The 7th International Semantic Web Conference. Karlsruhe, Germany, 1-13 Google Scholar
  • 11. Djedidi, R. , Aufaure, M.A. (2010). ‘ONTO-EVOAL an ontology evolution approach guided by pattern modeling and quality evaluation’. proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems. Sofia, Bulgaria, 286-305 Google Scholar
  • 12. Duque-Ramos, A. , Fernández-Breis, J. , Stevens, R. , Aussenac-Gilles, N. (2011). ‘OQuaRE: a SQuaRE-based approach for evaluating the quality of ontologies’. Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology. 43, 2, 159-176 Google Scholar
  • 13. Esposito, A. , Zappatore, M. , Tarricone, L. (2011). ‘Evaluating scientific domain ontologies for the electromagnetic knowledge domain: a general methodology’. International Journal of Web & Semantic Technology. 2, 3, 1-19 Google Scholar
  • 14. Fahad, M. , Qadir, M.A. , Noshairwan, W. (2007). ‘Semantic Inconsistency Errors in Ontologies’. in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Granular Computing. Silicon Valley, USA, 283-286 Google Scholar
  • 15. Gomez, p. , Staab, S. , Studer, R. (2004). ‘Ontology evaluation’. Handbook on Ontologies. 1st ed., Springer-Verlag, 251-274 Google Scholar
  • 16. Gruber, T. (1993). ‘A translation approach to portable ontology specifications’. Knowledge Acquisition. 5, 2, 199-220 Google Scholar
  • 17. Harth, A. , Hogan, A. , Delbru, R. , Umbrich, J. , O’Riain, S. , Decker, S. , Golbeck, J. Mika, p. (2007). ‘SWSE: answers before links!’. Proceedings of the Semantic Web Challenge. 295, Busan, Korea, Available online at: Google Scholar
  • 18. Janik, M. , Kochut, K. (2005). ‘BRAHMS: a WorkBench RDF store and high performance memory system for semantic association discovery’. proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference. Galway, Ireland, 431-445 Google Scholar
  • 19. Kamoun, K. , Benyahia, S. (2012). ‘A novel global measure approach based on ontology spectrum to evaluate ontology enrichment’. International Journal of Computer Applications. 39, 17, 23-30 Google Scholar
  • 20. Le Moigno, S. , Charlet, J. , Bourigault, D. , Degoulet, p. , Jaulent, M-C. (2002). ‘Terminology extraction from text to build an ontology in surgical intensive care’. proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association Symposium. San Antonio, USA, 430-434 Google Scholar
  • 21. Lozano-Tello, A. , Gómez-Pérez, A. (2004). ‘ONTOMETRIC: a method to choose the appropriate ontology’. Journal of Database Management. 15, 2, 1-18 Google Scholar
  • 22. Ma, Y. , Ma, X. , Liu, S. , Jin, B. (2009). ‘A proposal for stable semantic metrics based on evolving ontologies’. proceeding of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pasadena, USA, 136-139 Google Scholar
  • 23. Motta, E. , Sabou, M. (2006). ‘Next generation semantic web applications’. proceedings of the 1st Asian Semantic Web Conference. Beijing, China, 24-29 Google Scholar
  • 24. Murdock, J. , Buckner, C. , Allen, C. (2010). ‘Two methods for evaluating dynamic ontologies’. proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development. Valencia, Spain, 110-122 Google Scholar
  • 25. Noy, N.F. , Shah, N.H. , Whetzel, p.L. , Dai, B. , Dorf, M. , Griffith, N. , Jonquet, C. , Rubin, D.L. , Storey, M-A. , Chute, C.G. , Musen, M.A. (2009). ‘BioPortal: ontologies and integrated data resources at the click of a mouse’. Nucleic Acids Research. 37, suppl. 2, 170-173 Google Scholar
  • 26. Netzer, Y. , Gabay, D. , Adler, M. , Goldberg, Y. , Elhadad, M. , Chen, L. Liu, C. Zhang, X. Wang, S. Strasunskas, D. Tomassen, S.L. Rao, J. Li, W.S. Candan, K.S. Chiu, D.K.W. Zhuang, Y. Ellis, C.A. Kim, K.H. (2009). ‘Ontology evaluation through text classification’. 5731, WCMT 2009, Heidelberg, Springer, 210-221, LNCS Google Scholar
  • 27. Obrst, L. , Ceusters, W. , Mani, I. , Ray, S. , Smith, B.. , Baker, C.J.O. Cheung, K-H. (2007). ‘The evaluation of ontologies’. Revolutionizing Knowledge Discovery in the Life Sciences. 139-158 Google Scholar
  • 28. Ohta, M. , Kozaki, K. , Mizoguchi, R. (2011). ‘A quality assurance framework for ontology construction and refinement’. proceeding of 7th Atlantic Web Intelligence Conference. Fribourg, Switzerland, 207-216 Google Scholar
  • 29. Oren, E. , Delbru, R. , Catasta, M. , Cyganiak, R. , Stenzhorn, H. , Tummarello, G. (2008). ‘ a document oriented lookup index for open linked data’. International Journal of Metadata Semantics and Ontologies. 3, 1, 37-52 AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • 30. Pan, J.Z. , Thomas, E. , Sleeman, D. (2006). ‘Ontosearch2: searching and querying web ontologies’. proceedings of IADIS International Conference WWW/Internet. Murcia, Spain, 211-218 Google Scholar
  • 31. Patel, C. , Supekar, K. , Lee, Y. , Park, E.K. (2003). ‘OntoKhoj: a semantic web portal for ontology searching ranking and classification’. proceedings of the 5th ACM International Workshop on Web Information and Data Management. New Orleans, USA, 58-61 Google Scholar
  • 32. Sicilia, M.A. , Rodríguez, D. , García, E. , Sanchez, S. (2012). ‘Empirical findings on ontology metrics’. International Journal ofExpert SystemswithApplications. 39, 8, 6706-6711 Google Scholar
  • 33. Smith, B. , Ashburner, M. , Rosse, C. , Bard, J. , Bug, W. , Ceusters, W. , Goldberg, L.J. , Eilbeck, K. , Ireland, A. , Mungall, C.J. , OBI Consortium, Leontis, N. , Rocca-Serra, p. , Ruttenberg, A. , Sansone, S.A. , Scheuermann, R.H. , Shah, N. , Whetzel, p.L. , Lewis, S. (2007). ‘The OBO foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration’. Nature Biotechnology. 25, 11, 1251-1255 Google Scholar
  • 34. Sure, Y. , Gómez-Pérez, A. , Daelemans, W. , Reinberger, M. , Guarino, N. , Noy, N.F. (2004). ‘Why evaluate ontology technologies? Because they work!’. IEEE Intelligent Systems. 19, 4, 74-81 Google Scholar
  • 35. Tartir, S. , Arpinar, B. (2007). ‘ontology evaluation and ranking using OntoQA’. proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Semantic Computing. Irvine, USA, 185-192 Google Scholar
  • 36. Tartir, S. , Arpinar, I.B. , Moore, M. , Sheth, A.P. , Aleman-Meza, B. (2005). ‘OntoQA: metric-based ontology quality analysis’. proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition from Distributed Autonomous Semantically Heterogeneous Data and Knowledge Sources. Texas, USA, 45-53 Google Scholar
  • 37. Wei, Y. , Junpeng, C. (2009). ‘Ranking ontology based on structure analysis’. proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling. Wuhan, China, 119-122 Google Scholar
  • 38. Yao, H. , Orme, A.M. , Etzkorn, L. (2005). ‘Cohesion metrics for ontology design and application’. Journal of Computer Science. 1, 1, 107-113 Google Scholar
  • 39. Zhang, H. , Li, Y.F. , Tan, H.B. (2010). ‘Measuring design complexity of semantic web ontologies’. Journal of Systems and Software. 83, 5, 803-814 Google Scholar