Evaluating Ontology-Mapping Tools: Requirements and Experience.
Natalya Fridman Noy, Mark A. Musen · 2002
The appep0x-O of a large numb e of ontology tools may le ve ause looking for anappropriate tool ove-(qWx0" andunceOOWP on which tool to choose Thus e aluation and comparison oftheO tools is important toheF use( de(WWO0" which tool is be- suite forthe( tasks. Howe vex theO is no"one size fits all" comparisonframe ork for ontology tools:di#exF tclasse of toolsre0-qO vedi #eOP t comparison frame orks. ForexxFFx0 ontology-de eology t tools canen0-R be compare toone anothe since the all se0e the same task: dek: conce-P) instance) andre0xF(xx in a domain. Tools for ontologymeogy0- mapping, andalignme t howe eare sodi#e-( t fromone anothe thatdire( comparison may not be possible The di#e inthe type of inputthe ret0( (et0 instance data or noinstance data),the type of outputthe produce (eeP one meP ontology, pairs ofre--xW te--x articulation rulecu mo de of intex-xF-0 and so on. This dive0-( y make comparing the pePOPO0"-- of mapping tools toone anothe large meORFR0"--q We prePP tcriteF0 that partitionthe s e of such tools insmalle groups allowing use0 to choose the se of tools that be st fitsthe- tasks. We discuss whatret0xqR( we as a communitynex to dee- inorde to make peRWOW0"xR comparisons withinet h group ofme-W(R and mapping toolsuseFO anded0x(q e . TheR reRP((0" will most like lycome as re(-O) of e aluationeu e rime ts ofstand-alone tools. As ane0-O(( of such ane xpe0xq( t, we discuss oure xpe0-FqO( andre0-)R in e aluating PROMPT, an intexx)OO e ontology-me((Otool. Our e0e0-Px t produce some ofthe re-P(0" that we canuse inmore geeFe aluation. Howe veF it has also shown that comparingthe pe)qP(0"xx ofdi#e(x t tools can be di#cultsince human en en0 do notagre on how ontologie should be mexx-F and we do not ye t have a goode-WRq meWRq for comparing 1 Ontology-Mapping T...