Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Apr 24;3 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S4.
doi: 10.1186/2041-1480-3-S1-S4.

Towards valid and reusable reference alignments - ten basic quality checks for ontology alignments and their application to three different reference data sets

Affiliations

Towards valid and reusable reference alignments - ten basic quality checks for ontology alignments and their application to three different reference data sets

Elena Beisswanger et al. J Biomed Semantics. .

Abstract

Identifying relationships between hitherto unrelated entities in different ontologies is the key task of ontology alignment. An alignment is either manually created by domain experts or automatically by an alignment system. In recent years, several alignment systems have been made available, each using its own set of methods for relation detection. To evaluate and compare these systems, typically a manually created alignment is used, the so-called reference alignment. Based on our experience with several of these reference alignments we derived requirements and translated them into simple quality checks to ensure the alignments' validity and also their reusability. In this article, these quality checks are applied to a standard reference alignment in the biomedical domain, the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative Anatomy track reference alignment, and two more recent data sets covering multiple domains, including but not restricted to anatomy and biology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Ten basic quality checks for ontology alignments. Ten basic quality checks for ontology alignments and the proposed order of execution. Concerning Check 6 and Check 8, if the alignment on which the checks are made are supposed to incorporate subClassOf-based correspondences, follow the arrows marked with “⊆”, otherwise those with “no ⊆”.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Euzenat J, Shvaiko P. Ontology Matching. Springer; 2007.
    1. Jiménez-Ruiz E, Cuenca Grau B. LogMap: logic-based and scalable ontology matching. ISWC 2011 – Proceedings of the 10th International Semantic Web Conference, Bonn, Germany. 2011. pp. 273–288. - PubMed
    1. Cruz IF, Antonelli FP, Stroe C. Efficient selection of mappings and automatic quality-driven combination of matching methods. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Ontology Matching, collocated with the 8th International Semantic Web Conference, Chantilly, Virginia, USA. 2009.
    1. Mascardi V, Locoro A, Rosso P. Automatic ontology matching via upper ontologies: a systematic evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. 2010;22(5):609–623.
    1. Jain P, Hitzler P, Sheth A, Verma K, Yeh PZ. Ontology alignment for Linked Open Data. ISWC 2010 – Proceedings of the 9th International Semantic Web Conference, Shanghai, China. 2010. pp. 402–417. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources