Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:54:34.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A model to predict quality of a reduced ontology for Web service discovery on mobile devices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2014

Dan Schrimpsher  and
Letha Etzkorn
Dan Schrimpsher
Affiliation:
Computer Science Department, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, USA; e-mail: dschrimpsher@acm.org, letzkorn@cs.uah.edu
Letha Etzkorn
Affiliation:
Computer Science Department, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, USA; e-mail: dschrimpsher@acm.org, letzkorn@cs.uah.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As Web Services and the Semantic Web become more important, enabling technologies such as Web service ontologies will grow larger. At the same time, use of mobile devices to access Web services has doubled in the last year. The ability of these resource-constrained devices to download and reason across ontologies to support service discovery are severely limited. Since concrete agents typically only needs a subset of what is described in a Web service ontology to complete their task, a reduced ontology can be created. Measuring the quality of a reduced ontology, in both knowledge content and performance, is a nontrivial task. Expert analysis of the ontologies is time-consuming and unreliable. We propose two measures of knowledge content and performance. Mean average recall (MAR) with respect to the original ontology compares the data returned from a series of queries related to a particular concept of interest. Mean average performance (MAP) compares the download and reasoning speedup of the reduced ontology with respect to the original ontology. Neither of these values can be computed easily, therefore we propose a set of ontology metrics to predict these values. In this paper, we develop two prediction models for MAR and MAP based on these metrics. These models are based on analysis of 23 ontologies from five domains. To compute MAR, a specific set of queries for each domain was applied to each candidate reduced ontology along with the original ontology. To compute MAP, a simulated mobile device will download and process of each ontology along with the original ontology. We believe this model allows a speedy selection of a reduced ontology that contains the knowledge content and performance speedup needed by a mobile device for service discovery.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , March 2014 , pp. 201 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alani, H., Brewster, C. 2006. Metrics for ranking ontologies. In Proceedings of the 4th International EON Workshop, 15th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2006), Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Cellular-News. 2007. Converged Mobile Devices Adoption to Reach 82 Million Units by 2011. http://www.cellular-news.com/story/24073.phpGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. 1998. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Deng, X., Haarslev, V., Shiri, N., Franconi, E., Kifer, M., May, W. (eds) 2007. Measuring inconsistencies in ontologies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4519, 326–340.Google Scholar
Etzkorn, L., Gholston, S., Fortune, J., Stein, C., Utley, D., Farrington, P., Cox, G. 2004. A comparison of cohesion metrics for object-oriented systems. Information and Software Technology 46, 667–687.Google Scholar
Gangemi, A., Catenacci, C., Massimiliano, C., Lehmann, J. 2005. A theoretical framework for ontology evaluation and validation. In Proceedings of Semantic Web Applications and Perspectives (SWAP2005), Trento, Italy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gangemi, A., Catenaccia, C., Ciaramita, M., Lehmann, J. 2006. Qood grid: A metaontology based framework for ontology evaluation and selection. In Proceedings of the 4th International EON Workshop, 15th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2006), Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Grau, B., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U. 2007. Just the right amount: extracting modules from ontologies. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW2007), Banaff, Canada.Google Scholar
Grau, B., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Kalyanpur, A. 2006. Modularity and Web Ontologies. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-06), Lake District of the United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Guarino, N., Welty, C. 2004. Evaluating Ontological Decisions with ONTOClean. Communications of the ACM 45(2), 61–65.Google Scholar
Hull, R. 2005. Web services composition: a story of models, automata, and logics. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC2005), Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Berlanga, R., Nebot, V., Sanz, I. 2007a. OntoPath: a language for retrieving ontology fragments. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1, 897–914.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Nebot, V., Berlanga, R., Sanz, I., Rios, A. 2007b. A protege plug-in-base system to manage and query large domain ontologies. In Proceedings of 10th International Protégé Conference, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Kusnierczyk, W. 2008. Taxonomy-based partitioning of the Gene Ontology. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 41, 282–292.Google Scholar
Lozano-Tello, A., Gomez-Perez, A. 2004. OntoMetric: a method to choose the appropriate ontology. Journal of Database Management 15, 1–18.Google Scholar
Manning, C., Raghavan, P., Schütze, H. 2006. An Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, D., Paolucci, M., McIlraith, S., Burstein, M., McDermott, D., McGuinness, D., Parsia, B., Payne, T., Sabou, M., Solanki, M., Srinivasan, N., Sycara, K. 2004. Bringing semantics to Web services: the OWL-S approach. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Semantic Web Services and Web Process Composition (SWSWPC 2004), San Diego, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mobile Marketer. 2009. Daily Mobile Web Consumption of News, Information Doubles: comScore. http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/research/2842.htmlGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, D., Peck, E., Vining, G. 2006. Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis. Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Noy, N., Musen, M. 2003. The PROMPT suite: interactive tools for ontology mapping and merging. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 6(59), 983–1024.Google Scholar
Noy, N., Musen, M. 2004. Specifying ontology views by traversal. In Proceedings of the Third International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2004) 3298, 713–725.Google Scholar
Ontology Portal. 2009. Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO). http://www.ontologyportal.org/Google Scholar
Orme, A., Yao, H., Etzkorn, L. 2006a. Coupling metrics for ontology-based systems. IEEE Software 23(2), 102–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orme, A., Yao, H., Etzkorn, L. 2006b. Indicating ontology data quality, stability, and completeness throughout ontology evolution. Journal of Software Maintenance 19(1), 68–86.Google Scholar
Qi, G.Hunter, A. 2007. Measuring incoherence in description logic-based ontologies. In Proceedings of 6th International Semantic Web Conference, 381–394.Google Scholar
Schrimpsher, D., Etzkorn, L. 2009a. Sub-graphing web service ontologies to support resource constraints of mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 47nd Annual Association for Computing Machinery Southeast Conference (ACMSE2009), Clemson, SC.Google Scholar
Schrimpsher, D., Etzkorn, L. 2009b. A Web service ontology sub-graph quality model to support mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM2009), Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, J., Rector, A. 2006. Web ontology segmentation: analysis, classification and use. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW2006), Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Statistical and Process Management Software for Six Sigma and Quality Improvement–Minitab. 2010. Statistical and Process Management Software for Six Sigma and Quality Improvement–Minitab. State College, PA, Minitab Inc. http://www.minitab.com/en-US/default.aspxGoogle Scholar
Stuckenschmidt, H., Klein, M. 2003. Integrity and change in modular Ontologies. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference On Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI2003), Acapulco, Mexico, 18, 900–908.Google Scholar
Tartir, S., Arpinar, I., Moore, M., Sheth, A. 2005. OntoQA: metric-based ontology quality analysis. In Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition from Distributed, Autonomous, Semantically Heterogeneous Data and Knowledge Sources, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
Volz, R., Oberle, D., Studer, R. 2003. Implementing views for light-weight Web ontologies. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Database Engineering and Applications Symposium (IDEAS2003), Hong Kong, 160–169.Google Scholar
Vrandecic, D., Sure, Y. 2007. How to design better ontology metrics. In Proceedings of European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC2007), Innsbruck, Austria.Google Scholar
Yao, H., Orme, A., Etzkorn, L. 2005. Cohesion metrics for ontology design and applications. Journal of Computer Science 1, 107–113.Google Scholar