13th International Conference on
Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management In Cooperation with AAAI
October 1-4, 2002 Sigüenza, Spain
EON2002
Evaluation of Ontology-based Tools
EKAW02 Workshop (WS1)
Sigüenza, Spain, September 30th 2002
Organizing Committee
Jürgen Angele
York Sure
Organization Committee
Jürgen Angele (Co-Chair), Ontoprise GmbH (DE) York Sure (Co-Chair), University of Karlsruhe (DE)
Program Committee
Richard Benjamins, iSOCO (ES)
Sean Bechhofer, University of Manchester (UK) Jesus Contreras, iSOCO (ES)
Carole Goble, University of Manchester (UK)
Asunción Gómez-Pérez, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (ES) Atanas Kiryakov, OntoText Lab / Sirma AI, Ltd. (BG)
Robert Meersmann, StarLab Brussels (BE) Henrik Oppermann, Ontoprise (DE)
Heiner Stuckenschmidt, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL) Rudi Studer, University of Karlsruhe (DE)
Mike Uschold, Boeing (USA)
Additional Reviewers
Henrik Oppermann, Ontoprise GmbH (DE)
Sponsorship
This workshop is sponsored by the thematic network OntoWeb (EU IST-2000-29243).
Copyright remains with the authors, and permission to reprodoce material printed here should be sought from them. Similarly, pursuing copyright infringements, plagiarism, etc. remains the responsibility of authors.
Introduction
In the “Evaluation of Ontology-based Tools” workshop we intend to bring together researchers and practitioners from the fastly developing research areas “ontologies” and
“Semantic Web”. Currently the semantic web attracts researchers from all around the world.
Numerous tools and applications of semantic web technologies are already available and the number is growing fast. However, deploying large scale ontology solutions typically involves several separate tasks and requires applying multiple tools. Therefore pragmatic issues such as interoperability are key if industry is to be encouraged to take up ontology technology rapidly.
The main aim of this workshop is therefore to encourage and stimulate discussions about the evaluation of ontology-based tools. For the future this effort might lead to benchmarks and certifications.
The workshop is divided in two parts: (i) presentations of accepted papers and (ii) discussions about the "EON2002 Experiment". The experiment was initiated during the OntWeb3 meeting by the participants of the Special Interest Group on Tools (SIG3)1. The general question was how to evaluate ontology related technologies. To brake down this rather complex task into a pragmatic one, the group decided to focus on ontology engineering environments (OEE) as a starting point. These tools are rather common and widely used by the Semantic Web Community and some of the participating members were even tool provider themselves. Submissions to this experiment should answer the following items with respect to the used OEE:
• What modeling decisions need to be considered during the design?
• What limitations occure? ... and why?
• What problems arise due to using different representation languages for export?
• What are the lessons learned from modelling this experiment?
The ontology should be exported into a common representation language. However, most OEEs were designed having specific design rationals from representation formalisms in mind.
Therefore they typically have a strong support for their "home language". To make the results more comparable we encouraged people to provide not only an "home language" export, but also an RDF(S) export.
The results of the experiment (as well as further information about the workshop) can be found at: http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/eon2002/
We thank all members of the program committee, additional reviewers, authors, experiment participants and local organizers for their efforts. This workshop is supported by OntoWeb (EU IST-2000-29243).
We are looking forward to having fruitful discussions at the workshop!
Jürgen Angele & York Sure
1 Further information can be found in the OntoWeb deliverable 1.3 that is downloadable at
Table of Contents
Part I: Accepted Papers
Evaluating Ontology-Mapping Tools: Requirements and Experience
Natalya F. Noy and Mark A. Musen ……… 1-14 Using Protégé-2000 in Reuse Processes
H. Sofia Pinto, Duarte Nuno Peralta, and Nuno J. Mamede ……… 15-26 Integrating Ontology Storage and Ontology-based Applications Through
Client-side Query and Transformations
Peter Mika ………. 27-37 The Integration of OntoClean in WebODE
Mariano Fernández-López and Asunción Gómez-Pérez ... 38-52
Ontology Evolution within Ontology Editors
Ljiliana Stojanovic and Boris Motik ... 53-62 Assessment of Ontology-based Tools: Systemizing the Scenario Approach
Alain Giboin, Fabien Gandon, Olivier Corby, and Rose Dieng ... 63-73 OntoManager: A Workbench Environment to facilitate
Ontology Management and Interoperability
Adil Hameed, Derek Sleeman, and Alun Preece ... 74-78
Part II: Experiment Contributions
Domain natural language description for the experiment
Taken from. OntoWeb deliverable 1.3……… 79
OilEd
Sean Bechhofer, University of Manchester ... 80-82
OntoEdit
York Sure, University of Karlsruhe ... 83-92
Loom
Aldo Gangemi, Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, C.N.R. …………..… 93-98
OpenKnoME
Jeremy Rogers, Manchester University ... 99-102
Protégé
Natasha F. Noy, Stanford University ... 103-107
SemTalk
Christian Fillies, Semtation ………... 108-111
Terminae
Nathalie Aussenac-Gilles, Universite P. Sabatier ………. 112-128
WebODE
Oscar Corcho, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid ………. 129-134
