18 résultats avec le mot-clé: 'results of the ontology alignment evaluation initiative 12'
This year, 6 matching systems registered for the MultiFarm track: AML, DOME, EVOCROS, KEPLER, LogMap and XMap. However, a few systems had issues when evaluated: i) KEPLER generated
N/A
D) Based on the uncertain reference alignment from the conference track we conclude that many more matchers provide alignments with a range of confidence values than in the past
N/A
In order to give dependable precision results within the time span of the campaign given a limited number of assessors we performed a combination of semi- automatic evaluation
N/A
As a general comment, we can conclude that all the four systems participating in this edition of the instance matching track obtained good results, both in terms of pre- cision
N/A
Starting from the experience of previous editions of the instance matching track in OAEI [15], this year we provided a set of RDF-based test cases, called RDFT, that is
N/A
D) Based on the uncertain reference alignment from the conference track we conclude that many more matchers provide alignments with a range of confidence values than in the past
N/A
This year, 6 matching systems registered for the MultiFarm track: AML, DOME, EVOCROS, KEPLER, LogMap and XMap. However, a few systems had issues when evaluated: i) KEPLER generated
N/A
We have seriously implemented the promises of last year with the provision of the first automated service for evaluating ontology matching, the SEALS evaluation service, which has
N/A
In terms of GeoLink test cases, the real-world instance data from GeoLink Project is also populated into the ontology in order to enable the systems that depend on instance-
N/A
The x-axis is the average rank of each system obtained by the Friedman test. Systems which are not significantly different from each other are connected by the red lines...
N/A
A first general remark about the results is that three of the participating systems, i.e., AFlood, ASMOV, and DSSim, provide better results in terms of precision rather than in terms
N/A
Starting from the experience of previous editions of the instance matching track in OAEI [15], this year we provided a set of RDF-based test cases, called RDFT, that is
N/A
We have seriously implemented the promises of last year with the provision of the first automated service for evaluating ontology matching, the SEALS evaluation service, which has
N/A
We can observe from Table 9, that all the systems that participated in the directory track in 2007 and 2008 (ASMOV, DSSim, Lily and RiMOM), have increased their precision
N/A
Fig. Comparison of alignment systems participated in OAEI 2017 on the Conference track. The x-axis is the average rank of each system obtained by the Friedman test. Systems which
N/A
We first compare the performance of the four systems with an all-knowing oracle (0.0 error rate - Table 16), in terms of precision, recall and F-measure, to the results obtained in
N/A
The results depicted in Table 47 and Figure 11 indicate that the progress made in ontology matching has also a positive impact on other related matching problems, like it is the
N/A
This year, 6 matching systems registered for the MultiFarm track: AML, DOME, EVOCROS, KEPLER, LogMap and XMap. However, a few systems had issues when evaluated: i) KEPLER generated
N/A