Bibliography on Evaluation/Évaluation (2017-06-06)

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between semantically related entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple thesauri to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation, or consensus. OAEI 2016 offered 9 tracks with 22 test cases, and was attended by 21 participants. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2016 campaign.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between semantically related entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple thesauri to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation and consensus. OAEI 2015 offered 8 tracks with 15 test cases followed by 22 participants. Since 2011, the campaign has been using a new evaluation modality which provides more automation to the evaluation. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2015 campaign.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between semantically related entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple thesauri to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation and consensus. OAEI 2014 offered 7 tracks with 9 test cases followed by 14 participants. Since 2010, the campaign has been using a new evaluation modality which provides more automation to the evaluation. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2014 campaign.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between semantically related entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple thesauri to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation and consensus. OAEI 2013 offered 6 tracks with 8 test cases followed by 23 participants. Since 2010, the campaign has been using a new evaluation modality which provides more automation to the evaluation. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2013 campaign.

The OAEI Benchmark test set has been used for many years as a main reference to evaluate and compare ontology matching systems. However, this test set has barely varied since 2004 and has become a relatively easy task for matchers. In this paper, we present the design of a flexible test generator based on an extensible set of alterators which may be used programmatically for generating different test sets from different seed ontologies and different alteration modalities. It has been used for reproducing Benchmark both with the original seed ontology and with other ontologies. This highlights the remarkable stability of results over different generations and the preservation of difficulty across seed ontologies, as well as a systematic bias towards the initial Benchmark test set and the inability of such tests to identify an overall winning matcher. These were exactly the properties for which Benchmark had been designed. Furthermore, the generator has been used for providing new test sets aiming at increasing the difficulty and discriminability of Benchmark. Although difficulty may be easily increased with the generator, attempts to increase discriminability proved unfruitful. However, efforts towards this goal raise questions about the very nature of discriminability.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between semantically related entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple thesauri to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation, consensus. OAEI 2012 offered 7 tracks with 9 test cases followed by 21 participants. Since 2010, the campaign has been using a new evaluation modality which provides more automation to the evaluation. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2012 campaign.

This deliverable reports on the current status of the service implementation for the automatic evaluation of matching tools, and on the final status of those services. These services have been used in the third SEALS evaluation of matching systems, held in Spring 2012 in coordination with the OAEI 2011.5 campaign. We worked mainly on the tasks of modifying the WP12 BPEL work-flow to introduce new features introduced in the RES 1.2 version; testing the modified work-flows on a local installation and on the SEALS Platform; writing transformations of result data to be compliant with the new SEALS ontologies specifications; and finally, extending the SEALS client for ontology matching evaluation for better supporting the automation of WP12 evaluation campaigns and to advance in the integration with SEALS repositories. We report the results obtained while accomplishing these tasks.

Data interlinking is a very important topic nowadays. It is sufficiently similar to ontology matching that comparable evaluation can be overtaken. However, it has enough differences, so that specific evaluations may be designed. We discuss such variations and design.

In this paper we present the MultiFarm dataset, which has been designed as a benchmark for multilingual ontology matching. The MultiFarm dataset is composed of a set of ontologies translated in different languages and the corresponding alignments between these ontologies. It is based on the OntoFarm dataset, which has been used successfully for several years in the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI). By translating the ontologies of the OntoFarm dataset into eight different languages -Chinese, Czech, Dutch, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish- we created a comprehensive set of realistic test cases. Based on these test cases, it is possible to evaluate and compare the performance of matching approaches with a special focus on multilingualism.

This deliverable reports on the results of the second SEALS evaluation campaign (for WP12 it is the third evaluation campaign), which has been carried out in coordination with the OAEI 2011.5 campaign. Opposed to OAEI 2010 and 2011 the full set of OAEI tracks has been executed with the help of SEALS technology. 19 systems have participated and five data sets have been used. Two of these data sets are new and have not been used in previous OAEI campaigns. In this deliverable we report on the data sets used in the campaign, the execution of the campaign, and we present and discuss the evaluation results.

In the area of semantic technologies, benchmarking and systematic evaluation is not yet as established as in other areas of computer science, e.g., information retrieval. In spite of successful attempts, more effort and experience are required in order to achieve such a level of maturity. In this paper, we report results and lessons learned from the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI), a benchmarking initiative for ontology matching. The goal of this work is twofold: on the one hand, we document the state of the art in evaluating ontology matching methods and provide potential participants of the initiative with a better understanding of the design and the underlying principles of the OAEI campaigns. On the other hand, we report experiences gained in this particular area of semantic technologies to potential developers of benchmarking for other kinds of systems. For this purpose, we describe the evaluation design used in the OAEI campaigns in terms of datasets, evaluation criteria and workflows, provide a global view on the results of the campaigns carried out from 2005 to 2010 and discuss upcoming trends, both specific to ontology matching and generally relevant for the evaluation of semantic technologies. Finally, we argue that there is a need for a further automation of benchmarking to shorten the feedback cycle for tool developers.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. Test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple directories to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation, consensus. OAEI-2011 builds over previous campaigns by having 4 tracks with 6 test cases followed by 18 participants. Since 2010, the campaign introduces a new evaluation modality in association with the SEALS project. A subset of OAEI test cases is included in this new modality which provides more automation to the evaluation and more direct feedback to the participants. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2011 campaign.

Based on the results of the first evaluation campaign (T12.3), and taking into account the technical progress of the SEALS platform, we deliver an updated and extended evaluation and test data design for our second evaluation campaign. This campaign is planned to take place in the context of the OAEI at the ISWC 2011.

This paper describes the first five SEALS Evaluation Campaigns over the semantic technologies covered by the SEALS project (ontology engineering tools, ontology reasoning tools, ontology matching tools, semantic search tools, and semantic web service tools). It presents the evaluations and test data used in these campaigns and the tools that participated in them along with a comparative analysis of their results. It also presents some lessons learnt after the execution of the evaluation campaigns and draws some final conclusions.

The OAEI Benchmark data set has been used as a main reference to evaluate and compare matching systems. It requires matching an ontology with systematically modified versions of itself. However, it has two main drawbacks: it has not varied since 2004 and it has become a relatively easy task for matchers. In this paper, we present the design of a modular test generator that overcomes these drawbacks. Using this generator, we have reproduced Benchmark both with the original seed ontology and with other ontologies. Evaluating different matchers on these generated tests, we have observed that (a) the difficulties encountered by a matcher at a test are preserved across the seed ontology, (b) contrary to our expectations, we found no systematic positive bias towards the original data set which has been available for developers to test their systems, and (c) the generated data sets have consistent results across matchers and across seed ontologies. However, the discriminant power of the generated tests is still too low and more tests would be necessary to draw definitive conclusions.

The implementation of the automatic services for evaluating matching tools follows an iterative model. The aim is to provide a way for continuously analysing and improving these services. In this deliverable, we report the first iteration of this process, i.e., current implementation status of the services. In this first iteration, we have extended our previous implementation in order to migrate our own services to the SEALS components, which have been finished since the end of the first evaluation campaign.

This deliverable is concerned with the implementation of the second evaluation campaign based upon the methodology and design recommendations made in SEALS Deliverable D3.1. This deliverable covers the initial preparation of the second SEALS Evaluation Campaign and describes the tasks that have been performed during the Initiation and Involvement phases. Furthermore, the deliverable describes the steps to be taken over the next few months and the actors who are responsible for those steps.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. Test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple directories to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation, consensus. OAEI-2010 builds over previous campaigns by having 4 tracks with 6 test cases followed by 15 participants. This year, the OAEI campaign introduces a new evaluation modality in association with the SEALS project. A subset of OAEI test cases is included in this new modality which provides more automation to the evaluation and more direct feedback to the participants. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2010 campaign.

Evaluation of semantic web technologies at large scale, including ontology matching, is an important topic of semantic web research. This paper presents a web-based evaluation service for automatically executing the evaluation of ontology matching systems. This service is based on the use of a web service interface wrapping the functionality of a matching tool to be evaluated and allows developers to launch evaluations of their tool at any time on their own. Furthermore, the service can be used to visualise and manipulate the evaluation results. The approach allows the execution of the tool on the machine of the tool developer without the need for a runtime environment.

In this deliverable we describe a SEALS evaluation service for ontology matching that is based on the use of a web service interface to be implemented by the tool vendor. Following this approach we can offer an evaluation service before many components of the SEALS platform have been finished. We describe both the system architecture of the evaluation service from a general point of view as well as the specific components and their relation to the modules of the SEALS platform.

This paper reports the first effort into integrating OAEI and SEALS evaluation campaigns. The SEALS project aims at providing standardized resources (software components, data sets, etc.) for automatically executing evaluations of typical semantic web tools, including ontology matching tools. A first version of the software infrastructure is based on the use of a web service interface wrapping the functionality of a matching tool to be evaluated. In this setting, the evaluation results can visualized and manipulated immediately in a direct feedback cycle. We describe how parts of the OAEI 2010 evaluation campaign have been integrated into this software infrastructure. In particular, we discuss technical and organizational aspects related to the use of the new technology for both participants and organizers of the OAEI.

This deliverable reports the results of the first SEALS evaluation campaign, which has been carried out in coordination with the OAEI 2010 campaign. A subset of the OAEI tracks has been included in a new modality, the SEALS modality. From the participant's point of view, the main innovation is the use of a web-based interface for launching evaluations. 13 systems, out of 15 for all tracks, have participated in some of the three SEALS tracks. We report the preliminary results of these systems for each SEALS track and discuss the main lesson learned from to the use of the new technology for both participants and organizers of the OAEI.

This deliverable is concerned with the implementation of the evaluation campaign based upon the methodology and design recommendations made in SEALS Deliverable D3.1. This deliverable covers the initial preparation of the first SEALS Evaluation Campaign and describes the tasks that have been performed during the Initiation and Involvement phases. Furthermore, the deliverable describes the steps to be taken over the next few months and the actors who are responsible for those steps.

This deliverable presents a systematic procedure for evaluating ontology matching systems and algorithms, in the context of SEALS project. It describes the criteria and metrics on which the evaluations will be carried out and the characteristics of the test data to be used, as well as the evaluation target, which includes the systems generating the alignments for evaluation.