Two variations on ontology alignment evaluation: Methodological issues

Laura Hollink*, Mark Van Assem, Shenghui Wang, Antoine Isaac, Guus Schreiber

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademicpeer-review

13 Citations (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)


Evaluation of ontology alignments is in practice done in two ways: (1) assessing individual correspondences and (2) comparing the alignment to a reference alignment. However, this type of evaluation does not guarantee that an application which uses the alignment will perform well. In this paper, we contribute to the current ontology alignment evaluation practices by proposing two alternative evaluation methods that take into account some characteristics of a usage scenario without doing a full-fledged end-to-end evaluation. We compare different evaluation approaches in three case studies, focussing on methodological issues. Each case study considers an alignment between a different pair of ontologies, ranging from rich and well-structured to small and poorly structured. This enables us to conclude on the use of different evaluation approaches in different settings.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationThe Semantic Web
Subtitle of host publicationResearch and Applications - 5th European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2008, Proceedings
EditorsSean Bechhofer, Manfred Hauswirth, Jorg Hoffmann, Manolis Koubarakis
Number of pages14
ISBN (Electronic)978-3-540-68234-9
Publication statusPublished - 25 Jun 2008
Externally publishedYes
Event5th European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2008 - Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
Duration: 1 Jun 20085 Jun 2008
Conference number: 5

Publication series

NameLecture Notes in Computer Science
ISSN (Print)0302-9743
ISSN (Electronic)1611-3349


Conference5th European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2008
Abbreviated titleESWC 2008
CityTenerife, Canary Islands


Dive into the research topics of 'Two variations on ontology alignment evaluation: Methodological issues'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this