So far, we have manually labelled 6898 mappings from participants. In order to make evaluation process more balanced, we transformed all results of participants into 91 alignments, except results of the SEMA tool. They (SEMA team) delivered 13 alignments – they mapped all ontologies to the EKAW ontology. Additionally, we took mappings from participants with higher measure than 0,7.

The abovementioned table encompasses several numerical statistics related to the results of six participants, called according to name of their systems (ASMOV, Falcon, Lily, OLA, OntoDNA and SEMA). Finally, there is also number of all unique mappings in the last row of the table. In the following, columns are explained:

**measure**shows whether mapping is strictly true/false or is scaled between 0 and 1,**# mappings**shows number of all mappings which have been included in "assessment,"**# correct**shows number of correct mappings, in other words, it is number of true positive mappings,**# incorrect**shows number of incorrect mappings, ie. false positive mappings,**# trivial**shows number of mappings where both elements have the same name and they were equal.**# unclear**shows number of unclear mappings where evaluator has not been able to decide whether mapping is correct or not.

**precision (P)**is computed as ratio of the number of all correct mappings to the number of incorrect plus correct mappings,**rrecall (rR)**is computed as ratio of the number of all correct mappings (sum of all correct mappings per one system) to the number of all correct mappings found by any of systems (per all systems). This is our "relative" recall.

**# interesting**shows number of "interesting" correct mappings, these mappings are correspondences which is not so easy to find at first sight (due to eg. string-based approach is not enough),**# subsumptions**shows number of mappings which have been wrong classified as equivalence, but it should be in correspondence with relation of subsumption, in arbitrary direction,**# siblings**shows number of mappings which have been wrong classified as equivalence, but mapped elements are rather siblings,**# inversion**shows number of mappings which have been wrong classified as equivalence, but mapped relations are rather inverse than equivalent,**# int FP**shows number of "interesting" incorrect mappings, ie. "interesting" false positive mappings. These mappings are incorrect correspondences which do not belong to any abovementioned groups (eg. subsumptions, siblings, etc.),**ratioSubs**shows ratio of the number of subsumption errors and the number of incorrect mappings,**ratioTriv**shows ratio of the number of so-called trivial mappings and the number of correct mappings.