Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative - OAEI 2013 Campaign

Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative

2013 Campaign

Since 2004, OAEI organizes evaluation campaigns aiming at evaluating ontology matching technologies.

OAEI 2013 will continue the procedure of running on the SEALS platform introduced in 2011 (with the exception of the Instance track). The results will be reported at the Ontology matching workshop of the 12th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2013).

The overall process of participation including how to accomplish tool bundling is described here.

Problems

The OAEI 2013 campaign will once again confront ontology matchers to ontology and data sources to be matched. Following the OAEI 2011.5 campaign, it is now possible to automate evaluation to a large extent. This year, many new test sets are available.

benchmark

Like in previous campaigns, a systematic benchmark series has to be matched. The goal of this benchmark series is to identify the areas in which each alignment algorithm is strong and weak. The test is not anymore based on the very same dataset that has been used from 2004 to 2010. We are now able to generate undisclosed tests with the same structure. They provide strongly comparable results and allow for testing scalability.

anatomy

The anatomy real world case is about matching the Adult Mouse Anatomy (2744 classes) and the NCI Thesaurus (3304 classes) describing the human anatomy.

conference

The goal of this track is to find alignments within a collection of ontologies describing the domain of organising conferences (the domain being well understandable for every researcher). Additionally, 'complex correspondences' are also very welcome. Results will be evaluated automatically against reference alignments and potentially by data-mining and logical reasoning techniques. Sample of correspondences and 'complex correspondences' will be evaluated manually.

Multifarm

This dataset is composed of a subset of the Conference dataset, translated in eight different languages (Chinese, Czech, Dutch, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish) and the corresponding alignments between these ontologies. Based on these test cases, it is possible to evaluate and compare the performance of matching approaches with a special focus on multilingualism.

Library

The library track is a real-word task to match the STW and the TheSoz social science thesauri in SKOS. The goal of this track is to find whether the matchers can handle these lightweight ontologies including a huge amount of concepts and additional descriptions. Results will be evaluated both against a reference alignment and through manual scrutiny of alignments.

Interactive matching evaluation (interactive)

This track offers the possibility to compare different interactive matching tools which require user interaction. The goal is to show if user interaction can improve the matching results, which methods are most promising and how many interactions are necessary. All participating systems are evaluated using an oracle which bases on the reference alignment. As dataset, we use the ontologies of the conference track. Using the SEALS client, the matching system only needs to be slightly adapted to participate to this track.

Large Biomedical Ontologies (largebio)

This track consists of finding alignments between the Foundational Model of Anatomy (FMA), SNOMED CT, and the National Cancer Institute Thesaurus (NCI). These ontologies are semantically rich and contain tens of thousands of classes. UMLS Metathesaurus has been selected as the basis for the track reference alignments.

Instance Matching (im)

The instance data matching track aims at evaluating tools able to identify similar instances among different RDF and OWL datasets. There are some changes this year with this edition featuring a set of RDF-based datasets automatically generated by introducing controlled transformations in some initial RDF datasets. The evaluation will be blind as described in details on the instance matching page. Participating systems are free to use any combination of matching techniques and background knowledge. Results, in the alignment format, will be evaluated according to standard precision and recall metrics.

Modalities

There are two types of evaluation modalities:

• Those tests evaluated with the SEALS platform;
• Those evaluated differently (the Instance matching tasks).

Please note that a tool that participates in one of the tracks conducted with the SEALS modality, will be evaluated with respect to all of the other tracks under the SEALS modality even though the tool might be specialized for some specific kind of matching problems. We know that this can be a problem for some systems that have specifically been developed for, e.g., matching biomedical ontologies; but this point can still be emphasized in the specific results paper about the system in case the results generated for some specific track are not good at all.

SEALS evaluation process

Following the successful campaigns since 2011, most of the tests will be evaluated under the SEALS platform. The evaluation process is detailed here, and in general it follows the same pattern as in past years:

1. Participants wrap their tools as a SEALS platform package and register them to the SEALS portal;
2. Participants can test their tools with the SEALS client on the data-sets provided with reference alignments by each track organizer. The ids of those data-sets are given in each track web page;
3. Organizers run the evaluation on the SEALS platform from the tools registered in the platform and with both blind and published datasets;
4. For some tracks, results are (automatically) available on the SEALS portal.

Instance matching evaluation process

Contrary to the SEALS evaluation process, the Instance matching track requires participants to submit the alignments produced by their system instead of their system itself. Participants will be asked to execute their instance matching algorithms on the provided datasets, and submit the resulting alignments by sending them to the contact address mentioned on the Instance matching website. Results should be in the form of RDF Alignments. For the evaluation of instance matching systems that use training data, there is a specific partitioned data set available for 10-fold cross validation.

The standard evaluation measures will be precision and recall computed against the reference alignments. For the matter of aggregation of the measures we will use weighted harmonic means (weight being the size of reference alignment). Precision/recall graphs (a.k.a. precision at n) will also be computed, so it is advised that participants provide their results with a weight to each correspondence they find.

Schedule

Dates are subject to change.

June 15th

datasets available (for presceening).

July 3rd

datasets are frozen.

September 1st

participants send final versions of their tools in the case of SEALS tracks, or their produced alignments in the case of the Instance matching track.

September 30th

evaluation is executed and results are analyzed.

October 10th

final paper due.

October 21st or 22nd

Ontology matching workshop.

November 15th

Final version of system papers due (sharp).

Presentation

From the results of the experiments, participants are expected to provide the organisers with a paper to be published in the proceedings of the Ontology matching workshop. The paper must be no more than 8 pages long and formatted using the LNCS Style. To ensure easy comparability among the participants it has to follow the given outline. A package with LaTeX and Word templates is available here. The above mentioned paper must be sent in PDF format before September 30th to Jerome . Euzenat (a) inria . fr with copy to pavel (a) dit . unitn . it.

Participants may also submit a longer version of their paper, with a length justified by its technical content, to be published online in the CEUR-WS collection and on the OAEI web site (this last paper will be due just before the workshop).

The outline of the paper is as below (see templates for more details):

1. Presentation of the system
   
   1. State, purpose, general statement
   2. Specific techniques used
   3. Adaptations made for the evaluation
   4. Link to the system and parameters file
   5. Link to the set of provided alignments (in align format)
2. Results
   
   • 2.x) a comment for each dataset performed
3. General comments
   (not necessaryly by putting the section below but preferably in this order).
   1. Comments on the results (strength and weaknesses)
   2. Discussions on the way to improve the proposed system
   3. Comments on the OAEI procedure (including comments on the SEALS evaluation, if relevant)
   4. Comments on the OAEI test cases
   5. Comments on the OAEI measures
   6. Proposed new measures
4. Conclusions
   
5. References
   

These papers are not peer-reviewed and are here to keep track of the participants and the description of matchers which took part in the campaign.

The results from both selected participants and organizers were presented at the International Workshop on Ontology Matching collocated with ISWC 2013 taking place at Sidney (AU) in October 22nd or 23rd, 2013.