Downloads provided by UsageCountsResults of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2016.
FCT| SMiLax ,
NSF| EarthCube Building Blocks: Collaborative Proposal: GeoLink - Leveraging Semantics and Linked Data for Data Sharing and Discovery in the Geosciences ,
FCT| LARGE-SCALE INFORMATICS SYSTEMS LABORATORY ,
EC| SEALS ,
EC| OPTIQUE
Achichi, Manel; Cheatham, Michelle; Dragisic, Zlatan; Euzenat, Jérôme; Faria, Daniel; Ferrara, Alfio; Flouris, Giorgos; +18 Authors
Achichi, Manel; Cheatham, Michelle; Dragisic, Zlatan; Euzenat, Jérôme; Faria, Daniel; Ferrara, Alfio; Flouris, Giorgos; Fundulaki, Irini; Harrow, Ian; Ivanova, Valentina; Jiménez-Ruiz, Ernesto; Kuss, Elena; Lambrix, Patrick; Leopold, Henrik; Li, Huanyu; Meilicke, Christian; Montanelli, Stefano; Pesquita, Catia; Saveta, Tzanina; Shvaiko, Pavel; Splendiani, Andrea; Stuckenschmidt, Heiner; Todorov, Konstantin; Trojahn dos Santos, Cassia; Zamazal, Ondrej;
Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2016.
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.
Italy, Germany, France
- University of Oslo Norway
- University of Oxford United Kingdom
- Université de Toulouse France
- FORTH Institute of Computer Science Greece
- Department of Computer Science University of Oxford United Kingdom
Traitement du texte et du document, Computer Science (all), OAEI, [INFO] Computer Science [cs], 004, Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative
Traitement du texte et du document, Computer Science (all), OAEI, [INFO] Computer Science [cs], 004, Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative
selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources.This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).0 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Average influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Average impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Average views 44 downloads 53 - 44views53downloads
selected citations
Citations provided by BIP!
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
Citations provided by BIP!popularityPopularity provided by BIP!
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
Popularity provided by BIP!influenceInfluence provided by BIP!
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
Influence provided by BIP!impulseImpulse provided by BIP!
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
Impulse provided by BIP!viewsViews provided by UsageCounts
Views provided by UsageCountsdownloadsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts 0
Average
Average
Average
44
53
Green