References
- 1Bikakis, N, Tsinaraki, C, Gioldasis, N, Stavrakantonakis, I and Christodoulakis, S. 2013.
The XML and semantic web worlds: technologies, interoperability and integration: a survey of the state of the art . In: Semantic Hyper/Multimedia Adaptation. Springer, pp. 319–360. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-28977-4_12 - 2Brank, J, Grobelnik, M and Mladenic, D. 2005. A survey of ontology evaluation techniques.
- 3Brickley, D and Guha, R. 2014. RDF Schema 1.1. W3C Recommendation. Available at:
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ (Accessed on April 17, 2018). - 4Brooke, J. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry 189: 4–7.
- 5Burton-Jones, A, Storey, V, Sugumaran, V and Ahluwalia, P. 2005. A semiotic metrics suite for assessing the quality of ontologies. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 55(1): 84–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.datak.2004.11.010
- 6Casellas, N. 2009.
Ontology Evaluation through Usability Measures . In: Meersman, R, Herrero, P and Dillon, T. (Eds.) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2009 Workshops, LNCS, Vol. 5872. Springer, Berlin, pp. 594–603. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-05290-3_73 - 7Fox, M, Barbuceanu, M and Gruninger, M. 1995. An organisation ontology for enterprise modelling: preliminary concepts for linking structure and behaviour. In: Enabling Technologies: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises.
IEEE , pp. 71–81. DOI: 10.1109/ENABL.1995.484550 - 8Fox, P and Lynnes, C. 2015. Additional items for ontology evaluation. Available at:
http://tw.rpi.edu/web/project/SeSF/workinggroups/OntologyEvaluation (Accessed on Sept. 9, 2015). - 9Gangemi, A, Catenacci, C, Ciaramita, M and Lehmann, J. 2006. Qood grid: A metaontology-based framework for ontology evaluation and selection. In: Proceedings of the EON2006 Workshop.
- 10Gomez-Perez, A. 2001. Evaluation of ontologies. International Journal of intelligent systems 16(3): 391–409. DOI: 10.1002/1098-111X(200103)16:3<;391::AID-INT1014>3.0.CO;2-2
- 11Gruber, T. 1995. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43(5–6): 907–928. DOI: 10.1006/ijhc.1995.1081
- 12Gruninger, M and Fox, M. 1995. Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, IJCAI-95, Montreal, Canada. 10pp.
- 13Hartmann, J, Spyns, P, Giboin, A, Maynard, D, Cuel, R, Suarez-Figueroa, M and Sure, Y. 2005. D1. 2.3 methods for ontology evaluation. EU-IST Network of Excellence (NoE) IST-2004-507482 KWEB Deliverable D, 1.
- 14ISO. 1998.
ISO 9241-11 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT)s – Part 11 Guidance on usability . International Organization for Standardization. - 15Jokela, T, Iivari, N, Matero, J and Karukka, M. 2003. The standard of user-centered design and the standard definition of usability. In: CLIHC ’03 Proceedings of the Latin American conference on Human-computer interaction, pp. 53–60. DOI: 10.1145/944519.944525
- 16Lozano-Tello, A and Gomez-Perez, A. 2004. Ontometric: A method to choose the appropriate ontology. Journal of Database Management 2(15): 1–18. DOI: 10.4018/jdm.2004040101
- 17Lozano-Tello, A, Gomez-Perez, A and Sosa, E. 2003.
Selection of ontologies for the semantic web . In: Web Engineering. Springer, pp. 413–416. DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45068-8_77 - 18Ma, X and Fox, P. 2013. Recent progress on geologic time ontologies and considerations for future works. Earth Science Informatics 6(1): 31–46. DOI: 10.1007/s12145-013-0110-x
- 19McGuinness, D and Van Harmelen, F. 2004. Owl web ontology language overview. W3C recommendation Available at:
https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/ (Accessed on April 17, 2018). - 20Miller, E. 1998. An introduction to the resource description framework. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 25(1): 15–19. DOI: 10.1002/bult.105
- 21Morris, C. 1938. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL.
- 22Pratchett, T. 1990. Moving Pictures. Gollancz, London.