![](bg6.png)
efficiently and effectively navigate through the
ontology, reaching their goal in a small number of
iterations. Further, the more the users are proficient
with a search approach (text-based search vs.
ontology-based search), the fast they answer the
questions and less intellectual effort they put on the
task. Observations showed that the time spent to
answer a question with the I3OM system decreased
in the latter questions despite these questions were
not simpler than the earlier ones. Moreover, medium
and high-proficient users expressed their sympathy
for the I3OM approach, while answering the
questions faster with the IO3M system. However,
these experiments also demonstrate that the
combination of third-party ontology modularization
algorithms into the I3OM process is not trivial and
demands significant improvements in order to deal
with ontologies having disparate set of
characteristics. Therefore, this issue is requiring our
current and future attention.
Another identified major issue, which is not
directly related to the I3OM process but, instead, is
related to the World Search project overall approach
concerns the GUI module. In fact the users
expressed concerns about the supplied GUI,
suggesting the need to better track the
results/iteration. In this respect, the GUI must
automatically adapt (change based on several factors
such as (i) the user proficiency, (ii) the content’
complexity of the provided semantic context (e.g.
shown by means of a tree or a graph) and (iii)
provide specific interaction for the orthogonal
ontological dimensions (e.g. time and space).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is partially supported by the Portuguese
projects: World Search (QREN11495) and OOBIAN
(QREN 12677), both funded by FEDER through the
COMPETE program for operational factors of
competitivity.
REFERENCES
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. & Lassila, O., 2001. The
Semantic Web. Scientific American, pp.29-37.
d’ Aquin, M. et al., 2009. Criteria and Evaluation for
Ontology Modularization Techniques. In Modular
Ontologies. Springer, pp 67-89.
Del Vescovo, C. et al., 2011. The modular structure of an
ontology: atomic decomposition. In Fifth Int.
Workshop on Modular Ontologies. IOS Press.
Dzbor, M. et al., 2006. Developing Ontologies in OWL:
an Observational Study. In Workshop on OWL:
Experiences and Directions. Vol-216 CEUR.
EKAW. EKAW Ontology. [Online] Available: http://oaei.
ontologymatching.org/2011/conference/data/ekaw.owl
Franconi, E., Guagliardo, P. & Trevisan, M., 2010. An
intelligent query interface based on ontology
navigation. In Workshop on Visual Interfaces to the
Social and Semantic Web.
Hussain, S. & Abidi, S. S. R., 2010. Extracting and
merging contextualized ontology modules. In Fourth
Int. Workshop conference on Modular Ontologies.
IOS Press, pp 25-40.
Li, N., Motta, E. & d’ Aquin, M., 2010. Ontology
summarization: an analysis and an evaluation. In Int.
Workshop on Evaluation of Semantic Technologies.
Shangai, China.
Motta, E. et al., 2011. A novel approach to visualizing and
navigating ontologies. In Tenth Int. Semantic Web
Conference, pp.470-486.
Neon Toolkit 2012. [Online] Available: http:// neon-
toolkit.org.
Parent, C. & Spaccapietra, S., 2009. An Overview of
Modularity. In Stuckenschmidt, C. Parent, & S.
Spaccapietra, eds. Modular Ontologies. Springer, pp.
5-23.
Peroni, S., Motta, E. & d’ Aquin, M., 2008. Identifying
key concepts in an ontology, through the integration of
cognitive principles with statistical and topological
measures. In Seventh Int. Semantic Web Conference,
pp. 242-256.
Seidenberg, J., 2009. Web Ontology Segmentation:
Extraction, Transformation, Evaluation. In Heiner
Stuckenschmidt, C. Parent, & S. Spaccapietra, eds.
Modular Ontologies. Springer, pp 211-243.
Stuckenschmidt, H. & Schlicht, A., 2009. Structure-Based
Partitioning of Large Ontologies. In Modular
Ontologies. Springer, pp. 187-210.
WS, 2009. [Online] Available: http://www.microsoft.
com/portugal/mldc/worldsearch.
Zhang, X. et al., 2009. Summarizing vocabularies in the
global semantic web. Journal of Computer Science
and Technology, 24(1), pp.165-174.
KEOD2012-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeEngineeringandOntologyDevelopment
270