عنوان مقاله [English]
Objectives: The current research aims to evaluate and analyze the widely used ontology production software in representing concepts to select the most appropriate software.
Methods: This research was conducted in terms of applied purpose with a quantitative approach. The research method was evaluative and descriptive. The statistical population consists of five ontology production software including Apollo, Onto Studio, Protégé, Swoop, and TopBraid Composer Free Edition. In this research, due to the lack of a suitable evaluation list in the field of the research topic, by studying the resources about ontology software and guides, an appropriate evaluation tool was prepared. The data collection tool was a checklist whose formal validity was confirmed by information science experts. This list is divided into seven sections: important components of ontology software, input format component, language representation component, Software architecture and structure criteria with sub-indicators of components of interactivity, stability, availability, ability to be installed on a variety of platforms, the basic language of the software, and the component of interaction and interaction with the software related ontology and ontology storage format. Descriptive statistical techniques such as weight average and percentage were used to analyze the data.
Results: The results of the research findings showed that Protégé with 177 points out of the total points in terms of components studied in this research in the first place and Onto Studio software with points 126 of the total points is in the next rank. Finally, Top Braid Composer Free Edition software is in third place in terms of the components studied in this research, with 87 points out of the total. In examining the interoperability component of ontology software, two software includes, Protégé 5.2.0 and Onto Studio had interaction with other software with 41.66%, which is one of the strengths of this software. The Apollo and Swoop software do not interact with any of the different software and it can be considered one of their weak points of them.
Conclusions: This study was able to show some of the strengths and weaknesses of ontology software based on the evaluation of the studied components of ontology software. And
what is the status of the studied software in terms of its relationship with other software in the field of ontology and how is their interoperability? Also, the research results will help researchers in this field select the most appropriate ontology software to produce and represent concepts.