Evaluation and analysis of the most widely used ontology production software in representing concepts

Document Type : Original Article


1 Associate Professor, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

2 Masters, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.


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.


Main Subjects

Alatrish, E. (2013). Comparison some of ontology (Vol. 8). Retrieved from:         
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. & Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web. Scientific american, 284(5): 34-43.
Brank, J., Grobelnik, M. & Mladenic, D. (2005). A survey of ontology evaluation techniques. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the conference on data mining and data warehouses (SiKDD 2005).
Buraga, S.C., Cojocaru, L. & Nichifor, O.C. (2006). Survey on web ontology editing tools. Transactions on Automatic Control and Computer Science, Romania: 1-6.
Ding, Y. & Foo, S. (2002). Ontology research and development. Part 1-a review of ontology generation. Journal of information science, 28(2): 123-136.
Dolzhenkov, V., Maltzagov, I., Makarova, A., Kamarova, N. & Kukhtin, P. (2020). Software tools for ontology development. International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering, 9(2): 935-941.
Fathian Dastgerdi, A. (2011). Assessing ontologies: examining criteria, approaches and levels. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 2: 3-25. [in persian]
Hashemi, S.M. & Boroumandzadeh, M. (2013) Application of ontology in software engineering. In: Mashhad: National Congress of Electrical, Computer and Information Technology Engineering. [in persian]
Hjørland, B. (2007). Lifeboat for knowledge organization. Retrieved from:             
http://www. iva. dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/home. htm.
Hodge, G, (2000). Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries: Beyond Traditional Authority Files: ERIC.
Hosseini Beheshti, M. )2012). Creating a lexical ontology from Persian thesauri. In: The Proceedings of the eighth Iranian Linguistics Conference. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabaei University Press: 148-164. [in persian]
Kapoor, B. & Sharma, S. (2010). A comparative study ontology building tools for semantic web applications. International journal of Web & Semantic Technology, 1(3): 1-13.
Kara, M., Lamouchi, O. & Ramdane-Cherif, A. (2016). Ontology software quality model for fuzzy logic evaluation approach. Procedia Computer Science, 83: 637-641.
Karimi, E., Babaei, M. & Hosseini Beheshti, M. (2019). Investigation of semantic and ontological features of information retrieval systems based on thesaurus and ontology. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 34(4): 1612-1585. [in persian]
Lozano-Tello, A. & Gómez-Pérez, A. (2004). Ontometric: A method to choose the appropriate ontology. Journal of Database Management, 15(2): 1-18.
Maalaoui, N., Beltaifa, R., Jilani, L.L. & Mazo, R. (2021). An Ontology for Service-Oriented Dynamic Software Product Lines Knowledge Management. Paper presented at the ENASE.
Mazeni, F. & Wafadar, Sh. (2019). Software usability evaluation: A comparative study of the questionnaire and user performance. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 34(4): 1849-1878. [in persian]
Meenachi, N.M. & Baba, M.S. (2012). Web ontology language editors for semantic web-a survey. International Journal of Computer Applications, 53(12): 12-15.
Murshed, M. & Singh, R. (2005). Evaluation and ranking of ontology construction tools. Retrieved from: http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/747/1/013.pdf
Rahmani, M. & Hosseini Beheshti, M. (2020). Design of ontology-based e-learning system. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 36(1): 294-271. [in persian]
Rastogi, N., Verma, P. & Kumar, P. (2017). Analysing ontology editingtools for effective semantoc information retrival. International journal of enginering science & research technology,   
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.571593
Sanat Jo, A. & Fathian, A. (2012). Ontology Design, Construction, and Implementation Methodology: Approaches, Languages, and Tools (Case Study of ASFONT Ontology Design in the Field of Library and Information Science). Journal of Library and Information Science, 57(1): 142-113. [in persian]
Shams Fard, M. & Abdollahzadeh Barforosh, A. (2002) Extraction of conceptual knowledge from the text using linguistic and semantic patterns. Advances in cognitive sciences, 4(1): 48-66.
[in persian]
Sharif, A. (2008). Application of ontologies in knowledge management system. Library and Information Science, 11(3): 97-116. [in persian]
Slimani, T. (2015). Ontology development: A comparing study on tools, languages and formalisms. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(24): 1-12.
Soergel, D. (1999). The rise of ontologies or the reinvention of classification. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 550(12): 1119-1120.
Soergel, D., Lauser, B., Liang, A., Fisseha, F., Keizer, J. & Katz, S. (2004). Reengineering thesauri for new applications: the AGROVOC example. Journal of digital information, 4: 1-23.
Sowa, J. (2000). Knowledge Representation. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.
Stojanovic, L. & Motik, B. (2002). Ontology evolution within ontology editors. In: Proceedings of the OntoWeb-SIG3 Workshop: 53–62.
Zahedi, R., Amin, Gh., Karimi, M. & Ali Beyk, M.R. (2013). Methodology of creating ontography based on the language system of the medical unit: Case study: Ontography of Iranian medicinal plants. Library and Information, 16(3): 84-103. [in persian]