A Survey of Top-level Ontologies

Assessment Framework Results

The framework has three parts; general choices, formal structure and universal ontological commitments as discussed in 4.1, 4.2. and 4.3 respectively. The details of the assessment are shown in Appendix E and the results are presented in 5.1 to 5.4 below.

5.1      General choices

Figure 16 shows the distribution of TLOs across the various choices. Figure 17 shows the percentages for the main choices. It is worth noting there are more ontologically committed than generic TLOs in the candidate list – though this may be partially a result of the selection procedure, as we were not directly looking for generic TLOs. Also, there are slightly more lightweight than heavyweight TLOs.

Figure 16 – General choices – framework assessment

Figure 17 – Main general choices – percentages

5.2      Formal structure: vertical aspects

The formal structure assessment has two parts; vertical and horizontal. This section deals with the vertical choices. The following figures give the percentages for each choice.

Figure 18 – Vertical aspects – commitment level – parent-arity

Figure 19 – Vertical aspects – commitment level – transitivity and boundedness

Figure 20 – Vertical aspects – commitment level – boundedness

 

Figure 21 – Vertical aspects – commitment level – by type-instance – stratification 

Figure 22 – Vertical aspects – commitment level – relation class-ness 

Figure 23 – Vertical aspects – commitment level – formal generation 

5.3      Formal structure: horizontal aspects

Figure 24 maps the TLOs against the horizontal aspects – the TLOs cluster at either end of the range of unification-stratification. Figure 25 gives the percentages for each choice.

Figure 24 – Horizontal aspects – framework assessment

Figure 25 – Vertical aspects – percentages 

5.4      Universal commitments

Figure 26 maps the TLOs against the universal commitments – this shows that the heavyweight ontologies have the most commitments. Figure 27 gives the percentages for each choice.

Figure 26 – Universal commitments – framework assessment

Figure 27 – Universal – percentages

Return to Top

Return to Contents

Continue to next section: Summary