Benchmark and Comparison of State-of-the-Art Ontology and Vocabulary Repositories for Social Sciences and Humanities
Abstract: The increasing adoption of the Semantic Web in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) has led to the development of numerous ontology and vocabulary repositories. These repositories serve as crucial resources for structuring, sharing, and reusing domain knowledge. This paper provides a benchmark and comparative analysis of leading repositories, evaluating their scope, accessibility, interoperability, and usability. By analyzing platforms such as the Ontology Lookup Service (OLS), BioPortal, the Social Science Thesaurus, and other domain-specific repositories, we assess their relevance for SSH research. The study aims to guide students and researchers in selecting the most appropriate repository for their work. Additionally, a practical implementation proposal for a bachelor's dissertation is outlined, focusing on ontology evaluation and integration within an SSH research framework.
1. Introduction The Semantic Web has significantly influenced knowledge management and data integration in various disciplines, including Social Sciences and Humanities (Berners-Lee et al., 2001). The use of ontologies and controlled vocabularies facilitates semantic interoperability, making repositories essential tools for researchers. However, with numerous available repositories, a comparative analysis is necessary to determine the most suitable for SSH applications (Gandon, 2018).
2. Overview of Ontology and Vocabulary Repositories Ontology and vocabulary repositories provide structured knowledge representations that enhance data discovery and integration. The most notable repositories include:
● Ontology Lookup Service (OLS) – A service aggregating ontologies across multiple domains (Côté et al., 2006).
● BioPortal – Originally focused on biomedical ontologies but expanding to social sciences (Musen et al., 2012).
● LOV (Linked Open Vocabularies) – A repository for linked data vocabularies (Vandenbussche et al., 2017).
● Social Science Thesaurus – A specialized vocabulary for social science research (GESIS, 2020).
● BARTOC (Basic Register of Thesauri, Ontologies & Classifications) – A catalog of knowledge organization systems (Kempf et al., 2019).
3. Benchmarking Criteria To evaluate these repositories, the following criteria are considered:
● Scope and Coverage – The breadth of subjects covered within SSH.
● Interoperability – Compatibility with linked data and Semantic Web technologies (Heath & Bizer, 2011).
● Usability – The user interface and ease of access for non-technical researchers.
● Community Support and Maintenance – Frequency of updates and community engagement.
● Integration with Research Tools – Compatibility with RDF, SPARQL, and data visualization tools.
4. Comparative Analysis Each repository is assessed against the above criteria, highlighting strengths and weaknesses. For instance, while LOV excels in linked data integration, BioPortal offers robust ontology management tools but is less SSH-focused. The Social Science Thesaurus provides rich domain-specific terminologies but has limited interoperability features.
5. Implementation Proposal for Bachelor's Dissertation For a final dissertation, a student could undertake one of the following projects:
1. Ontology Evaluation: Assess the completeness and usability of a specific SSH ontology using competency questions (Grüninger & Fox, 1995).
2. Integration of Ontologies: Develop a prototype integrating multiple ontologies into an SSH research framework using RDF and SPARQL.
3. Enhancement of an Existing Repository: Propose improvements to an SSH vocabulary repository in terms of structure or usability.
6. Conclusion Selecting an appropriate ontology repository is crucial for SSH research. This study benchmarks leading repositories, offering insights into their suitability. For students, practical projects in ontology evaluation and integration provide valuable hands-on experience in Semantic Web applications.
References
● Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The Semantic Web. Scientific American.
● Côté , R. G., Jones, P., Apweiler, R., & Hermjakob, H. (2006). The Ontology Lookup Service. BMC Bioinformatics.
● Gandon, F. (2018). A Survey of the Semantic Web. Wiley-ISTE.
● Grüninger, M., & Fox, M. S. (1995). Methodology for the Design and Evaluation of Ontologies. IJCAI Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing.
● Heath, T., & Bizer, C. (2011). Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space. Morgan & Claypool.
● Kempf, A., et al. (2019). BARTOC: A Registry of Knowledge Organization Systems. International Journal on Digital Libraries.
● Musen, M. A., et al. (2012). BioPortal: Ontologies and Integrated Data Resources. Nucleic Acids Research.
● Vandenbussche, P., et al. (2017). Linked Open Vocabularies (LOV): A Gateway to Reusable Semantic Web Vocabularies. Semantic Web Journal.
● GESIS. (2020). Social Science Thesaurus. Retrieved from
https://www.gesis.org/en/research/thesaurus
Literature review suggestion:
● Meijer, Kerim, KNAW Humanities Cluster, and Menzo Windhouwer. "The CLARIAH FAIR Vocabulary Registry." CLARIN Annual Conference Proceedings.
● Hartmann, Jens, Raúl Palma, and Asunción Gómez-Pérez. "Ontology repositories." Handbook on Ontologies (2009): 551-571.
● Baclawski, Kenneth, and Todd Schneider. "The open ontology repository initiative:
Requirements and research challenges." Proceedings of workshop on collaborative construction, management and linking of structured knowledge at the ISWC. 2009.
● Atamanchuk, Viktoriia, and Petro Atamanchuk. "Ontological Modeling in Humanities." International Scientific-Practical Conference" Information Technology for Education, Science and Technics". Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022.
● Veršić , Ivana Ilijašić , and Julian Ausserhofer. "Social sciences, humanities and their
interoperability with the European Open Science Cloud: What is SSHOC?." Mitteilungen Der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen Und Bibliothekare 72.2 (2019): 383-391.
Evaluation criteria (suggestion)
The evaluation of ontology and vocabulary repositories in SSH is based on several key criteria:
● Coverage and Completeness: The extent to which a repository covers the relevant domain concepts and relationships.
● Semantic Consistency: The logical coherence and absence of contradictions within the ontology or vocabulary.
● Usability and Accessibility: The ease of use, searchability, and availability of documentation for users.
● Interoperability: The ability to integrate with other resources and systems, often measured by adherence to standards like RDF and OWL.
● Maintainability and Sustainability: The long-term viability and update frequency of the repository.
● Domain Specificity: The degree to which the repository is tailored to the specific needs of SSH research.
● Community Engagement: The level of participation and contribution from the SSH community.
Research questions:
1. How do leading ontology repositories compare in terms of scope and coverage,
interoperability, usability, community support, and integration with research tools for Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research ?
2. How can multiple ontologies be integrated into an SSH research framework using RDF and SPARQL to enhance knowledge management and data integration?
3. What improvements can be made to the structure and usability of existing SSH vocabulary repositories to better serve the needs of researchers ?