Abstract. User validation is one of the challenges facing the ontology alignment community, as there are limits to the quality of automated alignment algorithms. In this paper we present a broad study on user validation of ontology alignments that encompasses three distinct but interrelated aspects: the profile of the user, the services of the alignment system, and its user interface. We discuss key issues pertaining to the alignment validation process under each of these aspects, and provide an overview of how current systems address them. Finally, we use experiments from the Interactive Matching track of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI) 2015 to assess the impact of errors in alignment validation, and how systems cope with them as function of their services.

Abstract. With the increased use of ontologies in semantically-enabled applications, the issue of debugging defects in ontologies has become increasingly important. These defects can lead to wrong or incomplete results for the applications. Debugging consists of the phases of detection and repairing. In this paper we focus on the repairing phase of a particular kind of defects, i.e. the missing relations in the is-a hierarchy. Previous work has dealt with the case of taxonomies. In this work we extend the scope to deal with ALC ontologies that can be represented using acyclic terminologies. We present algorithms and discuss a system.

BackgroundOne of the longest running tracks in the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative is the Anatomy track which focuses on aligning two anatomy ontologies. The Anatomy track was started in 2005. In 2005 and 2006 the task in this track was to align the Foundational Model of Anatomy and the OpenGalen Anatomy Model. Since 2007 the ontologies used in the track are the Adult Mouse Anatomy and a part of the NCI Thesaurus. Since 2015 the data in the Anatomy track is also used in the Interactive track of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative.ResultsIn this paper we focus on the Anatomy track in the years 2007–2016 and the Anatomy part of the Interactive track in 2015–2016. We describe the data set and the changes it went through during the years as well as the challenges it poses for ontology alignment systems. Further, we give an overview of all systems that participated in the track and the techniques they have used. We discuss the performance results of the systems and summarize the general trends.ConclusionsAbout 50 systems have participated in the Anatomy track. Many different techniques were used. The most popular matching techniques are string-based strategies and structure-based techniques. Many systems also use auxiliary information. The quality of the alignment has increased for the best performing systems since the beginning of the track and more and more systems check the coherence of the proposed alignment and implement a repair strategy. Further, interacting with an oracle is beneficial.