English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A significant aspect of any system is how we present the knowledge. Ontology is one of the methods to present shared knowledge of the particular domain. Ontology can be designed and developed on specific domain or subdomain by many groups and researchers, which will create heterogeneity. To solve this problem ontology integration is necessary. To integrate shared knowledge, we require calculating the similarity between two ontologies, selected from a corpus using ontology matching techniques. Here we define a procedure to create a group of ontologies. Ontology comparison can be made using tools to find similar classes. As a similarity measure, Jaccard Similarity Index (JSI) is used create a group of ontology by an algorithm named k means. For each cluster, we generate buckets of ontologies, and from the bucket, all ontologies are grouped in one ontology reducing the attempt of exploring in enquiring understanding in multiple ontologies. Here we have check performance of ontology matching; clustering and merging algorithms script using standard benchmarking techniques of agriculture domain and conference track. Also, compare response time performance of SPARQL (SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language) query on merged ontology using this method. For experimentation, we have selected ontology corpus from agriculture domain and conference tack domain of OAEI (Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative). At the end of experimentation through our proposed approach we could achieve improvement in average loading and match time in ontology matching process compare to an existing tool. Also, we could achieve significance result in ontology merging process though benchmark parameter of coverage, compactness, and average merge time of two ontologies. Finally, in SPARQL query experimentation, we got success in improvement in reducing search space and response time of the query.

A Known in Advance, What Ontologies to Integrate? For Effective Ontology Merging Using K-means Clustering