1 2 1
Marwa Abdelreheim , Friederike Klan , Taysir Soliman
1
Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Computer and Information Sciences, Assiut University, Egypt
{marwa.abdelrehem, taysser.soliman}@fci.aun.edu.eg
2
Institute of Computer Science, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Germany
friederike.klan@uni-jena.de
1 2
d
.
,
.
H.1.m
; H.3.1
— ; H.3.3
no
Keywords
on 1
2
13
.
.
2.3
.
1. Scope definition:
responsible for defining coverage was the most widely used one, as it can filter out
the specified keywords. Also, popularity of ontologie
2.
,
3. n,
do
4. Ontology assessment and verification:
outputted ontology is assessed and verified. extensibility and flexibility to change .
2.2 2.4
.
3
,
4
,
. .
.
ff
3
4
14
1.
x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x
x x x x x x
x
x x x x x x
x
x x x x x
x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x
on x x
x
3. uppo
4. ff
5.
improve the results according to user’s preferences
profiles are manually defined by users or automatically generated
from other users’ data. The main limitation
2.5
their user's needs and requirements). They also don’t allow for
1. The tool is used for scientific purposes and includes
2.
,
15
pu
on
.
16
3.2
two
6
1.
, pp. 9–34.
[2] Ding, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A., Pan, R., Cost, R. S., Peng,
2004. Swoogle : A
2.
, pp. 10–1145.
WATSON :
x
125 140
x
, .
.
.
925.
.
Ontologies for the Web (EON’06), at the 15th Int. World
Wide Web Conference (WWW’06)
17
569
.
210.
2005
61 76.
,
2016.
1043 1061.
18