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