ArticlePloS one2017
OWL2 benchmarking for the evaluation of knowledge based systems.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OWL2 semantics are becoming increasingly popular for the real domain applications like Gene engineering and health MIS. The present work identifies the research gap that negligible attention has been paid to the performance evaluation of Knowledge Base Systems (KBS) using OWL2 semantics. To fulfil this identified research gap, an OWL2 benchmark for the evaluation of KBS is proposed. The proposed benchmark addresses the foundational blocks of an ontology benchmark i.e. data schema, workload and performance metrics. The proposed benchmark is tested on memory based, file based, relational database and graph based KBS for performance and scalability measures. The results show that the proposed benchmark is able to evaluate the behaviour of different state of the art KBS on OWL2 semantics. On the basis of the results, the end users (i.e. domain expert) would be able to select a suitable KBS appropriate for his domain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.