Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://dr.iiserpune.ac.in:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/6290
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSinha, Prashant Kumaren_US
dc.contributor.authorGajbe, Sagar Bhimraoen_US
dc.contributor.authorDebnath, Souraven_US
dc.contributor.authorSahoo, Subhranshubhusanen_US
dc.contributor.authorChakraborty, Kanuen_US
dc.contributor.authorMAHATO, SHIVA SHANKARen_US
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-27T07:06:52Z
dc.date.available2021-09-27T07:06:52Z
dc.date.issued2021-09en_US
dc.identifier.citationData Technologies and Applications.en_US
dc.identifier.issn2514-9288en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dr.iiserpune.ac.in:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/6290-
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1108/DTA-04-2021-0106en_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose:This work provides a generic review of the existing data mining ontologies (DMOs) and also provides a base platform for ontology developers and researchers for gauging the ontologies for satisfactory coverage and usage.Design/methodology/approach :The study uses a systematic literature review approach to identify 35 DMOs in the domain between the years 2003 and 2021. Various parameters, like purpose, design methodology, operations used, language representation, etc. are available in the literature to review ontologies. Accompanying the existing parameters, a few parameters, like semantic reasoner used, knowledge representation formalism was added and a list of 20 parameters was prepared. It was then segregated into two groups as generic parameters and core parameters to review DMOs.Findings:It was observed that among the 35 papers under the study, 26 papers were published between the years 2006 and 2016. Larisa Soldatova, Saso Dzeroski and Pance Panov were the most productive authors of these DMO-related publications. The ontological review indicated that most of the DMOs were domain and task ontologies. Majority of ontologies were formal, modular and represented using web ontology language (OWL). The data revealed that Ontology development 101, METHONTOLOGY was the preferred design methodology, and application-based approaches were preferred for evaluation. It was also observed that around eight ontologies were accessible, and among them, three were available in ontology libraries as well. The most reused ontologies were OntoDM, BFO, OBO-RO, OBI, IAO, OntoDT, SWO and DMOP. The most preferred ontology editor was Protégé, whereas the most used semantic reasoner was Pellet. Even ontology metrics for 16 DMOs were also available.Originality/value:This paper carries out a basic level review of DMOs employing a parametric approach, which makes this study the first of a kind for the review of DMOs.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherEmerald Publishing Limiteden_US
dc.subjectLibrary and Information Scienceen_US
dc.subject2021
dc.titleA review of data mining ontologiesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.sourcetitleData Technologies and Applicationsen_US
dc.publication.originofpublisherForeignen_US
Appears in Collections:JOURNAL ARTICLES

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.