# Ontology Reuse: the Real Test of Ontological Design

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02892 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.02892/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 3 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 May 2022.

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [MPNet: Masked and Permuted Pre-training for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.09297/) (2020)
- [The Landscape of Ontology Reuse Approaches](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.12599/) (2020)
- [Topical Classification of Food Safety Publications with a Knowledge Base](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.00374/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [RDF Stream Taxonomy: Systematizing RDF Stream Types in Research and Practice](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.14540/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reusing ontologies in practice is still very challenging, especially when multiple ontologies are (jointly) involved. Moreover, despite recent advances, the realization of systematic ontology quality assurance remains a difficult problem. In this work, the quality of thirty biomedical ontologies, and the Computer Science Ontology are investigated, from the perspective of a practical use case. Special scrutiny is given to cross-ontology references, which are vital for combining ontologies. Diverse methods to detect potential issues are proposed, including natural language processing and network analysis. Moreover, several suggestions for improving ontologies and their quality assurance processes are presented. It is argued that while the advancing automatic tools for ontology quality assurance are crucial for ontology improvement, they will not solve the problem entirely. It is ontology reuse that is the ultimate method for continuously verifying and improving ontology quality, as well as for guiding its future development. Specifically, multiple issues can be found and fixed primarily through practical and diverse ontology reuse scenarios.