Compare Frameworks

Select two or more frameworks to compare their similarities and differences.

Comparison Summary

Comparing 1 framework: Structural Quality Metrics to Evaluate Knowledge Graph Quality

Framework Details Comparison

Field Structural Quality Metrics to Evaluate Knowledge Graph Quality
2022
Year 2022
Title Structural Quality Metrics to Evaluate Knowledge Graph Quality
Abstract Presents six structural quality metrics (ICR, IPR, CI, IMI, SPA, SPI) to evaluate KGs based on the specificity and active usage of the underlying ontology (structure).
Objectives To devise a measure to compare KG quality based on the premise that structure (=ontology) is a key factor, moving beyond metrics focused solely on size/distribution.
Methodology Defined and applied six structural quality metrics to compare six cross-domain KGs (Wikidata, DBpedia, YAGO, Freebase, Google KG, Raftel).
Algorithm Used Statistical measures of ontology structure (ICR, IPR, CI, IMI, SPA, SPI)
Top Model Structural Metrics Model
Accuracy N/A (Structural comparison)
Advantages Provides a novel viewpoint linking quality directly to schema richness and usage; effective for comparative, high-level assessment.
Drawbacks Focuses on schema quality (T-box); generally omits instance-level semantic correctness; technical part (formal property definition) can be improved.
Source https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365616417_Structural_Quality_Metrics_to_Evaluate_Knowledge_Graphs#full-text
Total Criteria 5

Criteria Comparison

🤖 Enable AI Enhancement

Comparing 5 unique criteria across selected frameworks.

Criterion Structural Quality Metrics to Evaluate Knowledge Graph Quality
2022
Concise representation ✓ Included
Description: Presents six structural quality metrics (ICR, IPR, CI, IMI, SPA, SPI) to evaluate KGs based on the specificity and active usage of the underlying ontology (structure). (2022)
Definitions:
  • Quality dimension from Structural Quality Metrics to Evaluate Knowledge Graph Quality (2022)
  • Presents six structural quality metrics (ICR, IPR, CI, IMI, SPA, SPI) to evaluate KGs based on the specificity and active …
Consistent representation ✓ Included
Description: Presents six structural quality metrics (ICR, IPR, CI, IMI, SPA, SPI) to evaluate KGs based on the specificity and active usage of the underlying ontology (structure). (2022)
Definitions:
  • Quality dimension from Structural Quality Metrics to Evaluate Knowledge Graph Quality (2022)
  • Presents six structural quality metrics (ICR, IPR, CI, IMI, SPA, SPI) to evaluate KGs based on the specificity and active …
Ease of understanding ✓ Included
Description: Presents six structural quality metrics (ICR, IPR, CI, IMI, SPA, SPI) to evaluate KGs based on the specificity and active usage of the underlying ontology (structure). (2022)
Definitions:
  • Quality dimension from Structural Quality Metrics to Evaluate Knowledge Graph Quality (2022)
  • Presents six structural quality metrics (ICR, IPR, CI, IMI, SPA, SPI) to evaluate KGs based on the specificity and active …
Interpretability ✓ Included
Description: Presents six structural quality metrics (ICR, IPR, CI, IMI, SPA, SPI) to evaluate KGs based on the specificity and active usage of the underlying ontology (structure). (2022)
Definitions:
  • Quality dimension from Structural Quality Metrics to Evaluate Knowledge Graph Quality (2022)
  • Presents six structural quality metrics (ICR, IPR, CI, IMI, SPA, SPI) to evaluate KGs based on the specificity and active …
Structural Consistency ✓ Included
Description: Presents six structural quality metrics (ICR, IPR, CI, IMI, SPA, SPI) to evaluate KGs based on the specificity and active usage of the underlying ontology (structure). (2022)
Definitions:
  • Quality dimension from Structural Quality Metrics to Evaluate Knowledge Graph Quality (2022)
  • Presents six structural quality metrics (ICR, IPR, CI, IMI, SPA, SPI) to evaluate KGs based on the specificity and active …