The hierarchical structure of concepts of both ontolgies is given in Fig 4.

![0_image_0.png](0_image_0.png)

![0_image_1.png](0_image_1.png)

Fig 4. Slice of Hierarchical Presentation of Concepts of Ontologies A and B. 

## Step 1:

For manual verification of we took a few concepts from both ontologies. The concepts encircled in Figure 6 were chosen for determining their similarities for alignment process 

## Step 2:

Assume that concept ID of FullProfessor concept of A is c1_A. 

SUPC of c1_A = [Faculty, Employee, Person] 
Assume that concept ID of Department concept of A is c2_A. SUPC of *c2_A* = [Organization, EducationOrganization, University] 
Assume that concept ID of Conference concept of A is c3_A. SUPC of *c3_A* = [Publication, Article] Assume that concept ID of FullProfessor concept of B is c1_B. SUPC of *c1_B* = [Professor, Employee, Person] Assume that concept ID of Department concept of B is c2_B. 

SUPC of *c2_B* = [Organization, University] Assume that concept ID of Conference concept of B is c3_B. 

SUPC of *c3_B* = [Publication] 

## Step 3:

We organized the super-concepts, sub-concepts and siblings concepts of three sample concepts in a tabular form as given in Table 1. 

 According to [8], (c1_A, c1_B) and (c3_A, 
c3_B) is not similar because their direct super-entities are not similar. 

 According to [11],[12],[13],[17], (c2_A, c2_B) 
is not similar because their sub-entities are not similar and their sibling-entities are not similar. 

 According to [11,12,13], (c2_A, c2_B) and 
(c3_A, c3_B) are not similar because their leaf-entities are not similar and entities in the paths from the root to these concepts are not similar.Whereas according to our proposed criterion (c1_A, c1_B),(c1_A, c1_B) and (c1_A, 
c1_B) are similar and allthese concepts are actually similar, determined through manual matching and with results provided by respective domain experts. 