

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

To further verify proposed technique we have taken two independent ontologies C and D of Student domain, created by different groups. A sample code slice of both ontologies are shown in Figure 7. 

## Step 1:

For manual verification of we took a few concepts from both ontologies. The concepts encircled in Figure 8 were chosen for determining their similarities for alignment process Step 2: 
Assume that concept ID of PhDStudent concept of C is Ci_C. SUPC of Ci_C = [PostGradStudent, Student] 
Assume that concept ID of PhDStudent concept of D is Cj_D. SUPC of Cj_D = [Student] Step 3: 
We organized the super-concepts, sub-concepts and siblings concepts of a sample concept in a tabular form as given in Table 2. 

| Tab 2. Concepts with their surroundings concepts of ontologies C and D   |            |                 |                            |                                                |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------|----------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
| Concept _id                                                              | Concept    | SUPC            | SUBC                       | SBLC                                           |
| Ci_C                                                                     | PhDStudent | PostGradStudent | MPhilStudent               |                                                |
| , Student                                                                | ---        |                 |                            |                                                |
| Cj_D                                                                     | PhDStudent | Student         | LocalStudent,  HEC_Student | MPhilStudent,  GradStudent,  UnderGradStuden t |

Since Condition (Sec.3 (step 3, ii)) is true for concepts Ci_C and Cj_D, therefore the concepts ci_C and Cj_D are similar. 

Results with respect to existing approaches: 
 According to [8], (Ci_C, Cj_D) is *not similar* because their direct super-entities are not similar. 

 According to [11],[17],[18], (Ci_C, Cj_D) is *not similar* because their sub-entities are not similar and their siblingentities are not similar. 

 According to [11],[20],[21], (Ci_C, Cj_D) is *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 technique (Ci_C, Cj_D) is *similar* and these concepts are actually similar, determined through manual matching and from respective domain experts. The proposed technique is tested with two ontologies from different domains with no similarity The ontology from tourism domain (see Fig. 9) has taken as source ontology and ontology B of Research Activities 