The amount of multilingual data on the Web proliferates; therefore, developing ontologies in various natural languages is attracting considerable attention. In order to achieve semantic interoperability for the multilingual Web, cross-lingual ontology matching techniques are highly required. This paper proposes a Multilingual Ontology Matching (MoMatch) approach for matching ontologies in different natural languages. MoMatch uses machine translation and various string similarity techniques to identify correspondences across different ontologies. Furthermore, we propose a Quality Assessment Suite for Ontologies (QASO) that comprises 14 metrics, out of which seven metrics are used to assess the quality of the matching process and seven metrics are used to evaluate the quality of the ontology. We present an in-depth comparison of different string similarity techniques across various languages to get the most effective similarity measure(s) between multilingual terms. To illustrate the applicability of our approach and how it can be used in different domains, we present two use cases. MoMatch has been implemented using Scala and Apache Spark under an open-source license. We have compared our results with the results from the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI 2020). MoMatch has achieved significantly high precision, recall, and F-measure compared to five state-of-the-art matching approaches.

Systematic assessment of scientific events has become increasingly important for research communities. A range of metrics (e.g., citations, h-index) have been developed by different research communities to make such assessments effectual. However, most of the metrics for assessing the quality of less formal publication venues and events have not yet deeply investigated. It is also rather challenging to develop respective metrics because each research community has its own formal and informal rules of communication and quality standards. In this article, we develop a comprehensive framework of assessment metrics for evaluating scientific events and involved stakeholders. The resulting quality metrics are determined with respect to three general categories—events, persons, and bibliometrics. Our assessment methodology is empirically applied to several series of computer science events, such as conferences and workshops, using publicly available data for determining quality metrics. We show that the metrics’ values coincide with the intuitive agreement of the community on its “top conferences”. Our results demonstrate that highly-ranked events share similar profiles, including the provision of outstanding reviews, visiting diverse locations, having reputed people involved, and renowned sponsors.