Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 380–401 | Cite as

Ontologies for Knowledge Management: An Information Systems Perspective

Ontology Paper

Abstract

Knowledge management research focuses on concepts, methods, and tools supporting the management of human knowledge. The main objective of this paper is to survey basic concepts that have been used in computer science for the representation of knowledge and summarize some of their advantages and drawbacks. A secondary objective is to relate these techniques to information science theory and practice.

The survey classifies the concepts used for knowledge representation into four broad ontological categories. Static ontologies describe static aspects of the world, i.e., what things exist, their attributes and relationships. A dynamic ontology, on the other hand, describes the changing aspects of the world in terms of states, state transitions and processes. Intentional ontologies encompass the world of things agents believe in, want, prove or disprove, and argue about. Finally, social ontologies cover social settings – agents, positions, roles, authority, permanent organizational structures or shifting networks of alliances and interdependencies.

Keywords

Ontologies Knowledge management Knowledge representation Information science Information systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agostini A, De Michelis G, Grasso MA, Patriarca S (1993) Reengineering a business process with an innovative workflow management system: a case study. Proceedings of the Conference on Cooperative Office Computing Systems (COOCS’93), Hayward, CA, November 1993, pp 154–165 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen J (1984) Towards a general theory of action and time. Artif Intell 23:123–154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ashburner M, Ball CA et al. (2000) Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet 25(1):25–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baker PG, Brass A, Bechhofer S, Goble C, Paton N, Stevens R (1998) TAMBIS: transparent access to multiple bioinformatics information sources. An overview. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on intelligent systems for molecular biology (ISMB’98). AAAI Press, Menlow Park, CA, pp 25–34 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker PG, Goble CA, Bechhofer S, Paton NW, Stevens R, Brass A (1999) An ontology for bioinformatics applications. Bioinformatics 15(6):510–520 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boulos M, Roudsari A et al (2002) Towards a semantic medical Web: HealthCyberMap’s tool for building an RDF metadata base of health information resources based on the Qualified Dublin Core Metadata. Set Med Sci Monit 8(7):MT124–136 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brazma A, Hingamp P et al (2001) Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME) – toward standards for microarray data. Nat Genet 29(4):365–371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Briand L, Kim Y-M, Melo W, Seaman C, Basili V (1998) Q-MOPP: Qualitative evaluation of Maintenance Organizations, Processes, and Products. J Softw Maintenance: Res Pract 10:249–278 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bubenko JA (1980) Information modeling in the context of system development. Proceedings IFIP congress, pp 395–411 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buckland M (1999) The landscape of information science: the American Society for Information Science at 62. J Am Soc Info Sci 50(11):970–974 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bunge (1977) Treatise on basic philosophy: ontology I – the furniture of the world. Reidel, Dordrecht Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carnap R (1967) The logical structure of the world: pseudoproblems in philosophy. University of California Press, Berkeley Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Castelfranchi C, Mueller J-P (eds) (1993) From reaction to cognition. 5th European workshop on modeling autonomous agents in a multi-agent world, MAAMAW ’93, Neuchatel, Switzerland, 25–27 August 1993. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, p 957 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chu WW, Yang H, Chiang K, Minock M, Chow G, Larson C (1996) CoBase: a scalable and extensible cooperative information system. J Intell Inf Syst 6(2/3):223–259 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chung L (1993) Representing and using non-functional requirements: a orocess-oriented approach. Ph D thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chung L, Nixon BA, Yu E, Mylopoulos J (2000) Non-functional requirements in software engineering. Kluwer Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cimino JJ (2000) From data to knowledge through concept-oriented terminologies: experience with the Medical Entities Dictionary. J Am Med Inf Assoc 7(3):288–297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Conklin J, Begeman M (1988) gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. Trans Office Inf Syst 6(4):281–318 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Connolly D, van Harmelen F, Horrocks I, McGuinness DL, Patel-Schneider PF, Stein LA (2001) DAML+OIL (March 2001) Reference Description Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Croner CM, Sperling J, Broome FR (1996) Geographic information systems (GIS): new perspectives in understanding human health and environmental relationships. Stat Med 15(17–18):1961–1977 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Curtis B, Kellner M, Over J (1992) Process modeling. Commun ACM 35(9):75–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dardenne A, van Lamsweerde A, Fickas S (1993) Goal directed requirements acquisition. Sci Compu Program 20:3–50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Denning P, Medina-Mora R (1995) Completing the loops. Interfaces 25(3):42–57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Falasconi S, Lanzola G (1997) Ontology and terminology servers in agent-based health-care information systems. Meth Inf Med 36(1):30–43 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Feather M (1987) Language support for the specification and derivation of concurrent systems. ACM Trans Program Lang 9(2):198–234 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fensel DM, Rousset C (1998) Workshop on comparing description and frame logics. Data Knowl Eng 25(3):347–352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Flores F, Graves M, Hartfield B, Winograd T (1988) Computer systems and the design of organizational interactions. ACM Trans Office Inf Syst 6(2):153–172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Galbraith J (1973) Designing complex organizations. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gans G, Jarke M, Kethers S, Lakemeyer G (2003) Continuous requirements management for organisation networks: a (dis)trust-based approach. Requirements Engineering 8(1):4–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Genesereth MR (1991) Knowledge interchange format. Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference, Cambridge, MA. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, pp 599–600 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gennari JH, Oliver DE (1995) A web-based architecture for a medical vocabulary server. 19th annual symposium on computer applications in medical care, New Orleans, LA Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Giorgini P, Mylopoulos J, Nicchiarelli E, Sebastiani R (2002) Reasoning with goals. Proceedings 21st international conference on conceptual modeling (ER’02), Tampere, October 2002 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Godfray HC (2002) Challenges for taxonomy. Nature 417(6884):17–19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gotel O, Finkelstein A (1995) Contribution structures. Proceedings 2nd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, York, England Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gruber TR (1992) Ontolingua: a mechanism to support portable ontologies. Technical Report KSL-91-66, Stanford University, Knowledge Systems Laboratory Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specification. Knowl Acquis 5(2):199–220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gu H, Perl Y, Geller J, Halper M, Singh M (1999) A methodology for partitioning a vocabulary hierarchy into trees. Artif Intell Med 15:77–98 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guarino N, Welty C (2000) Ontological analysis of taxonomic relations. Länder A, Storey V (eds), Proceedings of ER-2000: the international conference on conceptual modeling. Lecture notes in Computer Science, vol 1920. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hahn U, Romacker M et al (2002) Creating knowledge repositories from biomedical reports: the MEDSYNDIKATE text mining system. Pac Symp Biocomput 7:338–349 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Harel D (1987) State charts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Sci Comput Program 8:231–274 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hayes P (1985) The second naive physics manifesto. Hobbs J, Moore R (eds) Formal theories of the commonsense world. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp 1–36 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hewett M, Oliver DE et al (2002) PharmGKB: the pharmacogenetics knowledge base. Nucleic Acids Res 30(1):163–165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hirst G (1989) Ontological assumptions in knowledge representation. Proceedings 1st international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Toronto, pp 157–169 Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Horrocks I, Patel-Schneider PF, van Harmelen F (2002) Reviewing the design of {DAML+OIL}: an ontology language for the semantic web. Presented at 18th national conference. on artificial intelligence (AAAI’2002) Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Humphreys BL, Lindberg DA (1998) The Unified Medical Language System: an informatics research collaboration. J Am Med Informat Assoc 5(1):1–11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jurisica I, Glasgow J, Mylopoulos J (2000) Building efficient conversational CBR xystems. Incremental iterative retrieval and browsing. Int J Appl Intell 12:251–268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jurisica I, Mylopoulos J, Glasgow J, Shapiro H, Casper R (1998) Cased-based reasoning in IVF: prediction and knowledge mining. Artif Intell Med 12(1):1–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jurisica I, Nixon B (1998) Building quality into case-based reasoning systems. Conference on advance information systems engineering, CAiSE’98, Pisa, Italy. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 363–380 Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jurisica I, Rogers P, Glasgow J, Collins R, Wolfley J, Luft J, DeTitta GT (2001) Improving objectivity and scalability in protein crystallization: integrating image analysis with knowledge discovery. IEEE Intell Syst J, Special issue on intelligent systems in biology, November/December, pp 26–34 Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jurisica I, Rogers P, Glasgow J, Fortier S, Luft J, Wolfley J, Bianca M, Weeks D, DeTitta GT (2001) Intelligent decision support for protein crystal growth. IBM Syst J 40(2):394–409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kahn C (1998) An Internet-based ontology editor for medical appropriateness criteria. Compu Meth Programs Biomed 56:31–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Karp PD (2000) An ontology for biological function based on molecular interactions. Bioinformatics 16(3):269–285 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Langlotz CP, Caldwell SA (2002) The completeness of existing lexicons for representing radiology report information. J Digit Imag 15(1):201–205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lee J, Lai K-Y (1991) What is design rationale? Hum Comput Interaction 6(3–4) Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lenat DB, Guha RV (1990) Building large knowledge bases. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Levesque H, Reiter R, Lesperance Y, Lin F (1997) GOLOG: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. J Logic Program 59–84 Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Li Z, Perl Y, Geller J, Halper M, Cimino JJ (2002) Enriching the structure of the UMLS semantic network. Proceedings of the 2002 AMIA annual symposium, Nov 2002, pp 939–943 Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Liu L, Halper M, Geller J, Perl Y (1999) Controlled vocabularies in OODBs: modeling issues and implementation. Parallel Distib Databases 7(1):37–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Liu L, Halper M, Geller J, Perl Y (2002) Using OOBD modeling to partition a vocabulary into structurally and semantically uniform concept groups. IEEE Trans on Knowl Data Eng 14(4):850–866 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    MacGregor RM (1993) Representing reified relations in loom. J Exp Theoret Artif Intell 5:179–183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    MacLean A, Young R, Bellotti V, Moran T (1991) Questions, options, criteria: elements of design space analysis. Hum Compu Interaction 6(3/4):201–250 Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Maida A, Shapiro S (1982) Intentional concepts in propositional semantic networks. Cognit Sci 6:291–330 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Medina-Mora R, Winograd T, Flores R, Flores F (1992) The action workflow approach to workflow management technology. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp 281–288 Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mintzberg H (1979) The structuring of organizations. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Musen MA (1998) Modern architectures for intelligent systems: reusable ontologies and problem-solving methods. AMIA Fall Symposium, Orlando, FL Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Musen MA (2000) Design and use of clinical ontologies: curricular goals for the education of health-telematics professionals. Stud Health Technol Inform 72:40–47 Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Musen MA (2002) Medical informatics: searching for underlying components. Methods Inf Med 41(1):12–19 Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mylopoulos J (1998) Information modeling in the time of the revolution. Inf Syst 23(3/4):127–155 Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Mylopoulos J, Chung L, Yu E (1999) From object-oriented to goal-oriented requirements analysis. Commun ACM 42(1):31–37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mylopoulos J, Jurisica I, Yu E (1998) Computational mechanisms for knowledge organization. Proceedings of the 5th international conference of the international society on knowledge organization (ISKO’98), Lille, France. Ergon Verlag, Würzburg Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Neches R, Fikes R, Finin T, Gruber T, Patil R, Senator T, Swartout WR (1991) Enabling technology for knowledge sharing. AI Mag 12(3):16–36 Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Newell A (1982) The knowledge level. Artif Intell 18(1):87–127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Oliver DE (1998) Synchronization of diverging versions of a controlled medical terminology. Stanford, CA, Stanford University School of Medicine, Technical Report SMI 98-0741 Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Oliver DE, Rubin DL et al (2002) Ontology development for a pharmacogenetics knowledge base. Pac Symp Biocomput 7:65–76 Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Orthner HF, Scherrer JR, Dahlen R (1994) Sharing and communicating health care information: summary and recommendations. Int J Biomed Comput 34(1–4):303–318 Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Petit M (1999) Formal Requirements Engineering of Manufacturing Systems: A Multi-Formalism and Component-Based Approach. PhD Thesis, Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix, Dept of Computer Science, Namur, Belgium Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Potts C, Bruns G (1988) Recording the reasons for design decisions. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on software engineering, Singapore Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Rector AL, Bechhofer SB (1997) The GRAIL concept modeling language for medical terminology. Artif Intell Med 9:139–171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Rillof E (1996) An empirical study of automated dictionary construction for information extraction in three domains. Artif Intell Med 85:101–134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Rubin DL, Hewett M, Oliver DE, Klein TE, Altman RB (2002) Automating data acquisition into ontologies from pharmacogenetics relational data sources using declarative object definitions and XML. Pac Symp Biocomput 7:88–99 Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ruggles R (1998) The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice. Calif Manage Rev 40:3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Schulze-Kremer S (1998) Ontologies for molecular biology. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Pacific symposium on biocomputing. AAAI Press, pp 693–704 Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Scott RW (2002) Organizations: rational, natural or open systems, 5th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Shortliffe EH (1998) The evolution of health-care records in the era of the Internet. MEDINFO’98 Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Steve G, Gangemi A, Pisanelli DM (1997) Integrating medical terminologies with ONIONS methodology. http://www.saussure.irmkant.rm.cnr.it/onto/publ/onions97/onions97.pdf, to be published by IOS-Press Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Stevens R, Goble C et al (2002) Building a bioinformatics ontology using OIL. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 6(2):135–141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Strang N, Cucherat M et al (2002) Which coding system for therapeutic information in evidence-based medicine. Comput Meth Programs Biomed 68(1):73–85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Tu SW, Eriksson H, Gennari JH, Shahar Y, Musen MA (1995) Ontology-based configuration of problem-solving methods and generation of knowledge-acquisition tools: application of PROTEGE-II to protocol-based decision support. Artif Intell Med 7:257–289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Ullman JD (1988) Principles of database and knowledge-base systems, vol. 1. Computer Science Press Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Van Heijst G, Falasconi S, Abu-Hanna A, Schreiber G, Stefanelli M (1995) A case study in ontology library construction. Artif Intell Med 7:227–255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Vassiliadis P, Quix C, Vassiliou Y, Jarke M (2001) Data Warehouse Process Management. Inf Syst 26(3):205–236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Vernadat F (1996) Enterprise modeling and integration. Chapman & Hall Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Wand Y (1989) A proposal for a formal model of objects. Kim W, Lochovsky F (eds) Object-oriented concepts, databases and applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Wand Y, Weber R (1990) An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 16:1282–1292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Xie H, Wasserman A et al (2002) Large-scale protein annotation through gene ontology. Genome Res 12(5):785–794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Yu E (1993) Modeling organizations for information systems requirements engineering. Proceedings IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, San Diego, pp 34–41 Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Yu E (1995a) Modeling strategic relationships for process reengineering. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Yu E (1995b) Models for supporting the redesign of organizational work. Proceedings of the conference on organizational computing systems (COOCS’95), 13–16 August 1995, Milpitas, California, pp 225–236 Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Yu E (1997) Towards Modelling and Reasoning Support for Early-Phase Requirements Engineering. Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE Int Symp on Requirements Engineering (RE’97), 6–8 January 1997, Washington, DC, pp 226–235 Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Yu E (1999) Strategic modeling for enterprise integration. Proceedings of the 14th world congress of the international federation of automatic control, 5–9 July 1999, Beijing, China Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Yu E, Mylopoulos J, Lesperance Y (1996) AI models for business process reengineering. IEEE Expert: Intell Syst Appl 11(4):16–23 Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Yu E, Liu L (2001) Modelling Trust for System Design Using the i* Strategic Actors Framework. In: Falcone R, Singh M, Tan YH (eds) Trust in Cyber-Societies – Integrating the Human and Artificial Perspectives. LNAI-2246, Springer, pp 175–194 Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Yu E, Liu L, Li Y (2001) Modelling Strategic Actor Relationships to Support Intellectual Property Management. 20th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER-2001). Yokohama, Japan, 27–30 November 2001. LNCS 2224, Springer, pp 164–178Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of Information StudiesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations