Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Articles

An approach for ontology development and assessment using a quality framework

  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

Ontologies have been identified as important components of a number of types of information systems, including data warehouses, e-commerce systems and knowledge management systems, and the quality of such systems is therefore likely to be heavily dependent on the quality of the embedded ontology. An ontology can be studied from two perspectives; the Artificial Intelligence (AI) perspective and the philosophical perspective. The research presented in this paper takes the AI perspective in which an ontology is considered to be an engineering artefact that can be represented using a specific vocabulary. The paper describes an approach to the development, representation and evaluation of formal ontologies with the explicit aim being to develop a set of techniques that will improve the coverage of the ontology, and thus its overall quality. The proposed approach will be illustrated by applying it to the development and evaluation of an ontology for the information technology infrastructure at a university campus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alavi M and Leidner DE (2001) Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25 (1), 107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia S and Yao Q (1993) A new approach to knowledge acquisition by repertory grids. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (BHARGAVA B et al., Eds), pp 738–740, ACM, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryrd T, Cossick K and Zmud R (1992) A synthesis of research on requirements analysis and knowledge acquisition techniques. MIS Quarterly 16 (1), 117–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson K-M, Millar H, Joseph A and Mobolurin A (2002) Using formal MS/OR modeling to support disaster recovery planning. European Journal of Operational Research 141 (3), 679–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Jones A, Storey VC, Sugumaran V and Ahluwalia P (2005) A semiotic metrics suite for assessing the quality of ontologies. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55 (1), 84–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C-H, Khoo LP and Yan W (2002) A strategy for acquiring customer requirement patterns using laddering technique and ART2 neural network. Advanced Engineering Informatics 16 (3), 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke NJ (1999) Knowledge elicitation. In Handbook of Applied Cognition (DURSO FT, Ed), pp 479–509, Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Critchlow T, Ganesh M and Musick R (1998) Automatic generation of warehouse mediators using an ontology engine. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Knowledge Representation Meets Databases (BORGIDA A, CHAUDRI V and STAUDT M, Eds), pp 8.1–8.8, ACM, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curran M, Rugg G and Corr S (2005) Attitudes to expert systems: a card sort study. The Foot 15 (4), 190–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensel D (2003) Ontologies: A Silver Bullet for Knowledge Management and Electronic Commerce. Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensel D, Van Harmelen F, Universiteit V, Horrocks I, McGuinness D and Patel Schneider P (2001) OIL: An Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16 (2), 38–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox MS, Barbuceanu M, Gruninger M and Lin J (1998) An organization ontology for enterprise modeling. In Simulating Organizations: Computational Models of Institutions and Groups (PRIETULA M, CARLEY K and GASSER L, Eds), pp 131–152, AAAI/MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox MS and Gruninger M (1998) Enterprise modeling. AI Magazine 19 (3), 109–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangemi A (2005) Ontology design patterns for semantic Web content. In Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2005) (MUSEN MA et al., Eds), pp 262–276, Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber TR (1995) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43 (5–6), 907–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruninger M and Fox MS (1994) The design and evaluation of ontologies for enterprise engineering. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Implemented Ontologies, European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) (MARS N, Ed), pp 105–128, Amsterdam: ECCAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruninger M and Fox MS (1995) Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. In Proceedings of the IJCAI ’95, Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, Montreal (SKUCE D, Ed), pp 6.1–6.10.

  • Guarino N (1998) Formal ontology and information systems. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems (GUARINO N, Ed), pp 3–15, Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarino N, Carrara M and Giaretta P (1994) An ontology of meta-level categories. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’94) (SANDEWALL D and TORASSO P, Eds), pp 270–280, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufinann.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guenzi P and Troilo G (2006) Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation through marketing–sales integration. Industrial Marketing Management 35 (8), 974–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper ME, Jentsch FG, Berry D, Lau HC, Bowers C and Salas E (2003) TPL–KATS-Card sort: a tool for assessing structural knowledge. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35 (4), 577–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl M and Trautmann T (2001) Analysis of Web sites with the repertory grid technique. In Proceedings of the Human Factors in Computing Systems (BEAUDOUIN-LAFON M and JACOB R, Eds), pp 167–178, New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickey AM and Davis AM (2003) Elicitation technique selection: how do experts do it? In Proceedings of the Requirements Engineering Conference, California, pp 169–178, IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hölscher C and Strube G (2000) Web search behavior of Internet experts and newbies. Computer Networks 33 (1–6), 337–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarke M, Jeusfeld M, Quix C and Vassiliadis P (1999) Architecture and quality in data warehouses: an extended repository approach. Information Systems 24 (3), 229–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi H, Seker R, Bayrak C, Ramaswamy S and Connelly J (2007) Ontology for disaster mitigation and planning. Summer Computer Simulation Conference, San Diego, California, 2007.

  • Kaneiwa K and Mizoguchi R (2004) Ontological knowledge base reasoning with sort-hierarchy and rigidity. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2004) (DUBOIS D, WELTY C and WILLIAMS M-A, Eds), pp 278–288, Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp EA (1996) The role of the individual project in teaching knowledge acquisition. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering: Education and Practice (SE:EP’96) (PURVIS M, Ed), pp 138–143, Washington DC: IEEE Computer Society.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kim HM, Fox MS and Sengupta A (2007) How to build enterprise data models to achieve compliance to standards or regulatory requirements (and share data). Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8 (2), 105–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwan M and Balasubramanian P (2003) KnowledgeScope: managing knowledge in context. Decision Support Systems 35 (4), 467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee T, Lee I, Lee S, Lee S, Kim D, Chun J et al. (2006) Building an operational product ontology system. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 5 (1), 16–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansingh G, Osei-Bryson K-M and Reichgelt H (2009) Building ontology based knowledge maps to assist knowledge process outsourcing decisions. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 7 (1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakhimovsky Y, Schusteritsch R and Rodden K (2006) Scaling the card sort method to over 500 items: restructuring the Google AdWords Help Center. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’06) (GRINTER R et al., Eds), pp 183–188, New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Negri A, Poggi A, Tomaiuolo M and Turci P (2006) Agents for e-Business Applications. Paper presented at the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan.

  • Noy N (2004) Semantic integration: a survey of ontology based approaches. SIGMOD Record 33 (4), 65–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noy N and Hafner C (1997) The state of the art in ontology design. Al Magazine 18 (3), 53–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papazoglou MP (2001) Agent-oriented technology in support of e-business. Communications of the ACM 44 (4), 71–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peffers K and Gengler CE (2003) How to identify new high-payoff information systems for the organization. Communications of the ACM 46 (1), 83–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike SD (2003) The use of repertory grid analysis to elicit salient short break holiday attributes. Journal of Travel Research 41 (3), 326–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto HS and Martins JP (2004) Ontologies: how can they be built? Knowledge and Information Systems 6 (4), 441–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirolli P (2006) Assisting people to become independent learners in the analysis of intelligence: Final technical report (CDRL A002).

  • Rao L and Osei-Bryson K-M (2007) Towards defining dimensions of knowledge systems quality. Expert Systems with Applications 33 (2), 368–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichgelt H and Shadbolt N (1992) ProtoKEW: a knowledge-based system for knowledge acquisition. In Research Advances in Cognitive Science Volume 5: Artificial Intelligence (SLEEMAN D and BERNSEN O, Eds), pp 171–200, Hove, U.K.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan GW and Bernard HR (2000) Data management and analysis methods. In Handbook of Qualitative Research (DENZIN N and LINCOLN Y, Eds), pp 769–802, Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadbolt N and Burton AM (1989) The empirical study of knowledge elicitation techniques. ACM SIGART Bulletin 108, 15–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah S, Huang Y, Xu T, Yuen M, Ling J and Ouellette F (2005) Atlas – a data warehouse for integrative bioinformatics. BMC Bioinformatics 6, 34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma S and Osei-Bryson K-M (2008) Organization-ontology based framework for implementing the business understanding phase of data mining projects. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii, p. 27 [WWW document] http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2008.339 (Accessed 22 June 2009).

  • Sicilia M-A, Lytras M, Rodriguez E and Garcia-Barriocanal E (2006) Integrating descriptions of knowledge management learning activities into large ontological structures: A case study. Data & Knowledge Engineering 57 (2), 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staab S, Schnurr H-P, Studer R and Sure Y (2001) Knowledge processes and ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16 (1), 26–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sure Y, Erdmann M, Angele J, Staab S, Studer R and Wenke D (2002) OntoEdit: collaborative ontology development for the semantic Web. In Semantic Web—ISWC 2002 First International Semantic Web Conference, Sardinia, Italy, June 9–12, 2002 Proceedings (HORRACKS I and HENDLER J, Eds), pp 221–235, Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upchurch L, Rugg G and Kitchenham B (2001) Using card sorts to elicit Web page quality attributes. IEEE Software 18 (4), 84–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vassiliadis P, Bouzeghoub M and Quix C (2000) Towards quality-oriented data warehouse usage and evolution. Information Systems 25 (2), 89–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner WP and Zubey ML (2005) Knowledge acquisition for marketing expert systems based upon marketing problem domain characteristics. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 23 (4), 403–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walther C (1988) Many-sorted unification. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 35 (1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wand Y and Wang RY (1996) Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Communications of the ACM 39 (11), 86–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang RY, Storey VC and Firth CP (1995) A framework for analysis of data quality research. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 7 (4), 623–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, Sure Y, Stevens R and Rector A (2006a) Knowledge elicitation plug-in for Protégé: card sorting and laddering. In Semantic Web-ASWC 2006 First Asian Semantic Web Conference, Beijing, China, September 3–7, 2006, Proceedings (MIZOGUCHI R, SHI Z and GIUNCHIGLIA F, Eds), pp 552–565, Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, Volker J and Haase P (2006b) Towards semi-automatic ontology building supported by large-scale knowledge acquisition. (No. Technical Report FS-05-06). Menlo Park, California, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.

  • Wold GH (2002) Disaster recovery planning process. Disaster Recovery Journal 5 (1), 29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H, Kishore R, Sharman R and Ramesh R (2007) Agile integration modeling language (AIML): a conceptual modeling grammar for agile integrative business information systems. Decision Support Systems 44 (1), 266–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mona School of Business & Department of Computing, The University of the West Indies, Jamaica

    Lila Rao

  2. Southern Polytechnic State University, Marietta, Georgia, U.S.A.

    Han Reichgelt

  3. Department of Information Systems & The Information Systems Research Institute, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia, U.S.A.

    Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson

Authors
  1. Lila Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Han Reichgelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lila Rao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rao, L., Reichgelt, H. & Osei-Bryson, KM. Articles. Knowl Manage Res Pract 7, 260–276 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2009.12

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2009.12

Keywords

Search

Navigation