Knowledge Management Research & Practice

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 227–236 | Cite as

Knowledge objects: a formal construct for material, information and role dependences

  • Stefano Borgo
  • Giandomenico Pozza
Article

Abstract

Information technology has embraced the ontological approach to expand its capacity to deal with knowledge of different kinds. The subsequent combination of formal concerns and philosophical considerations has led to the development of new knowledge systems that rely on foundational distinctions of entity type such as object, process, property and role. This change has attracted attention to the distinction between types of entity in the enterprise. The result is a compartmentalisation of the information, which, although well motivated and technically fruitful, is not always optimal for knowledge management (KM) tasks where one aims at an integrated view of information. This paper focuses on the notion of knowledge object understood as a formal construct for knowledge modelling and KM systems. The approach starts from formal and ontological analysis with an eye to modelling knowledge at large. The paper motivates the introduction of a notion of knowledge object as a new type of entity that emerges from the explicit interaction of material entities, information entities and roles within an enterprise. The main goals of this work are: to discuss the capacity of knowledge objects to tie knowledge and roles in an (enterprise) context; to model aspects of enterprise knowledge that escape standard ontological approaches; and to describe knowledge objects as a conceptual tool that can be integrated within existing formal systems.

Keywords

knowledge object ontology knowledge management knowledge and information 

References

  1. Boella G, van der Torre L and Verhagen H (2007) Roles, an interdisciplinary perspective. Applied Ontology 2 (2), 81–88.Google Scholar
  2. Bolisani E and Oltramari A (2009) Capitalizing flows of knowledge: models and accounting perspectives. In Proceedings of the 4th International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics – IFKAD (Schiuma G, Weir M, Spender JC and Lerro A, Eds), Center for Value Management, University of Basilicata, Matera, Italy.Google Scholar
  3. Booch G, Rumbaugh J and Jacobson I (1998) The Unified Modeling Language User Guide Object Technnology Series. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  4. Borgo S (2011) Goals of modularity: a voice from the foundational viewpoint. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Modular Ontologies (WOMO 11) (Oliver K and Thomas S, Eds), pp 1–6, IOS Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  5. Borgo S and Pozza G (2009) Disentangling knowledge objects. In Proceedings of the 4th FOMI Workshop (Ferrario R and Oltramari A, Eds), pp 90–101 FAIA 198, IOS Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  6. Christensen PH (2007) Knowledge sharing: moving away from the obsession with best practices. Journal of Knowledge Management 11 (1), 36–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gardenfors P (2000) Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Gibbons AS, Nelson J and Richards R (2000) The nature and origin of instructional objects. In The Instructional Use of Learning Objects (Wiley DA, Ed), pp 25–58, Agency for Instructional Technology and Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  9. Guarino N (1998) Formal ontology in information systems. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (Guarino N, Ed), pp 3–15, IOS Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  10. Loebe F (2007) Abstract vs social roles – towards a general theoretical account of roles. Applied Ontology 2 (2), 127–158.Google Scholar
  11. Masolo C, Borgo S, Gangemi A, Guarino N, Oltramari A and Schneider L (2002) Deliverable 17, the WonderWeb library of foundational ontologies. WonderWeb (EU Project), http://wonderweb.man.ac.uk/deliverables.shtml.
  12. Masolo C, Vieu L, Bottazzi E, Catenacci C, Ferrario R, Gangemi A and Guarino N (2004) Social roles and their descriptions. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR) (Dubois D, Welty C and Williams M, Eds), pp 267–277, KR, Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Mentzas G, Apostolou D, Young R and Abecker A (2001) Knowledge networking: a holistic solution for leveraging corporate knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management 5 (1), 94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Merril MD and Group IR (1996) Instructional transaction theory: instructional design based on knowledge objects. Educational Technology 36 (3), 30–37.Google Scholar
  15. Mizoguchi R, Kitamura Y and Borgo S (2012) Towards a unified definition of function. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (Donnelly M and Guizzardi G, Eds), IOS Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. Mizoguchi R, Sunagawa E, Kozaki K and Kitamura Y (2007) The model of roles within an ontology development tool: Hozo. Applied Ontology 2 (2), 159–179.Google Scholar
  17. Pozza G, Borgo S, Oltramari A, Contalbrigo L and Marangon S (2012) Information and organization in a veterinary public institute: an ontological analysis of the reception-analysis-report process. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  18. Pozza G, Borgo S and Ravarotto L (2009) From data to knowledge objects, ontological considerations with inputs from the public health domain. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Knowledge Management (Bolisani E and Scarso E, Eds), pp 635–641, Academic Conference Limited, Reading, UK.Google Scholar
  19. Vieu L, Borgo S and Masolo C (2008) Artefacts and roles: modeling strategies in a multiplicative ontology. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (Eschenbach C and Gruninger M, Eds), pp 121–134, IOS Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Borgo
    • 1
  • Giandomenico Pozza
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory for Applied Ontology, Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies (CNR) and Free University of Bolzano-BozenItaly
  2. 2.Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle VenezieLegnaroItaly

Personalised recommendations