Advertisement

Enterprise Ontology According to Roman Ingarden Formal Ontology

  • Jan Andreasik
Part of the Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 59)

Abstract

In the paper, original ontology is defined. This ontology is based on the concept apparatus of theory of object proposed by Roman Ingarden - a Polish philosopher. The author presents a definition of individual object according to this theory. In this definition, the following concepts are included: essence, form, way of existence, constitutive nature, subject of properties, endowment of properties, properties, state of thing, relation. By analogy, the author defines one’s own concepts of the enterprise ontology: enterprise essence, form of competence system, content of assessments, enterprise vision, enterprise competence system, competence assessment, assessment criteria, score trajectories, grammar of trajectories, enterprise condition, competence potential condition, competence gap condition, act of explanation. According to the presented enterprise ontology, there are created descriptions of cases in the intelligent system for recognition of enterprise condition designed on the basis of the CBR (Case-Based Reasoning) methodology.

Keywords

ontology enterprise ERP Roman Ingarden theory case-based reasoning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Altman, E.I.: Corporate financial distress and bankruptcy. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andreasik, J.: A case base reasoning system for predicting the economic situation on enterprises – tacit knowledge capture process (externalization). In: Kurzyñski, M., et al. (eds.) Computer Recognition Systems, vol. 2, pp. 718–730. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andreasik, J.: Enterprise ontology – diagnostic approach. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human-System Interactions, pp. 497–503. Cracow, Poland (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andreasik, J.: Inteligent system for predicting economic situation of SME. In: Józefczyk, J., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Congress of Cybernetics and Systems of WOSC. Wroclaw, Poland (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andreasik, J.: Decision support system for assessment of enterprise competence. In: Kurzyński, M., Woźniak, M. (eds.) Computer Recognition Systems 3. AISC, vol. 57, pp. 559–567. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Argenti, J.: Corporate collapse. The Causes and Symptoms. McGraw-Hill, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bocheński, J.M.: Przyczynek do filozofii przedsiębiorstwa przemysłowego, pp. 162–186. Państwowe Wydawnictwa Naukowe, Warsaw (1993) (in Polish)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carlucci, D., Schiuma, G.: Knowledge assets value creation map assessing knowledge assets value drivers using AHP. Expert Systems with Applications 32, 814–821 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choo, C.W., Bontis, N.: The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise ontology. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dunn, C., Cherrington, J.O., Hollander, A.S.: Enterprise Information Systems. A Pattern-Based Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E-barometr Project: e-barometr manual, http://www.wszia.edu.pl/eng/files/e-barometr-manual.pdf
  13. 13.
    Ertugrul, I., Karakasoglu, N.: Performance evaluation of Turkisch cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 702–715 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gruninger, M., Atefi, K., Fox, M.S.: Ontologies to support process integration in enterprise engineering. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory 6, 381–394 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hamel, G., Prahalad, C.K.: Competing for the Future. Harvard Business School Press (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harzallah, M., Berio, G., Vernadat, F.: Analysis and modeling of individual competencies: Toward better management of human resources. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans 36(1), 187–207 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huang, H.C.: Designing a knowledge-based system for strategic planning: A balanced scorecard perspective. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 209–218 (2009)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ingarden, R. (ed.): Spór o istnienie świata. Tom II Ontologia formalna, cz. 1. Forma i Istota. Państwowe Wydawnictwa Naukowe, Warsaw (1987) (in Polish)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jussupova-Mariethoz, Y., Probst, A.R.: Business concepts ontology for an enterprise performance and competences monitoring. Computers in Industry 58, 118–129 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knuth, D.E.: Backus normal form vs. Backus Naur form. Communications of the ACM Archive 7(12), 735–736 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, A.H., Chen, W.C., Chang, C.J.: A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications 34, 96–107 (2008)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li, H., Sun, J.: Ranking-order case-based reasoning for financial distress prediction. Knowledge-Based Systems 21, 868–878 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lin, M.C., Wang, C.C., Chen, M.S., Chang, C.A.: Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Computers in Industry 59, 17–31 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pal, S.K., Shiu, S.C.K.: Foundations of Soft Case-Based Reasoning. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pepiot, G., Cheikhrouhou, N., Furbringer, J.M., Glardon, R.: UECML: Unified enterprise competence modelling language. Computers in Industry 58, 130–142 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Richardson, B., Nwankwo, S., Richardson, S.: Understanding the causes of business failure crises, generic failure types: boiled frogs, drowned frogs, bullfrogs and tadpoles. Management Decision 32(4), 9–22 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rittgen, P.: Handbook of ontologies for business interaction. Information Science Reference, Hershey (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saaty, T.L.: Decision making for leaders. RWS Publications (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thomaidis, F., Mavrakis, D.: Optimum route of south transcontinental gas pipeline in SE Europe using AHP. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 14, 77–88 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wen, W., Chen, Y.H., Chen, I.C.: A knowledge-based decision suport system for measuring enterprises performance. Knowledge-Based Systems 21, 148–163 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Williamson, D., Cooke, P., Jenkins, W., Moreton, K.M.: Strategic Management and Business Analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wojtysiak, J.: Filozofia i życie. ZNAK. Cracow, Poland (2007) (in Polish)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zopounidis, C., Dimitras, A.I.: Multicriteria Decision Aid Methods for the Prediction of Business Failure. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Andreasik
    • 1
  1. 1.Zamość University of Management and AdministrationZamośćPoland

Personalised recommendations