Fostering Comparability in Content Management Using Semantic Standardization

  • Jörg BeckerEmail author
  • Tobias Heide
  • Łukasz Lis
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)


This chapter addresses the lack of consistency and comparability in content management. We provide a solution to this problem and propose a conceptual specification of a generic portal structure that allows for semantic standardization of content. The structure and semantics of textual descriptions must be customized for given application scenarios, so we demonstrate such a customization for an exemplary research portal. In the example we address design science research and describe a research process that uses the customized portal definition. We conclude that our approach can increase the consistency and comparability of content in general through (1) an individually customizable system structure that reflects the nature of a specific application scenario better than generic structures can and (2) a semantic standardization of textual descriptions that forces the portal users to be precise and compact in their descriptions and to consistently apply the vocabulary of the domain.


Textual Description Content Management Design Science Semantic Standardization Content Management System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This chapter is an extension of work originally published in the Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (Becker et al. 2011)


  1. Abramowicz, W., Filipowska, A., Kaczmarek, M., & Kaczmarek, T. (2007). Semantically enhanced business process modelling notation. In: M. Hepp, K. Hinkelmann, D. Karagiannis, R. Klein, & N. Stojanovic (Eds.), Semantic business process and product lifecycle management. Proceedings of the workshop SBPM 2007 (pp. 88–91). Innsbruck.Google Scholar
  2. Ahlemann, F., Teuteberg, F., & Brune, G. (2006). Ontologie-basierte Attributierung von Informationsmodellen: Grundlagen und Anwendungsgebiete. ISPRI-Arbeitsbericht, Nr. 01/2006. Universität Osnabrück.Google Scholar
  3. Archer, L. B. (1984). Systematic method for designers. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 57–82). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Arms, W. Y., Dushay, N., Fulker, D., & Lagoze, C. (2003). A case study in metadata harvesting: The NSDL. Library Hi Tech, 21(2), 228–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Lis, Ł., & Stein, A. (2010a). Entwicklung und Anwendung eines Internetwerkzeugs zur Generierung von Forschungsportalen. In Proceedings of the Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2010. Göttingen.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Lis, Ł., & Stein, A. (2010b). Towards a maturity model for research portals. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Information Systems. Pretoria.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, J., Delfmann, P., Knackstedt, R., & Lis, Ł. (2011). Fostering comparability in research dissemination: A research portal-based approach. In Proceedings of the Wirtschaftsinformatik 2011 (paper 74). Zurich.Google Scholar
  8. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Lis, Ł., Stein, A., & Steinhorst, M. (2012). Research portals: Status quo and improvement perspectives. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benbya, H., Passiante, G., & Belbaly, N. A. (2004). Corporate portal: A tool for knowledge management synchronization. International Journal of Information Management, 24(3), 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Born, M., Dörr, F., & Weber, I. (2007). User-friendly semantic annotation in business process modeling. In M. Weske, M.-S. Hacid, & C. Godart (Eds.), WISE 2007 Workshops, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4832 (pp. 260–271). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33(8), 1081–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, P. P.-S. (1976). The entity-relationship model: Toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1(1), 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daniel, E., & Ward, J. (2005). Enterprise portals: Addressing the organizational and individual perspectives of information systems. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Information Systems. Regensburg.Google Scholar
  14. Delfmann, P., Herwig, S., & Lis, Ł. (2009). Unified enterprise knowledge representation with conceptual models—Capturing corporate language in naming conventions. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Information Systems, Phoenix, AR.Google Scholar
  15. Ehrig, M., Koschmider, A., & Oberweis, A. (2007). Measuring similarity between semantic business process models. In J. F. Roddick & A. Hinze (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling (pp. 71–80). Ballarat: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
  16. Eppler, M. J., & Burkhard, R. A. (2007). Visual representations in knowledge management: Framework and cases. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fliedl, G., Kop, C., & Mayr, H. C. (2005). From textual scenarios to a conceptual schema. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 55(1), 20–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox, M. F. (1992). Research, teaching, and publication productivity: Mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of Education, 65(4), 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grahlmann, K. R., Hilhorst, C., van Amerongen, S., Helms, R., & Brinkkemper, S. (2010). Impacts of implementing enterprise content management systems. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Information Systems (paper 103). Pretoria.Google Scholar
  21. Greco, G., Guzzo, A., Pontieri, L., & Saccà, D. (2004). An ontology-driven process modeling framework. In F. Galindo, M. Takizawa, & R. Traunmüller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3180 (pp. 13–23). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Gruber, T. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and information systems. In N. Guarino (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems (pp. 3–15). Trento: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hepp, M., & Roman, D. (2007). An ontology framework for semantic business process management. In A. Oberweis, C. Weinhardt, H. Gimpel, A. Koschmider, V. Pankratius & B. Schnizler (Eds.), eOrganisation: Service-, Prozess-, Market-Engineering. Proceedings der 8. Internationalen Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik, Band 1 (pp. 423–440). Karlsruhe: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
  25. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  26. Höfferer, P. (2007). Achieving business process model interoperability using metamodels and ontologies. In Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1620–1631). St. Gallen.Google Scholar
  27. Knackstedt, R., Lis, Ł., Stein, A., Becker, J., & Barth, I. (2009). Towards a reference model for online research maps. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems. Verona.Google Scholar
  28. Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the university into an organizational actor. In G. Drori, J. Meyer, & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and organization (pp. 241–257). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kugeler, M. (2000). Informationsmodellbasierte Organisationsgestaltung: Modellierungskonventionen und Referenzvorgehensmodell zur prozessorientierten Reorganisation. Doctoral Thesis: University of Münster.Google Scholar
  30. March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Munkvold, B. E., Päivärinta, T., Hodne, A. K., & Stangeland, E. (2003). Contemporary issues of enterprise content management: The case of Statoil. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1364–1383). Naples.Google Scholar
  32. Nunamaker, J. F., Chen, M., & Purdin, T. D. M. (1990). Systems development in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3), 89–106.Google Scholar
  33. Nüttgens, M., & Zimmermann, V. (1998). Geschäftsprozeßmodellierung mit der objektorientierten Ereignisgesteuerten Prozeßkette (oEPK). In M. Maicher & H.-J. Scheruhn (Eds.), InformationsmodellierungBranchen, Software- und Vorgehensreferenzmodelle und Werkzeuge (pp. 23–36). Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  34. Ortner, E. (1997). Methodenneutraler Fachentwurf. Stuttgart: Vieweg & Teubner Verlag.Google Scholar
  35. Ortyl, P., & Pfingstl, S. (2004). Extrahierung bibliographischer Daten aus dem Internet. In Lecture Notes in Informatics, Vol 51 (pp. 203–207). Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI).Google Scholar
  36. Palmisano, J. (2009). Motivating knowledge contribution in virtual communities of practice: Roots, progress and needs. In Proceedings of the 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems. San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Patashnik, O. (1988). BibTeXing. Retrieved March 9, 2013, from
  38. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rahm, E., & Bernstein, P. A. (2001). A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. International Journal on Very Large Data Bases, 10(4), 334–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosemann, M. (1996). Komplexitätsmanagement in Prozeßmodellen. Methodenspezifische Gestaltungsempfehlungen für die Informationsmodellierung. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  41. Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 340–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sabetzadeh, M., Nejati, S., Easterbrook, S., & Chechik, M. (2007). A relationship-driven framework for model merging. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering at the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering. Minneapolis, MN: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  43. Scheepers, R. (2006). A conceptual framework for the implementation of enterprise information portals in large organizations. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(6), 635–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schimank, U. (2005). New public management and the academic profession: Reflections on the German situation. Minerva, 43(4), 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith, H. A., & McKeen, J. D. (2003). Developments in practice VIII: Enterprise content management. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 11(1), 647–659.Google Scholar
  46. Thomas, O., & Fellmann, M. (2009). Semantic process modeling—Design and implementation of an ontology-based representation of business processes. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 1(6), 438–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tyrväinen, P., Päivärinta, T., Salminen, A., & Iivari, J. (2006). Characterizing the evolving research on enterprise content management. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(6), 627–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vail, E. (1999). Knowledge mapping: Getting started with knowledge management. Information Systems and Management, 16(4), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139–146.Google Scholar
  50. Wexler, M. N. (2001). The who, what and why of knowledge mapping. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(3), 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yu, M. Y., Lang, K. R., & Kumar, N. (2010). Supporting better communication in academic communities of practice: An empirical study of AIS/ISWORLD. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 26(1), 305–328.Google Scholar
  52. Zhang, W., & Li, G. (2006). Wonders knowledge portal. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 17(1), 223–238.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European Research Center for Information SystemsUniversity of MuensterMuensterGermany
  2. 2.Viadee Unternehmensberatung GmbHMuensterGermany

Personalised recommendations