An Ontology-Based Knowledge Representation of MCDA Methods

  • Jarosław Wątróbski
  • Jarosław JankowskiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9621)


Multiple-criteria decision analysis methods are widely used as tools supporting a decision problem. The article presents the taxonomy of the methods, which takes into consideration the most essential characteristics. This taxonomy, in the conceptualization process, was written by means of description logic and then it was implemented in the OWL language in the form of ontology representing field knowledge in the scope of MCDA methods. The research also considers the ontology verification prepared with the use of competency questions.


Ontology Multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) Knowledge management 



The work was partially supported by European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 316097 [ENGINE] and by the National Science Centre, the decision no. DEC-2013/09/B/ST6/02317.


  1. 1.
    Greco, S.: A new PCCA method: IDRA. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 98(3), 587–601 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Matarazzo, B.: Multicriterion analysis of preferences by means of pairwise actions and criterion comparisons. Appl. Math. Comput. 18(2), 119–141 (1986)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matarazzo, B.: Preference ranking global frequencies in multicriterion analysis (Pragma). Eur. J. Oper. Res. 36(1), 36–49 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giarlotta, A.: Passive and Active Compensability Multicriteria ANalysis (PACMAN). J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 7(4), 204–216 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Keyser, W.S.M., Peeters, P.H.M.: ARGUS – a new multiple criteria method based on the general idea of outranking. In: Paruccini, M. (ed.) Applying Multiple Criteria Aid for Decision to Environmental Management, pp. 263–278. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paelinck, J.H.P.: Qualitative multiple criteria analysis, environmental protection and multiregional development. Pap. Reg. Sci. Assoc. 36(1), 59–74 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fishburn, P.C.: Exceptional paper-lexicographic orders, utilities and decision rules: a survey. Manage. Sci. 20(11), 1442–1471 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vansnick, J.C.: On the problem of weights in multiple criteria decision making (the noncompensatory approach). Eur. J. Oper. Res. 24(2), 288–294 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bana e Costa, C.A., Vansnick, J.C.: MACBETH — An interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 1(4), 489–500 (1994)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mikhailov, L., Tsvetinov, P.: Evaluation of services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Appl. Soft Comput. 5(1), 23–33 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Promentilla, M.A.B., Furuichi, T., Ishii, K., Tanikawa, N.: A fuzzy analytic network process for multi-criteria evaluation of contaminated site remedial countermeasures. J. Env. Manag. 88(3), 479–495 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang, T.C., Chen, L.Y., Chen, Y.H.: applying fuzzy PROMETHEE method for evaluating IS outsourcing suppliers. In: Fifth International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 3, pp. 361 – 365 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Munda, G.: Multicriteria Evaluation in a Fuzzy Environment. Theory and Applications in Ecological Economics. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guitouni, A., Martel, J.M., Belanger, M., Hunter, C.: Managing a Decision Making Situation in the Context of the Canadian Airspace Protection. DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL 1999-021 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen, C.T., Lin, C.T., Huang, S.F.: A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 102(2), 289–301 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sałabun, W.: The characteristic objects method: a new distance-based approach to multicriteria decision-making problems. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 22(1–2), 37–50 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martel, J.M., Matarazzo, B.: Other outranking approaches. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 197–262. Springer, Boston (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bana e Costa, C.A., Vincke, P.: Multiple criteria decision aid: an overview. In: Bana e Costa, C.A. (ed.) Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid, pp. 3–14. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bagheri Moghaddam, N., Nasiri, M., Mousavi, S.M.: An appropriate multiple criteria decision making method for solving electricity planning problems, addressing sustainability issue. Int. J. Env. Sci. Technol. 8(3), 605–620 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guitouni, A., Martel, J.M.: Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 109(2), 501–521 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roy, B.: Paradigms and challenges. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 3–24. Springer, Boston (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Hepp, M.: Ontologies: state of the art, business potential, and grand challenges. In: Hepp, M., de Leenheer, P., de Moor, A., Sure, Y. (eds.) Ontology Management. Semantic Web, Semantic Web Services, and Business Applications, pp. 2–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J.: Knowledge management in MCDA domain. In: Proceedings of the Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems. Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, vol. 5, pp. 1445–1450 (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ziemba, P., Jankowski, J., Watróbski, J., Becker, J.: Knowledge management in website quality evaluation domain. In: Núñez, M., Nguyen, N.T., Camacho, D., Trawinski, B. (eds.) ICCCI 2015. LNCS, vol. 9330, pp. 75–85. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24306-1_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl. Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    Chai, J., Liu, J.N.K.: An ontology-driven framework for supporting complex decision process. In: World Automation Congress (WAC) (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Piotrowski, Z.: The selection of multicriteria method based on unstructured decision problem description. In: Hwang, D., Jung, J.J., Nguyen, N.-T. (eds.) ICCCI 2014. LNCS, vol. 8733, pp. 454–465. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liao, X.Y., Rocha Loures, E., Canciglieri, O., Panetto, H.: A novel approach for ontological representation of analytic hierarchy process. Adv. Mater. Res. 988, 675–682 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kornyshova, E., Deneckere, R.: Using an ontology for modeling decision-making knowledge. Front. Artif. Intell. Appl. 243, 1553–1562 (2012)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kornyshova, E., Deneckère, R.: Decision-Making ontology for information system engineering. In: Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 104–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Roy, B.: Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding. Springer, Dordrecht (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Velasquez, M., Hester, P.T.: An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int. J. Oper. Res. 10(2), 56–66 (2013)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Della Valle, E., Ceri, S.: Querying the semantic web: SPARQL. In: Domingue, J., Fensel, D., Hendler, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies, pp. 299–363. Springer, Berlin (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    Piegat, A., Sałabun, W.: Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for assessing the severity of chronic liver disease. In: Rutkowski, L., Korytkowski, M., Scherer, R., Tadeusiewicz, R., Zadeh, L.A., Zurada, J.M. (eds.). LNCS, vol. 9119, pp. 228–238Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ziemba, P., Jankowski, J., Wątróbski, J., Wolski, W., Becker, J.: Integration of domain ontologies in the repository of website evaluation methods. In: Proceedings of the Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems. Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, vol. 5, pp. 1585–1595 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.West Pomeranian University of TechnologySzczecinPoland
  2. 2.Department of Computational IntelligenceWrocław University of TechnologyWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations