Ontology Assisted Process Knowledge Acquisition

  • Hugh Cottam
  • Nigel Shadbolt
Conference paper


This paper explains how ontologies can be used in order to assist process oriented knowledge acquisition (KA). It explains what ontologies are and how they can be applied within the context of process oriented KA tasks such as Business Process Reengineering (BPR) initiatives and the construction of company Intranets or knowledge repositories. In particular it explains the rationale behind the development of an ontology based methodology that accompanies the “Process Knowledge Editor” KA tool. The work described is part of the SPEDE project which aims to create a Structured Process Elicitation and Demonstration Environment.


Expert System Knowledge Acquisition Knowledge Level Formal Ontology Knowledge Repository 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Borst, W.N., Akkermans, J.M., & Top, J.L. (1997). Engineering Ontologies. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 46, 365–406. Special Issue on Using Explicit Ontologies in KBS Development.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Breuker, J., Wielinga, B., Van Someren, M., De Hoog, R., Schreiber, G., De Greef, P., Bredeweg, B., Wielemaker, L., Billault, J-P., Davoodi, M. & Hayward, S. (1987). Model driven knowledge acquisition: interpretation models. KADS-I Project Deliverable, University of Amsterdam, Holland 1987.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Breuker, J. & van de Velde, W.(Eds.). (1994) CommonKADS Library for Expertise Modelling. IOS Press, Amsterdam, September 1994.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Cottam, H., Shadbolt, N., & Milton, N. (1998a). Acquiring Knowledge for Business Process Re-Engineering, in: proceedings of AAAI-98 workshop on Using AI for Knowledge Management and Business Process Engineering, July 1998, (also available as technical report from AI Group, University of Nottingham).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Cottam, H., Shadbolt, N. & Milton, N. (1998b). The Use of Ontologies in a Decision Support System for Business Process Re-Engineering in Proceedings of IT & KNOWS Conference of the 15th IFIP World Computer Congress. Vienna/Budapest, August 1998.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Genesereth, M. R., & Fikes, R. E. (1992). Knowledge Interchange Format, Version 3.0 Reference Manual. Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Technical Report Logic-92-1, June 1992.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Gruber, T.R. (1993). Towards Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing, KSL-93-04, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Gruninger, M. & Fox,M.S. (1995). The Logic of Enterprise Modelling. In J. Brown and D.O.Sullivan (eds) Reengineering the Enterprise pp. 3–98. Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    KACTUS Consortium. (1996). The KACTUS Booklet. ESPRIT Project 8145 — Technical Report. 1996.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Lee, J., Grunninger, M., Jin, Y., Malone, T., Tate, A., Yost, G., & other members of the PIF Working Group (1996), The PIF Process Interchange Format and Framework Version 1.1, Proceedings of Workshop on Ontological Engineering, ECAI’96. Budapest, Hungary. (Also available as MIT Center for Coordination Science, Working Paper #194, 1996; and at the following World Wide Web site: http://ccs.mit.edu/pif.)Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Lenat, D. B. & Guha, R. V. (1990). Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Malone, T. W., Crowston, K., Lee, J. & Pentland, B. (1993). Tools for inventing organizations: Toward a handbook of organizational processes. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Enabling Technologies Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises. Morgantown, WV, April 20–22.Google Scholar
  13. [14]
    Meis, E., & Ostermayer, R. (1996). Recommendations to the STEP committee. ESPRIT Project 8145 — Technical Report. 1996.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Milton, N. R., Shadbolt, N. R., Cottam, H. D., and Hammersley, M. (1999) Towards a Knowledge Technology for Knowledge Management, in special issue on Organisational Memories of The International Journal of Human Computer Studies. Fothcoming. 1999.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Newell, A. (1982). The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence, 18: 87–127, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    O’Hara, K., Shadbolt, N. R., Laublet, P., Zacklad, M. & Le Roux, B. (1992). Knowledge acquisition methodology. VITAL deliverable DD212. Nottingham University, UK. 1992.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Schreiber, G., Wielinga, B., & Jansweijer, W. (1995). The KAKTUS View on the “O” Word. In Proceedings of IJCAI95 Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing. Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Sowa, J. F. (1995) Top-Level Ontological Categories, in: International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, p669–685. 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Swartout, W. R., Patil, R., Knight, K., & Russ, T. (1996) Toward Distributed Use of Large-Scale Ontologies. In Proceedings of the Banff Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, Banff, Canada, Nov. 1996.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Uschold, M., & Gruninger, M. (1996) Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(2), 1996. Also available as AIAI-TR-191 from AIAI, The University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugh Cottam
    • 1
  • Nigel Shadbolt
    • 1
  1. 1.AI Group, School of PsychologyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations