Ontology Engineering and Evolution in a Distributed World Using DILIGENT

Chapter
Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)

Summary

Existing mature ontology engineering approaches are based on some basic assumptions that are often neglected in practice.

Ontologies often need to be built in a decentralized way, ontologies must be given to a community in a way such that individuals have partial autonomy over them, ontologies have a life cycle that involves an iteration back and forth between construction/modification and use and ontologies should support the participation of non-expert users in ontology engineering processes.

While recently there have been some initial proposals to consider these issues, they lack the appropriate rigor of mature approaches. i.e. these recent proposals lack the appropriate depth of methodological description, which makes the methodology usable, and they lack a proof of concept by concrete cases studies. In this paper, we describe the DILIGENT methodology that takes decentralization, partial autonomy, iteration and non-expert builders into account and we demonstrate its proof-ofconcept in two real-world organizational case studies.

References

  1. 1.
    V. R. Benjamins, D. Fensel, S. Decker, and A. Gómez-Pérez. (KA)2: Building ontologies for the internet. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (IJHCS), 51(1):687–712, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Dellschaft, H. Engelbrecht, J. M. Barreto, S. Rutenbeck, and S. Staab. Cicero: Tracking design rationale in collaborative ontology engineering. In ESWC, volume 5021 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 782–786. Springer, Berlin, 2008.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Farquhar et al. The ontolingua server: A tool for collaborative ontology construction. Technical report KSL 96–26, Stanford, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Gómez-Pérez, M. Fernández-López, and O. Corcho. Ontological Engineering. Advanced Information and Knowlege Processing. Springer, Berlin, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. W. Holsapple and K. D. Joshi. A collaborative approach to ontology design. Communications of the ACM, 45(2):42–47, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Kotis, G. A. Vouros, and Jerónimo Padilla Alonso. HCOME: Tool-supported methodology for collaboratively devising living ontologies. In SWDB’04: Second International Workshop on Semantic Web and Databases 29–30 August 2004 Co-located with VLDB. Springer, Berlin, 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Maedche, B. Motik, and L. Stojanovic. Managing multiple and distributed ontologies on the semantic web. The VLDB Journal, 12(4):286–302, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. Noy, A. Chugh, W. Liu, and M. A. Musen. A framework for ontology evolution in collaborative environments. In International Semantic Web Conference, volume 4273 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 544–558. Springer, Berlin, 2006.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Pease and J. Li. Agent-mediated knowledge engineering collaboration. In L. van Elst, V. Dignum, and A. Abecker, editors, Agent-Mediated Knowledge Management International Symposium AMKM 2003 Stanford, CA, USA, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI) 2926, pages 405–415. Springer, Berlin, 2003.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. S. Pinto and J. P. Martins. A methodology for ontology integration. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP2001), pages 131–138. ACM Press, New York, 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. S. Pinto, S. Staab, Y. Sure, and C. Tempich. OntoEdit empowering SWAP: A case study in supporting DIstributed, Loosely-controlled and evolvInG Engineering of oNTologies (DILIGENT). In C. Bussler, J. Davies, D. Fensel, and R. Studer, editors, First European Semantic Web Symposium, ESWS 2004, volume 3053 of LNCS, pages 16–30, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May. Springer, Berlin, 2004.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. S. Pinto, S. Staab, and C. Tempich. DILIGENT: Towards a fine-grained methodology for DIstributed, Loosely-controlled and evolvInG Engineering of oNTologies. In R. L. de Mántaras and L. Saitta, editors, Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), pages 393–397, Valencia, Spain, August 2004. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Sofia Pinto and J. P. Martins. Evolving Ontologies in Distributed and Dynamic Settings. In D. Fensel, F. Giunchiglia, D. L. McGuiness, and M.-A. Williams, editors, KR2002 Proceedings. Morgan Kaufmann, San Fransisco, CA, 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Pirlein and R. Studer. An environment for reusing ontologies within a knowledge engineering approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43(5):945–965, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. I. Sucasas, C. Caracciolo, C. Baldassarre, and Y. Jaques. Revised specifications of user requirements for the Fisheries case study. NeOn deliverable 7.1.2, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Y. Sure, M. Erdmann, J. Angele, S. Staab, R. Studer, and D. Wenke. Ontoedit: Collaborative ontology development for the semantic web. In International Semantic Web Conference, volume 2342 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 221–235. Springer, Berlin, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Y. Sure, S. Staab, and R. Studer. On-to-knowledge methodology. In S. Staab and R. Studer, editors, Handbook on Ontologies in Information Systems. Springer, Berlin, 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Tempich, H. S. Pinto, S. Staab, and Y. Sure. A case study in supporting DIstributed, Loosely-controlled and evolvInG Engineering of oNTologies (DILIGENT). In K. Tochtermann and H. Maurer, editors, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Knowledge Management (I-KNOW’04), pages 225–232, Graz, Austria, June 30–July 02 2004. Journal of Universal Computer Science (JUCS).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Tempich, H. S. Pinto, Y. Sure, and S. Staab. An argumentation ontology for DIstributed, Loosely-controlled and evolvInG Engineering processes of oNTologies (DILIGENT). In C. Bussler, J. Davies, D. Fensel, and R. Studer, editors, Second European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2005, LNCS, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May. Springer, Berlin, 2005.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Tempich. Ontology Engineering and Routing in Distributed Knowledge Management Applications. PhD thesis, Karlsruhe University, 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. Tempich, H. S. Pinto, and S. Staab. Ontology engineering revisited: An iterative case study. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Semantic Web Conference, 2006.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Tempich, H. S. Pinto, Y. Sure, D. Vrandecic, N. Casellas, and P. Casanovas. Evaluating DILIGENT Ontology Engineering in a Legal Case Study. In P. Casanovas, P. Noriega, D. Bourcier, and V. R. Benjamins, editors, IVR 22nd World Congress – Law and Justice in a Global Society. International Association for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, 2005.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    C. Tempich, E. Simperl, H. S. Pinto, M. Luczak, and R. Studer. Argumentation-based ontology engineering. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22:52–29, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Uschold and M. King. Towards a methodology for building ontologies. In Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, held in conjunction with IJCAI-95, Montreal, Canada, 1995.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. Vrandečić, H. S. Pinto, Y. Sure, and C. Tempich. The diligent knowledge processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(5):85–96, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dep. de Engenharia InformáticaInstituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco PaisLisboaPortugal
  2. 2.Institute AIFBUniversity of Karlsruhe (TH)KarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.ISWebUniversity of Koblenz LandauKoblenzGermany

Personalised recommendations