Enterprise Knowledge Structures

  • Basil EllEmail author
  • Elena Simperl
  • Stephan Wölger
  • Benedikt Kämpgen
  • Simon Hangl
  • Denny Vrandečić
  • Katharina Siorpaes


One of the major aims of knowledge management has always been to facilitate the sharing and reuse of knowledge. Over the years a long list of technologies and tools pursuing this aim have been proposed, using different types of conceptual structures to capture the knowledge that individuals and groups communicate and exchange. This chapter is concerned with these knowledge structures and their development, maintenance and use within corporate environments. Enterprise knowledge management as we know it today often follows a predominantly community-driven approach to meet its organizational and technical challenges. It builds upon the power of mass collaboration and social software combined with intelligent machine-driven information management technology delivered though formal semantics. The knowledge structures underlying contemporary enterprise knowledge management platforms are diverse, from database tables deployed company-wide to files in proprietary formats used by scripts, from loosely defined folksonomies describing content through tags to highly formalized ontologies through which new enterprise knowledge can be automatically derived. Leveraging such structures requires a knowledge management environment which not only exposes them in an integrated fashion, but also allows knowledge workers to adjust and customize them according to their specific needs. We discuss how the Semantic MediaWiki provides such an environment – not only as an easy-to-use, highly versatile communication and collaboration medium, but also as an integration and knowledge engineering tool targeting the full range of enterprise knowledge structures currently used.


Knowledge Management Knowledge Structure Knowledge Worker Ontological Primitive Enterprise Knowledge 
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.


  1. Ankolekar A, Krötzsch M, Tran T, Vrandečić D (2007) The two cultures: mashing up web 2.0 and the semantic web. In: WWW ’07: proceedings of the 16th international conference on world wide web, ACM Press, New York, pp 825–834, ISBN 9781595936547. doi: 10.1145/1242572.1242684, URL 2007
  2. Begelman G, Keller P, Smadja F (2006) Automated tag clustering: improving search and exploration in the tag space. In: Proceedings of the collaborative web tagging workshop co-located with the 15th international world wide web conference (WWW2006), 2006Google Scholar
  3. Cattuto C, Loreto V, Pletronero L (2007a) Semiotic dynamics and collaborative tagging. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A 104(5):1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cattuto C, Schmitz C, Baldassarri A, Servedio VDP, Loreto V, Hotho A, Grahl M, Stumme G (2007b) Network properties of folksonomies. AI Commun 20(4):245–262MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Drakos N, Rozwell C, Bradley A, Mann J (2009) Magic quadrant for social software in the workplace. Gartner RAS core research note G00171792, Gartner. Accessed date Jan 2010
  6. Ell B (2009) Integration of external data in semantic wikis. Master thesis, Hochschule, Mannheim, 2009Google Scholar
  7. Fellbaum C (1998) WordNet: an electronic lexical database. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Fensel D (2001) Ontologies: silver bullet for knowledge management and electronic commerce. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Gangemi A, Guarino N, Masolo C, Oltramari A, Schneider L (2002) Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. vol 2473 of Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (LNAI), Springer, Siguenza, Spain, pp 166–181, ISBN 3-540-44268-5Google Scholar
  10. Gene Ontology Consortium (2000) Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet 25:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grau BC, Horrocks I, Motik B, Parsia B, Patel-Schneider P, Sattler U (2008) OWL 2: the next step for OWL. Web Semant Sci Serv Agent World Wide Web 6(4):309–322. ISSN 1570–8268. doi:
  12. Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl Acquis 5(2):199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guarino N (1998) Formal ontology and information systems. In: Guarino N (ed) Proceedings of the first international conference on formal ontologies in information systems (FOIS), vol 46 of Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, IOS-Press, Trento, Italy, 1998Google Scholar
  14. Haase P, Herzig DM, Musen M, Tran DT (2009) Semantic wiki search. In: 6th annual european semantic web conference, ESWC2009, vol 5554 of LNCS. Springer Verlag, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, pp 445–460, Juni 2009Google Scholar
  15. Hartmann J, Sure Y, Haase P, Palma R, Suárez-Figueroa MC (2005) OMV – Ontology metadata vocabulary. In: Welty C (ed) Ontology patterns for the semantic web workshop, Galway, Ireland, 2005Google Scholar
  16. Horrocks I, Patel-Schneider PF (2004) Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. J Web Semant 1(4):7–26Google Scholar
  17. Krötzsch M, Vrandečić D, Völkel M, Haller H, Studer R (2007) Semantic wikipedia. J Web Semant 5:251–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lenat DB (1995) CYC: a large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Commun ACM 38(11):33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leveshtein VI (1966) Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10:707–710Google Scholar
  20. McGuiness DL (2003) Ontologies come of age. In: Fensel D, Hendler J, Lieberman H, Wahlster W (eds) Spinning the semantic web: bringing the world wide web to its full potential. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. Motik B, Grau BC, Horrocks I, Wu Z, Fokoue A, Lutz C (2008) OWL2 web ontology language: profiles. W3C Working Draft 2 December 2008, Available at
  22. Pease A, Niles I, Li J (2002) The suggested upper merged ontology: a large ontology for the semantic web and its applications. In: Working notes of the AAAI-2002 workshop on ontologies and the semantic web, 2002Google Scholar
  23. Simperl E, Wölger S, Bürger T, Siorpaes K, Han S-K, Luger M (2010) An ontology authoring tool for the enterprise 3.0. Taylor and Francis Publishing, 2010, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Simpson E (2008) Clustering tags in enterprise and web folksonomies. Technical Report HPL-2008-18, HP Labs, 2008Google Scholar
  25. Sowa JF (1995) Top-level ontological categories. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43(5/6):669–685. ISSN 1071–5819. doi:
  26. Specia L, Motta E (2007) Integrating folksonomies with the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the 4th European semantic web conference (ESWC2007), pp 624–639, 2007Google Scholar
  27. Uschold M, Grueninger M (1996) Ontologies Principles, Methods and Applications. Knowledge Engineering Review 11(2):93–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vrandečić D (2009) Towards automatic content quality checks in semantic wikis. In: Social semantic web: where web 2.0 meets web 3.0, AAAI spring symposium, Springer, Stanford, CA, March 2009aGoogle Scholar
  29. Vrandečić D (2009) Ontology evaluation. PhD thesis, Karlsruhe Institute for Technology, Germany, 2009bGoogle Scholar
  30. Vrandečić D, Krötzsch M (2006) Reusing ontological background knowledge in semantic wikis. In: Völkel M, Schaffert S (eds) Proceedings of the first workshop on semantic wikis – from wiki to semantics, Workshop on Semantic Wikis. AIFB, ESWC2006, June 2006. URL

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Basil Ell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elena Simperl
    • 1
  • Stephan Wölger
    • 2
  • Benedikt Kämpgen
    • 1
  • Simon Hangl
    • 2
  • Denny Vrandečić
    • 1
  • Katharina Siorpaes
    • 2
  1. 1.Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.STI Innsbruck, University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations