Using Cost-Benefit Information in Ontology Engineering Projects

  • Tobias BürgerEmail author
  • Elena Simperl
  • Stephan Wölger
  • Simon Hangl


Instruments to predict the total costs associated with the development, deployment and ownership of ontology-based technologies are a must for their adoption by the industry. In previous work of ours we have introduced a series of models that analyzed and estimated the costs and benefits associated with the development of ontologies and related knowledge structures, and of the applications using them. This chapter can be seen as a continuation of this work as it provides guidelines – both scenario and tool-oriented – that assist project managers in utilizing these models throughout the ontology life cycle.


Knowledge Structure Cost Driver Effort Estimate Ontology Development Link Open Data 
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.



The research leading to this paper was partially supported by the European Commission under the contract FP7-215040 “ACTIVE”.


  1. Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O (2001) The semantic web. Sci Am 284(5):34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bürger T, Simperl E (2008) Measuring the benefits of ontologies. In OTM ’08: proceedings of the OTM confederated international workshops and posters on on the move to meaningful internet systems, pp 584–594. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  3. Bürger T, Popov I, Simperl E, Hofer C, Imtiaz A, Krenge J (2010) Calibrated predictive model for costs and benefits. Deliverable D4.1.2, ACTIVEGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooke N (1994) Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques. Int J Hum Comput Stud 41:801–849zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis J, Fensel D, van Harmelen F (eds) (2003) Towards the semantic web: ontology-driven knowledge management. Wiley, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  6. Ebert C, Dumke R (2007) Software measurement: establish – extract – evaluate – execute. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. Ebert C, Dumke M, Schmietendorf A (2005) Best practices in software measurement. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Fensel D (2001) Ontologies: a silver bullet for knowledge management and electronic commerce. Springer Verlag, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Gomez-Perez A, Suarez-Figueroa M-C, Vigo M (2009) Gontt: a tool for scheduling ontology development projects. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on knowledge capture, ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Hepp M, De Leenheer P, de Moor A, Sure Y (eds) (2008) Ontology management: semantic web, semantic web services, and business applications (semantic web and beyond). Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Imtiaz A, Giernalczyk A, Davies J, Thurlow I (2008) Cost, benefit engineering for collaborative knowledge creation within knowledge workpspaces. In Proceedings of EChallenges 2008.Google Scholar
  12. Imtiaz A, Giernalczyk A, Bürger T, Popov I (2009) A predictive framework for value engineering within collaborative knowledge workspaces. In Proceedings of EChallenges 2009.Google Scholar
  13. McGuinness DL (2003) Ontologies come of age. In Fensel D, Hendler J, Lieberman H, Wahlster C, (eds) Spinning the semantic web: bringing the world wide web to its full potential. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Paslaru Bontas Simperl E, Tempich C, Sure Y (2006) Ontocom: a cost estimation model for ontology engineering. In Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference ISWC2006.Google Scholar
  15. Paslaru Bontas E, Tempich C (2005) How much does it cost? Applying ONTOCOM to DILIGENT. Technical Report TR-B-05-20, Free University of BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. Popov I, Bürger T, Simperl E, Imtiaz A (2009) Preliminary predictive model for costs and benefits. Deliverable D4.1.1, ACTIVE.Google Scholar
  17. Remenyi D, Money A, Sherwood-Smith M, Irani Z (2001) The effective measurement and management of IT costs and benefitsGoogle Scholar
  18. Simperl E, Bürger T (2010) H. Jin, Z. Lv (editors): data management in semantic web, chapter Ontology Reuse – Is it Feasible? Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (to be published)Google Scholar
  19. Simperl E, Mochol M, Bürger T, Popov I (2009a) Achieving maturity: the state of practice in ontology engineering in 2009. In Proceedings of Ontologies, DataBases, and Applications of Semantics for Large Scale Information Systems (ODBASE’09).Google Scholar
  20. Simperl E, Popov I, Bürger T (2009b) ONTOCOM Revisited: towards accurate cost predictions for ontology development projects. In Proceedings of the 6th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2009), pp 248–262Google Scholar
  21. Simperl EPB, Bürger T, Hofer C (2010) Folcom or the costs of tagging. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Knowledge Engineering and Management by the Masses (EKAW2010), pp 163–177Google Scholar
  22. Suarez-Figueroa M, de Cea GA, Buil C, Caracciolo C, Dzbor M, Gomez-Perez A, Herrrero G, Lewen H, Montiel-Ponsoda E, Presutti V (2007) Neon development process and ontology life cycle. NeOn deliverable 5.3.1, NeOnGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Bürger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elena Simperl
    • 2
  • Stephan Wölger
    • 3
  • Simon Hangl
    • 3
  1. 1.MunichGermany
  2. 2.Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.Semantic Technology Institute, ICT – Technologie Park InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations