Ontologies and the Semantic Web

Grimm, Stephan; Abecker, Andreas; Völker, Johanna; Studer, Rudi

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92913-0_13

Cited by 39 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 116 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several aspects of an ontology are captured by this definition: the aspects of formality, explicitness, conceptuality, consensus, and domain specificity which explained in the following paragraphs [5]:…”

Section: Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ontology engineering methodologies include essentially three steps explained as follows [39][40] [5]:  Requirements Analysis: the process of ontology engineering starts, typically with a complete analysis of the requirements that occurs in the original application scenario. These requirements should be described by the ontology engineer or domain expert on the basis of the document of ontology requirements specification (useful as a basis for subsequent modeling activities and quality assurance).…”

Section: Generic Ontology Engineering Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Study Investigating Knowledge-based Engineering Methodologies Analysis

Slimani¹

2015

IJCA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is now commonly accepted that building ontology is a key step in the development of knowledge based systems. A quite number of methodologies for ontology development have been proposed in the literature. However, this field still lacks mature methodologies which provide a clear vision for how to build ontologies. Most methodologies provide insufficient details about their adopted techniques and activities. This paper gives a preliminary guide which analysis and discusses some selected methodologies for ontology building. The important criteria and guidelines resulting from current literature have been adapted to perform this discussion and analysis. The performed analysis showed as outcomes that the existing methodology needs and additional hard work to be mature.

show abstract

Section: Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Generic Ontology Engineering Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study Investigating Knowledge-based Engineering Methodologies Analysis

Slimani¹

2015

IJCA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These descriptions are of interest to understand the interactions and interrelations of these objects. Consequently, ontologies provide an adequate tool to formally define this knowledge and to make it accessible to either people or to information systems (Grimm, Hitzler and Abecker 2007). This knowledge is modelled in a graph data structure which differs from a standard SDI data structure.…”

Section: Higeomes: Distributed Geodatabases In Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

Across Space and Time

Fleury¹,

Madeleine²,

Lefèvre

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Top-level ontologies describe abstract and general concepts (Grimm, Abecker, Völker, & Studer, 2011) such as space, time, matter, objects, events, or actions. Because these ontologies are independent of any domain (Guarino, 1998), top-level ontologies can be shared across different domains and applications, and reused as a basis for developing domain ontologies (Grimm et al, 2011).…”

Section: Ontology Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because these ontologies are independent of any domain (Guarino, 1998), top-level ontologies can be shared across different domains and applications, and reused as a basis for developing domain ontologies (Grimm et al, 2011). Some examples of top-level ontologies are Cyc's Upper Ontology (Lenat & Guha, 1989), Standard Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) (Milton & Smith, 2004), and the Basic Formal Ontology (Grenon & Smith, 2004).…”

Section: Ontology Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of using domain ontologies to facilitate shared understanding and cross-understanding in groups

Marin¹,

Nelson²

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shared cognition constructs, such as shared understanding and cross-understanding, are important factors for task performance in groups in organizations. Shared understanding defines the extent of common understanding of a topic among group members, whereas cross-understanding defines the extent to which group members accurately understand the mental model of another group member regarding a specific topic. Although research in different fields has focused on understanding the theoretical effects of these constructs, little emphasis has been placed on improving their development. In Information Systems and related fields, shared understanding of a domain is said to be facilitated using a domain ontology -a domain ontology is a description of concepts and their interrelationships in a domain, and are generally represented in a graphical way. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the benefit of domain ontologies facilitating shared understanding. Accordingly, to address this knowledge deficit regarding the mechanisms to enhance shared understanding and cross-understanding, and the lack of empirical evidence regarding the effect of domain ontologies on shared understanding, this study aims to explore the effect of domain-ontology usage on shared understanding and crossunderstanding in novice group members. Accordingly, we propose a theoretical model that describes the effect of domain-ontology usage on shared understanding and crossunderstanding of domains in groups. To empirically test our model, we focus on a domain ontology developed specifically for providing shared understanding of the compliance management domain. We then tested our proposed model through an experimental research design. Our experimental research design considered a two-group, post-test only, randomized experimental design with a sample of student participants. The results of our experiments indicate that group members who use a domain ontology develop significantly higher levels of shared understanding than those who do not use a domain ontology.Secondly, group members who use a domain ontology have significantly better communication quality in terms of discussion efficiency and communication clarity than those who do not use a domain ontology. Our study also found that group members who use a domain ontology develop a significantly greater cross-understanding than those who do not use a domain ontology. The outcomes of this study are expected to contribute to both theory and practice. From a theoretical perspective, we contribute the model of domainontology effects in facilitating shared understanding and cross-understanding, as well as the operationalization and testing of the cross-understanding construct. From a practical iii perspective, we contribute by improving the understanding of the role domain ontologies can play as a tool to help improve performance in groups.iv

show abstract

Ontologies and the Semantic Web

Cited by 39 publications

References 116 publications

A Study Investigating Knowledge-based Engineering Methodologies Analysis

A Study Investigating Knowledge-based Engineering Methodologies Analysis

Across Space and Time

Effect of using domain ontologies to facilitate shared understanding and cross-understanding in groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About