Toward to operationalization of socio-technical ontology engineering methodology

Collaborative Ontology Engineering Methodologies for the Development of Decision Support Systems: Case Studies in the Healthcare Domain

“…This is particularly important as often ontology engineers underestimate the efforts to be undertaken in the following phases and the importance of a methodological framework, as recognized in early years [21]. Even if competencies, requirements of the ontology and scenarios in which the ontology should be used are generally specified in all OEMs, the feasibility study is only cited by Fernández-López and Gómez-Pérez [20] (and also in a methodology proposed by Sensuse et al [43]). Some authors refer to the existence of general "preliminary tasks" as the definition of a strategy for building the ontology, including the level of expertise of available domain experts and the type of ontology-however, not even these preliminary tasks are analyzed in detail.…”

“…Specification of domain and acquisition of knowledge should be supported by training seminars, important for understanding the terminology of the core of ontologies for stakeholders who are unfamiliar or have a controversial understanding [39]. At the same time, it is fundamental to dedicate attention to the design (and planning) phase, including related documentation, as the decisions and activities taken have major influence on the success (or failure) of the ontologies developed [20,38,43]. Finally, existing reviews show that the stage of evaluation is well-supported by means of reference frameworks or formal logics [22], but it is important that is not developed as the ending of the process of building ontology, rather than a continuous process providing feedback for other related activities [43].…”

“…At the same time, it is fundamental to dedicate attention to the design (and planning) phase, including related documentation, as the decisions and activities taken have major influence on the success (or failure) of the ontologies developed [20,38,43]. Finally, existing reviews show that the stage of evaluation is well-supported by means of reference frameworks or formal logics [22], but it is important that is not developed as the ending of the process of building ontology, rather than a continuous process providing feedback for other related activities [43]. All these insights further highlight the importance of developing ontologies that should be primarily aimed to be kept alive, and to adopt OEMs that increase their reuse potential, as it is the case of some collaborative OEMs reviewed in [22].…”

“…Some reviews include also the comparison with the IEEE standard for software development as its processes include several aspects and activities that are useful also in ontology engineering, but their results show that very few OEMs include management aspects (e.g., [20]). Furthermore, criteria as the roles and needs of stakeholders (including domain experts, knowledge workers-persons working with their knowledge and know-hows to solve problems-communities), the focus on collaborative engineering processing or construction, and the recommended lifecycle, have been mainly considered in the more recent reviews or surveys [22,38,39,42,43]. Kotis et al [22] argue that a key trend in OEMs is the adoption of collaborative methodologies, supported by already available and well-known tools.…”

Sustainability Requirements of Digital Twin-Based Systems: A Meta Systematic Literature Review

“…Jay [48] (NS9) identifies the infrastructure requirements for the creation of DTs. In addition, the author assumes that after 2015, simulation is a core functionality of systems using seamless assistance along their entire life cycle, i.e., supporting operation and service with a direct link to operation data.…”