pdf 820Kb - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation report of the use of Onto-Logging platform in the user site Deliverable ID: D8b Page : 32 of 110 Version: 1.0 Date: 27 january 2004 Status: Final Confid.: Public components include the Ontology editor, and the Ontology Knowledge Evaluator for its diagnostics functions). The evaluation of technical tools represents a relatively well-known territory, which consist in assessing several dimensions such as: the reliability of the system and its scalability, the richness of the functionalities, the ergonomics, etc. Usability view A second element to be considered is related to the ability the ontology approach to effectively model the concept of domain in a complete way, and to take into account evolution. In order words, are the theories of knowledge representation rich and powerful enough to represent the concepts that need to be represented? A subsidiary question is related to the difficulty to effectively model these concepts: what level of competency is required from an author to model and maintain an ontology (does he need to be a rocket scientist, or is just common sense enough)? Answering these questions may consist in setting up some experiment in modelling the semantic of a particular domain (for instance the tendering process), and measuring the effort required to arrive the definition of an Ontology that satisfy the modelling need of this domain. A final question is related to the amount of effort that is required to create and then, to maintain these ontologies. The experience of using ontologies will help to answer this question and in particular the key question: will the ontologies stabilize rapidly enough to shared ontologies that will require very minimum maintenance, or on the contrary, will we the ontologies will have to enter into a process of constant evolution, in which the concepts of the ontologies will have to be modified, and new concept will have to be introduced to take into account the need of the organization. Organizational view The last element is organizational and relates to role and responsibility: which structure in the organization will be responsible and entitled (has the resources) to author these ontologies? How to guaranty that these ontologies will effectively be adopted by all the parts of the organization? How should conflict on the definition of the semantic be managed? The answer to these questions will have to be addressed as part of the deployment process (related to the non technical dimensions of this deployment). 3.3.4.2 Goal 2: Ontologging for supporting knowledge capitalisation The knowledge capitalization role of Ontologging originates relates from to the formalization of the knowledge of the organization. It has to be reminded that this knowledge can include both very concrete knowledge elements such as documents, but also less tangible elements such as processes knowledge (present in cases, experiences shared in a bulletin board), an expertise (via the explicit representation of people competency). Technical view
Evaluation report of the use of Onto-Logging platform in the user site Deliverable ID: D8b Page : 33 of 110 Version: 1.0 Date: 27 january 2004 Status: Final Confid.: Public The technical elements to be considered here include all the software components that can be used to formalize the knowledge. These elements have already been identified and include: The DUI (Distributed User Interface) and the Office Connector used for representing the most concrete knowledge elements; the user profile editor that is used by people to publish their competency (and other personal information); the OKE for providing a diagnostic of the knowledge enter, and helping the restructuring of this knowledge. As previously indicated, the evaluation of these software components consists in the usual assessment, with a more im portance focussed on productivity and ergonomics (since the capitalisation of knowledge should not become a too important burden for the contributors). Usability view The second element to consider is related to effort necessary for capitalizing the knowledge (annotating knowledge takes time), and its difficulty (bad knowledge annotation may result in a system that generate inaccurate results and noise). Another question has to do with how broadness of this capitalization: will this capitalization concern only the most critical knowledge element of the organization, or will it concern the all knowledge of the organization? The answer to this question will also depend on the productivity of the knowledge capitalization tool. Organizational view The last ele ment is organizational and relates to role and responsibility: which structure in the organization will be responsible and entitled (has the resources) to capitalize the knowledge? Will all the people using the system have an authoring role as part of their activity, or will this knowledge capitalisation role will be dedicated to a limited number of people. In the former case, what will an incentive structure will have to be put in place to encourage this knowledge capitalization, or can we expect that people will spontaneously integrate this task as part of their activity? 3.3.4.3 Goal 3: Ontologging for supporting knowledge retrieval (searching and browsing) The knowledge searching & browsing view relates to the effective retrieval of the knowledge by the people of the organization to better do their work. Technical view The technical elements to be considered here include all the software components that can be used to browse, search and retrieve the knowledge. These elements have already been identified and include: The DUI (Distributed User Interface) for its role searching and browsing functionalities, and the user profile editor for viewing the different people profile. Since these tools represent the main user interface of the system by the users (both expe rts and non-experts) and will finally determine the perceived and substantive value delivered by the system to the organization, a particular emphasis will be the ergonomics of the system, and its powerfulness (expressiveness of the search engine, accurate level of the results).
Page 1 and 2: The ONTO-LOGGING Consortium consist
Page 3 and 4: Evaluation report of the use of Ont
Page 5 and 6: Executive Summary Evaluation report
Page 31: Evaluation report of the use of Ont
Page 53 and 54: • List of connected users to the
Page 67 and 68: 5.5.1 Description of the evaluation
Page 69 and 70: 6 Discussion and Conclusions Evalua
Page 75 and 76: 8 Annex Evaluation report of the us
Page 83 and 84:
Evaluation report of the use of Ont
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
esolver consultas. C42 Existen axio
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
1 The functionalities provided by D
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
show all

pdf 820Kb - INSEAD CALT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?