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 : 54 of 110 Version: 1.0 Date: 27 january 2004 Status: Final Confid.: Public Being allocated to different projects, writing projects proposals for various clients and proposing IT solutions are current tasks for Indra’s knowledge workers. The access to the right information and collaboration with experts help their efficiency and help them taking better decisions. Therefore it is necessary to make experience of people more visible in organization. The need “to know what people know, to make their experience with technology and products accessible” and “to find the right people” is useful for solving everyday tasks. These needs of the users validate the main research challenges of the project namely: • Research on mechanisms to better structuring and reusing knowledge (e.g. ontologies), • Research on more powerful mechanisms for searching and retrieving knowledge (e.g. advanced query mechanisms and the use of semantics annotations for retrieving knowledge), • Personalized information spaces for avoiding a condition of information overload and easiness of the use of the system (e.g. taking into account preferences of the users, the users’ needs, etc) • Better management of the tacit knowledge expressed as: “to know what people know and to make their experience with technology and products accessible”. 5.2 Phase 1: Ontology Building (and some content population) Ontologies aim to structure and represent domain knowledge in a generic way which may be reused and shared across applications and groups. “Disparate backgrounds, languages, tools and techniques are a major barrier to effective communication among people, organizations and/or software systems (…) the implementation of an explicit account of a shared understanding (i.e. an “ontology”) in a given subject area, can improve such communication, which in turn can give rise to greater reuse and sharing, interoperability and more reliable software.” (Uschold and Gruninger, 1996). 5.2.1 Ontology building (at INDRA) 5.2.1.1 Description of the building process The process of knowledge domain modelling at INDRA, namely the tendering process modelling, went through an iterative phase in order to get to a shared understanding of concepts, to get to a complete ontology and to reach consensus towards the definition of concepts. The process of building the domain ontology was used in the process of the evaluation of the ontology modelling processes and tools. The design and implementation of the domain ontology at INDRA brought some interesting insights, which were captured through a specialized questionnaire. The questionnaire is attached in Annex 6.
Evaluation report of the use of Onto-Logging platform in the user site Deliverable ID: D8b Page : 55 of 110 Version: 1.0 Date: 27 january 2004 Status: Final Confid.: Public In a first phase, the ontology modelling process was assessed at INDRA during may-june. A Spanish questionnaire was designed with this purpose. (See Annex 7) Some conclusions drawn by the ontology engineers are briefly summarized bellow: • Related to ontology’s concepts: It is very important that the concepts match the domain’s needs. Concept relevance is more important that completeness. The number of concepts defined is not important. • Related to ontology’s relations: It is very important that relations match the domain’s reality. • Related to the visual clarity of the ontology: It is very important that the ontology interface displays in a clear manner the information captured in the ontology. From this experience of building and refining the domain ontology we have extracted some thoughts of the ontology engineers. The ontology engineers from Indra and Meta4 were asked to share their experience related to the ontology modelling process. The questionnaire was designed with the purpose to capture their experience, problems and it was complemented with some discussions via telephone. Indra and Meta4 faced different problems. The first domain ontology used at Indra faced a series of problems at the usage stage. For example the terminology used in the everyday tasks by the knowledge workers was not the same with the conceptualization of the domain ontology. A set of too generic concepts were confusing for the end-users so they were misused or used for everything. Implicitly too specific concepts were never used. A set of missing concepts has been also identified at the usage. 5.2.1.2 Findings and analysis The ontology reengineering process emphasized the fact that getting to a shared conceptualization is not a straightforward process . The design of good domain ontology is an iterative process. Amongst the main reasons that determined the ontology reengineering process are: 1. The initial ontology wasn’t offering enough support for the given scenario (tender, development, technology) 2. The initial ontology was not complete 3. The terminology used was not consistent with the general usage 4. It is difficult to reach a consensus towards a definition of concepts
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 53: • 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 93 and 94: esolver consultas. C42 Existen axio
Page 103 and 104: 1 The functionalities provided by D
Page 105 and 106:
Evaluation report of the use of Ont
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
show all

pdf 820Kb - INSEAD CALT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?