본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
22대 대한민국 국회 국회정보길라잡이 국회의원검색
회원가입 로그인
HOME

정보검색

소장정보 검색

국회도서관 홈으로 정보검색 소장정보 검색
결과 내 검색 동의어 포함
결과 내 검색 동의어 포함

-

목차보기

Contents

Using the methontology approach to a graduation screen ontology development : an experiential investigation of the methontology framework / Jinsoo Park ; Kimoon Sung ; Sewon Moon 1

[요약] 1

I. Introduction 3

II. GSO Development Approach: METHONTOLOGY 4

III. Ontology Building Process 7

3.1. Specification 7

3.2. Conceptualization 9

3.3. Formalization and Implementation 15

3.4. Evaluation 18

IV. Discussion 20

4.1. Drawbacks of METHONTOLOGY 21

4.2. Drawbacks of OWL and Protege-OWL(이미지참조) 24

V. Conclusion 26

〈References〉 27

◆ About the Authors ◆ 31

초록보기

Ontologies have been adopted in various business and scientific communities as a key component of the Semantic Web. Despite the increasing importance of ontologies, ontology developers still perceive construction tasks as a challenge. A clearly defined and well-structured methodology can reduce the time required to develop an ontology and increase the probability of success of a project. However, no reliable knowledge-engineering methodology for ontology development currently exists; every methodology has been tailored toward the development of a particular ontology.

In this study, we developed a Graduation Screen Ontology (GSO). The graduation screen domain was chosen for the several reasons. First, the graduation screen process is a complicated task requiring a complex reasoning process. Second, GSO may be reused for other universities because the graduation screen process is similar for most universities. Finally, GSO can be built within a given period because the size of the selected domain is reasonable.

No standard ontology development methodology exists; thus, one of the existing ontology development methodologies had to be chosen. The most important considerations for selecting the ontology development methodology of GSO included whether it can be applied to a new domain; whether it covers a broader set of development tasks; and whether it gives sufficient explanation of each development task. We evaluated various ontology development methodologies based on the evaluation framework proposed by G?ez-P?ez et al. We concluded that METHONTOLOGY was the most applicable to the building of GSO for this study.

METHONTOLOGY was derived from the experience of developing Chemical Ontology at the Polytechnic University of Madrid by Fern?dez-L?ez et al. and is regarded as the most mature ontology development methodology. METHONTOLOGY describes a very detailed approach for building an ontology under a centralized development environment at the conceptual level. This methodology consists of three broad processes,

with each process containing specific sub-processes: management (scheduling, control, and quality assurance); development (specification, conceptualization, formalization, implementation, and maintenance); and support process (knowledge acquisition, evaluation, documentation, configuration management, and integration).

An ontology development language and ontology development tool for GSO construction also had to be selected. We adopted OWL-DL as the ontology development language. OWL was selected because of its computational quality of consistency in checking and classification, which is crucial in developing coherent and useful ontological models for very complex domains. In addition, Prot??OWL was chosen for an ontology development tool because it is supported by METHONTOLOGY and is widely used because of its platform-independent characteristics.

Based on the GSO development experience of the researchers, some issues relating to the METHONTOLOGY, OWL-DL, and Prot??OWL were identified. We focused on presenting drawbacks of METHONTOLOGY and discussing how each weakness could be addressed. First, METHONTOLOGY insists that domain experts who do not have ontology construction experience can easily build ontologies. However, it is still difficult for these domain experts to develop a sophisticated ontology, especially if they have insufficient background knowledge related to the ontology. Second, METHONTOLOGY does not include a development stage called the "feasibility study." This pre-development stage helps developers ensure not only that a planned ontology is necessary and sufficiently valuable to begin an ontology building project, but also to determine whether the project will be successful. Third, METHONTOLOGY excludes an explanation on the use and integration of existing ontologies. If an additional stage for considering reuse is introduced, developers might share benefits of reuse. Fourth, METHONTOLOGY fails to address the importance of collaboration. This methodology needs to explain the allocation of specific tasks to different developer groups, and how to combine these tasks once specific given jobs are completed. Fifth, METHONTOLOGY fails to suggest the methods and techniques applied in the conceptualization stage sufficiently. Introducing methods of concept extraction from multiple informal sources or methods of identifying relations may enhance the quality of ontologies. Sixth, METHONTOLOGY does not provide an evaluation process to confirm whether WebODE perfectly transforms a conceptual ontology into a formal ontology. It also does not guarantee whether the outcomes of the conceptualization stage are completely reflected in the implementation stage. Seventh, METHONTOLOGY needs to add criteria for user evaluation of the actual use of the constructed ontology under user environments. Eighth, although METHONTOLOGY allows continual knowledge acquisition while working on the ontology development process, consistent updates can be difficult for developers. Ninth, METHONTOLOGY demands that developers complete various documents during the conceptualization stage; thus, it can be considered a heavy methodology. Adopting an agile methodology will result in reinforcing active communication among developers and reducing the burden of documentation completion.

Finally, this study concludes with contributions and practical implications. No previous research has addressed issues related to METHONTOLOGY from empirical experiences; this study is an initial attempt. In addition, several lessons learned from the development experience are discussed. This study also affords some insights for ontology methodology researchers who want to design a more advanced ontology development methodology.

권호기사

권호기사 목록 테이블로 기사명, 저자명, 페이지, 원문, 기사목차 순으로 되어있습니다.
기사명 저자명 페이지 원문 목차
Structural analysis of e-government in India Rangamani Basettihalli ;Hee-Woong Kim ;Hyun-Lyung Lee ;Seung-Eui Noh pp.1-21

보기
Customer level classification model using ordinal multiclass support vector machines Kyoung-jae Kim ;Hyunchul Ahn pp.23-37

보기
Software bundling for competitive advantage :vendor strategies and public policy implications Taeha Kim ;Hyung-Deok Shin ;Amitava Dutta pp.39-62

보기
Information privacy concern in context-aware personalized services :results of a Delphi study Yonnim Lee ;Ohbyung Kwon pp.63-86

보기
Does the SaaS model really increase customer benefits? Seojung Yang ;Byungjoon Yoo ;Jungjoo Jahng pp.87-101

보기
The moderating effect of media synchronicity in the communication media use and knowledge creation Sung Yul Ryoo ;Chulmo Koo pp.103-124

보기
Using the methontology approach to a graduation screen ontology development :an experiential investigation of the methontology framework Jinsoo Park ;Kimoon Sung ;Sewon Moon pp.125-155

보기
온라인 음악서비스 산업에서 전환비용의 선행요인 및 전환비용이 고객충성도에 미치는 영향 강성민 ;엄기헌 pp.157-180

보기

참고문헌 (42건) : 자료제공( 네이버학술정보 )

참고문헌 목록에 대한 테이블로 번호, 참고문헌, 국회도서관 소장유무로 구성되어 있습니다.
번호 참고문헌 국회도서관 소장유무
1 Bagni, D., Cappella, M., Pazienza, M., and Stellato, A., "CONGAS: A COllaborative Ontology Development Framework Based on Named GrAphS," Lecture Notes In Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), Vol. 5883, 2009, pp. 42-51. 미소장
2 Benjamins, V., "The Ontological Engineering Initiative (KA)2," In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems (FOIS’98), Trento, Italy, June 1998, pp. 287-301. 미소장
3 Bernaras, A., Laresgoiti, I., and Corera, J., "Building and Reusing Ontologies for Electrical Network Applications," In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’97), Budapest, Hungary, August 1997, pp. 298-302. 미소장
4 Blomqvist, E., Öhgren, A., and Sandkuhl, K., "Ontology Construction in an Enterprise Context: Comparing and Evalua ting Two Approaches," In Proceedings of the International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS’06), Vol. 3, 2006, pp. 86-93. 미소장
5 Brewster, C., Alani, H., Dasmahapatra, S., and Wilks, Y., "Data driven ontology evaluation," In Proceedings of International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’04), Lisbon, Portugal, May 2004. 미소장
6 Brickley, D. and Guha, R., RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema, W3C Working Draft, 2002. 미소장
7 Towards ontological engineering: a process for building a domain ontology from scratch in public administration 네이버 미소장
8 Chaudhri, V., Farquhar, A., Fikes, R., Karp, P., and Rice, J., Open Knowledge Base Connectivity 2.0.3, Technical Report, Available at http://www.ai.sri.com/~okbc/okbc-2-0-3.pdf, 1998. 미소장
9 Corcho, O., Fernández-López, M., and Gómez-Pérez, A., "Methodologies, tools and languages for building ontologies. Where is their meeting point?" Data and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2003, pp. 41-64. 미소장
10 Corcho, O., Fernández-López, M., Gómez- Pérez, A., and López-Cima, A., "Building legal ontologies with METHONTOLOGY and WebODE in Law and the Semantic Web, Legal Ontologies, Methodologies," Legal Information Retrieval, and Applications, Benjamins, V.R., P. Casanovas, J. Breuker, and A. Gangemi (Eds.), Lecture Notes In Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), Vol. 3369, Springer-Verlag, 2005, pp. 142-157. 미소장
11 A Survey on Ontology Creation Methodologies 네이버 미소장
12 De Hoog, R., Methodologies for Building Knowledge Based Systems: Achievements and Prospects, In: Liebowitz J. (Eds.) Handbook of Expert Systems, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1998. 미소장
13 Denny, M., "Ontology Building: A Survey of Editing Tools," Available at http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/11/06/ontologies.html, 2002. 미소장
14 Euzenat, J., "Building Consensual Knowledge Bases: Context and Architecture," In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Building and Sharing Very Large- scale Knowledge Bases (KBKS’95), Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1995, pp. 143-155. 미소장
15 Falbo, R., Guizzardi, G., and Duarte, K., "An Ontological Approach to Domain Engineering," In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE’02), Ischia, Italy, July 2002, pp. 351- 358. 미소장
16 Fernández-López, M., Gómez-Pérez, A., and Juristo, N., "METHONTOLOGY: From Ontological Art Towards Ontological Engineering," Symposium on Ontological Engineering of AAAI (AAAI’97), Stanford (California), USA, March 1997, pp. 33-40. 미소장
17 Building a chemical ontology using Methontology and the Ontology Design Environment 네이버 미소장
18 Genesereth, M. and Fikes, R., Knowledge interchange format, Technical Report Logic- 92-1, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, 1992. 미소장
19 Gennari, J., Musen, M., Fergerson, R., Grosso, W., Crub´ezy, M., Eriksson, H., Noy, N., and Tu, S., "The evolution of Protégé-2000: An environment for knowledge- based systems development," International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2003, pp. 89-123. 미소장
20 Gómez-Pérez, A., Knowledge sharing and reuse, Handbook of Applied Expert Systems, Liebowitz (Eds.), CRC Press, 1998. 미소장
21 Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M., and Corcho, O., Ontological Engineering: with examples from the areas of knowledge management, London: Springer-Verlan, 2004. 미소장
22 Gómez-Pérez, A., Juristo, N., and Pazos, J., Evaluation and assessment of knowledge sharing technology, In Mars, N.J. (Eds.): Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases, IOS Press, 1995, pp. 289-296. 미소장
23 Grüninger, M. and Fox, M., "Methodology for the Design and Evaluation of Ontologies," Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing (IJCAI ’95), April 1995. 미소장
24 A collaborative approach to ontology design 네이버 미소장
25 Horrocks, I., Fensel, D., Harmelen, F., Decker, S., Erdmann, M., and Klein, M., "OIL in a Nutshell," In Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling, and Management (EKAW’00) Berlin, Germany, August 2000, pp. 4.1-4.12. 미소장
26 Horrocks, I. and van Harmele, F., Reference Description of the DAML+OIL Ontology Markup Language, Technical report, 2001. 미소장
27 IEEE Computer Society Election 네이버 미소장
28 Jakkilinki, R., Sharda, N., and Georgievski, M., "Developing an Ontology for Teaching Multimedia Design and Planning," available at http://sci.vu.edu.au/ ~nalin/MUDPYOntologyPreprintV2.pdf, 2005. 미소장
29 OWL-DL Based Ontology Inference Engine Assessment for Context-Aware Services 네이버 미소장
30 Lefort, L., Taylor, K., and Ratcliffe, D., "Towards Scalable Ontology Engineering Patterns: Lessons Learned from an Experiment based on W3C’s Part-Whole Guidelines," Australasian Ontology Workshop(AOW’06), the 19th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial, In Proceedings of the 2nd Australasian workshop on Advances in ontologies, Hobart, Australia, December 2006, pp. 31-40. 미소장
31 ONTOMETRIC: A Method to Choose the Appropriate Ontology 네이버 미소장
32 Luke, S. and Heflin, J., SHOE 1.01, Proposed Specification, SHOE Project technical report, University of Maryland, 2000. 미소장
33 Missikoff, M. and Navigli, R., "Applying the Unified Process to Large-Scale Ontology Building," In Proceedings of 16th IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) World Congress, Praha, Czech Republic, July 2005, pp. 61-96. 미소장
34 Noy, N. and McGuinness, D., Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology, Technical Report KSL-01-05, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford, March 2001. 미소장
35 An ontology engineering methodology for DOGMA 네이버 미소장
36 Knowledge processes and ontologies 네이버 미소장
37 OntoEdit: Guiding Ontology Development by Methodology and Inferencing 네이버 미소장
38 Swartout, B., Ramesh, P., Knight, K., and Russ, T., "Toward Distributed Use of Large-Scale Ontologies," Symposium on Ontological Engineering of AAAI (AAAI ’97), Stanford, California, March 1997, Available also at http://ksi.cpsc.ucalg ary.ca/KAW/KAW96/swartout/Banff_ 96_final_2.html. 미소장
39 Swartout, B., Ramesh, P., Knight, K., and Russ, T., "Toward Distributed Use of Large-Scale Ontologies," Symposium on Ontological Engineering of AAAI (AAAI ’97), Stanford, California, March 1997, Available also at http://ksi.cpsc.ucalg ary.ca/KAW/KAW96/swartout/Banff_ 96_final_2.html. 미소장
40 Uschold, M. and King, M., "Towards a Methodology for Building Ontologies," Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing (IJCAI’95), 1995. 미소장
41 Wroe, C., Stevens, R., Goble, C., and Ashburner, M., "A methodology to migrate the gene ontology to a description logic environment using DAML+OIL," 8th Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing (PSB), Hawaii, USA, January 2003, pp. 624-636. 미소장
42 Zhou, L., Booker, Q., and Zhang, D., "ROD-Toward Rapid Ontology Development for Underdeveloped Domains," In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on System Science (HICSS’02), Maui, Hawaii, January 2002, pp. 957-965. 미소장

추천서가 (다양한 추천 자료를 만나보세요)

권호기사보기

권호기사 목록 테이블로 기사명, 저자명, 페이지, 원문, 기사목차 순으로 되어있습니다.
기사명 저자명 페이지 원문 기사목차