Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:08:24.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodology to design ontologies from organizational models: application to creativity workshops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2019

Gabriel Alex ,
Barrios Pedro Chavez  and
Monticolo Davy
Gabriel Alex
Affiliation:
CPI Laboratory, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, Paris, France
Barrios Pedro Chavez
Affiliation:
ERPI Laboratory, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France
Monticolo Davy*
Affiliation:
ERPI Laboratory, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France
*
Author for correspondence: Monticolo Davy, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Innovation and creativity are a mandatory for companies who wish to stay competitive. In order to promote an inventive dynamic, it implies to set up tools, habits, and an adapted environment to foster creativity. Creativity is the wealth of companies that should be valorized. To promote creativity, companies implement creativity workshops that gather people with various roles and expertise exchange and create knowledge to solve collectively open-ended engineering problems. However, group dynamics or facilitation can make the wrong decision and make the creative problem-solving unfruitful. The aim of our research project is to create a digital system to manage and valorize knowledge during creativity workshops. To design this system, we need to formalize the knowledge domain of creative workshops. The ontologies are used for decades to structure and manage information and knowledge in different domains. However, methodologies to design these ontologies are either hardly reproducible or not oriented to extract knowledge from organization. This article describes a methodology based on an organizational modeling to build ontologies. We will illustrate our approach by designing an ontology that models knowledge of creativity workshops.

Keywords

Creative workshopinnovationknowledge engineeringontologyorganization
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 33 , Special Issue 2: Knowledge Engineering and Management Applied to Innovation , May 2019 , pp. 148 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Afacan, Y and Demirkan, H (2011) An ontology-based universal design knowledge support system. Knowledge-Based Systems 24, 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2011.01.002Google Scholar
Aiken, M, Krosp, J, Shirani, A and Martin, J (1994) Electronic brainstorming in small and large groups. Information Management (ptn Publishing Corporation) 27, 141–149.Google Scholar
Bachimont, B (2000) Engagement sémantique et engagement ontologique: conception et réalisation d'ontologies en ingénierie des connaissances. Ingénierie Connaiss. Évolutions Récent. Nouv. Défis. pp. 305–323.Google Scholar
Berners-Lee, T, Hendler, J and Lassila, O (2001) The semantic web. Scientific American 284, 28–37.Google Scholar
Bertaud-Gounot, V, Duvauferrier, R and Burgun, A (2012) Ontology and medical diagnosis. Informatics for Health and Social Care 37, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.3109/17538157.2011.590258Google Scholar
Bouaud, J, Bachimont, B, Charlet, J and Zweigenbaum, P (1994) Acquisition and structuring of an ontology within conceptual graphs. In Proceedings of ICCS. Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition using Conceptual Graph Theory, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Brachman, RJ and Schmolze, JG (1985) An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science 9, 171–216.Google Scholar
Brachman, RJ, Gilbert, VP and Levesque, HJ (1985) An Essential Hybrid Reasoning System: Knowledge and Symbol Level Accounts of KRYPTON. in: IJCAI. pp. 532–539.Google Scholar
Brandt, SC, Morbach, J, Miatidis, M, Theißen, M, Jarke, M and Marquardt, W (2008) An ontology-based approach to knowledge management in design processes. Computers & Chemical Engineering 32, 320–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2007.04.013Google Scholar
Bullinger, AC (2009) Innovation and Ontologies: Structuring the Early Stages of Innovation Management. Springer Gabler book.Google Scholar
Carbone, F, Contreras, J, Hernandez, JZ and Gomez-Perez, JM (2012) Open Innovation in an Enterprise 3.0 framework: three case studies. Expert Systems Applications 39, 8929–8939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.015Google Scholar
Cervenka, R and Trencansky, I (2007) The Agent Modeling Language – AML: A Comprehensive Approach to Modeling Multi-Agent Systems, Whitestein Series in Software Agent Technologies and Autonomic Computing. Basel, Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Cheng-Leong, A, Li Pheng, K and Keng Leng, GR (1999) IDEF*: a comprehensive modeling methodology for the development of manufacturing enterprise systems. International Journal of Production Research 37, 3839–3858. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075499189790Google Scholar
Corcho, O, Fernández-López, M and Gómez-Pérez, A (2003) Methodologies, tools and languages for building ontologies. Where is their meeting point? Data & Knowledge Engineering 46, 41–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-023X(02)00195-7Google Scholar
Correa, CH and Danilevicz, ÂDMF (2015) Method for Decision Making in the Management of Innovation: Criteria for the Evaluations of Ideas. Presented at the International Association for Management of Technology, pp. 2151–2169.Google Scholar
De Nicola, A, Missikoff, M and Navigli, R (2005) A Proposal for a Unified Process for Ontology Building: UPON. In Database and Expert Systems Applications (Lecture notes in computer science). Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 655–664.Google Scholar
El-Sappagh, SH, El-Masri, S, Elmogy, M, Riad, AM and Saddik, B (2014) An ontological case base engineering methodology for diabetes management. Journal of Medical Systems, 38–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-014-0067-4Google Scholar
Fujimoto, R and Aoyama, M (2014) A Life cycle-Based Design Methodology of the Lightweight Ontology and Its Application to Cultivating High Quality Mandarin Orange. IEEE, pp. 147–150. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2014.31Google Scholar
Gabriel, A, Monticolo, D, Camargo, M and Bourgault, M (2015) Multi-agent System to Support Creative Workshop, in: 2015 11th International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems. Presented at the International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems (SITIS), IEEE, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 693–697. https://doi.org/10.1109/SITIS.2015.114Google Scholar
Gabriel, A, Monticolo, D, Camargo, M and Bourgault, M (2016) Creativity support systems: a systematic mapping study. Thinking Skills and Creativity 21, 109–122.Google Scholar
Gandon, F (2002 a) Distributed Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge Management: ontologies and multi-agent systems for a corporate semantic Web. Université Nice Sophia Antipolis.Google Scholar
Gandon, F (2002 b) Ontology engineering: a survey and a return on experience (research report No. 4396). INRIA.Google Scholar
Girodon, J, Monticolo, D, Bonjour, E and Perrier, M (2015) How to design a Multi-Agent System dedicated to knowledge management; the DOCK approach. Presented at the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Electrical & Electronics Engineering, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Google Scholar
Gruber, TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1006/knac.1993.1008Google Scholar
Gruninger, M and Fox, MS (1995) Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. In Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, 1995.Google Scholar
Harispe, S, Sánchez, D, Ranwez, S, Janaqi, S and Montmain, J (2014) A framework for unifying ontology-based semantic similarity measures: a study in the biomedical domain. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 48, 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2013.11.006Google Scholar
Héon, M, Nkambou, R and Langheit, C (2016) Toward G-OWL: A graphical, polymorphic and typed syntax for building formal OWL2 ontologies, in: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar
Hernández-González, Y, García-Moreno, C, Rodríguez-García, MÁ, Valencia-García, R and García-Sánchez, F (2014) A semantic-based platform for R&D project funding management. Computers in Industry 65, 850–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2013.11.007Google Scholar
Iqbal, R, Murad, MAA, Mustapha, A, Sharef, NM (eds) (2013 a) An analysis of ontology engineering methodologies: a literature review. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 6, 2993–3000.Google Scholar
Iqbal, R, Murad, MAA, Mustapha, A and Sharef, NM (2013 b) An ontology engineering approach with a focus on human centered design, in: Intelligent Systems Design and Applications (ISDA), 2013 13th International Conference On. IEEE, pp. 86–91.Google Scholar
Isaksen, SG and Treffinger, DJ (2004) Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: versions of creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior 38, 75–101.Google Scholar
Lee, J, Chae, H, Kim, C-H and Kim, K (2009) Design of product ontology architecture for collaborative enterprises. Expert Systems Applications 36, 2300–2309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.12.042Google Scholar
Lenat, DB and Guha, RV (1989) Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems; Representation and Inference in the Cyc Project, in: Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems; Representation and Inference in the Cyc Project. Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co.Google Scholar
MacGregor, RM (1991) Inside the LOOM description classifier. ACM SIGART Bulletin 2, 88–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/122296.122309Google Scholar
Mahesh, K, Helmreich, S and Wilson, L (1996) Ontology development for machine translation: Ideology and methodology. Computing Research Laboratory, New Mexico State University.Google Scholar
Martin, B, Hanington, B and Hanington, BM (2012) Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers.Google Scholar
Michalko, M (2006) Thinkertoys, 2nd Edn. Berkeley, California: 10 Speed Press.Google Scholar
Musen, MA (2015) The protégé project: a Look back and a look forward. AI Matters 1, 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2757001.2757003Google Scholar
Neuhaus, F, Ray, S and Sriram, RD (2014) Toward ontology evaluation across the life cycle (No. NIST IR 8008). National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8008Google Scholar
Noy, NF and McGuinness, DL (2001) Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05 and Stanford Medical Informatics Technical Report SMI-2001-0880.Google Scholar
Osborn, AF (1963) Applied Imagination; Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-solving: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-solving. Scribner.Google Scholar
Pinto, HS, Staab, S and Tempich, C (2004) DILIGENT: Towards a fine-grained methodology for DIstributed, Loosely-controlled and evolvInG Engineering of oNTologies, in: Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IOS Press, pp. 393–397.Google Scholar
Powell, WW and Snellman, K (2004) The knowledge economy. Annual Review of Sociology 30, 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100037Google Scholar
RDF Working Group (2014) RDF 1.1 Primer [www Document]. W3C Work. Group Note. Available at https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-primer/Google Scholar
Rifkin, J (2000) The Age of Access. New York, NY, USA: Tarcher/Putman. ed..Google Scholar
Rospocher, M, Ghidini, C and Serafini, L (2014) An ontology for the Business Process Modelling Notation. Formal Ontology in Information Systems – Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference. IOS Press, pp. 133–146.Google Scholar
Russell, SJ, Norvig, P and Davis, E (2010) Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 3rd Edn. Prentice Hall series in artificial intelligence. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Schreiber, G (ed.) (2000) Knowledge Engineering and Management: The CommonKADS Methodology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schreiber, G, Wielinga, B and Jansweijer, W (1995) The KACTUS view on the ‘O'word, in: IJCAI Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing. pp. 159–168.Google Scholar
Sirin, E, Parsia, B, Grau, BC, Kalyanpur, A and Katz, Y (2007) Pellet: a practical owl-dl reasoner. Web semant. Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 5, 51–53.Google Scholar
Slimani, T (2015) A study investigating knowledge-based engineering methodologies analysis. International Journal of Computers and Applications 128, 67–91.Google Scholar
Sorli, M and Stokic, D (2009) Innovating in Product/Process Development. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Sowa, JF (1999) Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole.Google Scholar
Studer, R, Benjamins, VR and Fensel, D (1998) Knowledge engineering: principles and methods. Data & Knowledge Engineering 25, 161–197.Google Scholar
Suárez-Figueroa, MC, Gómez-Pérez, A and Fernández-López, M (2012) The NeOn methodology for ontology engineering. In Suárez-Figueroa, MC, Gómez-Pérez, A, Motta, E and Gangemi, A (eds), Ontology Engineering in a Networked World. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24794-1_2Google Scholar
Sure, Y, Staab, S and Studer, R (2004) On-To-Knowledge methodology (OTKM). In Staab, S and Studer, R (eds), Handbook on Ontologies. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 117–132.Google Scholar
Uschold, M and Gruninger, M (1996) Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. The Knowledge Engineering Review 11, 93–136.Google Scholar
Van Elst, L, Dignum, V and Abecker, A (2004) Towards Agent-Mediated Knowledge Management, in: Agent-Mediated Knowledge Management. Heidelberg: Springer, vol. 2926, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
VanGundy, AB (2008) 101 Activities for Teaching Creativity and Problem Solving. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Vidoni, R, García-Sánchez, F, Gasparetto, A and Martínez-Béjar, R (2011) An intelligent framework to manage robotic autonomous agents. Expert Systems Applications 38, 7430–7439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.080Google Scholar
W3C OWL Working Group (2012) OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview (Second Edition) [www Document]. (Accessed 13 September 16).Google Scholar
Wang, K and Nickerson, JV (2017) A literature review on individual creativity support systems. Computers in Human Behavior 74, 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.035Google Scholar
Westerski, A (2013) Semantic Technologies in Idea Management Systems: A Model for Interoperability, Linking and Filtering. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de Telecomunicacion.Google Scholar