Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
In this paper we confront the divide between the ontologies developed from the requirement of comprehensive and general domain coverage and those devised to meet application-specific requirements. While the generalists typically attach philosophical sophistication to their approach, in supposed contrast to the narrow remit chosen by the application-bound knowledge engineers, we would like to indicate that the latter practice can often reflect a multi-faceted rationale, nuanced by the requirements of the domain. We demonstrate how the necessity of placing ontology-based systems with the work-practices of domain experts introduces unique demands on design rationales and enforces, often implicitly, a philosophical assessment of the necessary concepts and relations that balance the generality and specificity. Such demands are not addressed by generic approaches to modelling the reality of a domain. Indeed, we articulate the philosophical and practical considerations that we have taken into account when developing an application-specific ontology. We would certainly hope that our experiences can be of help to the development of ontologies in similar applications. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2007 | 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.02.005 | International Journal of Man-Machine Studies |
Keywords | DocType | Volume |
application-specific requirement,latter practice,generic approach,application-specific ontology,general domain coverage,application-bound knowledge engineer,philosophical sophistication,domain expert,philosophical assessment,design rationale,medical ontology,knowledge engineering,knowledge representation | Journal | 65 |
Issue | ISSN | Citations |
7 | 1071-5819 | 8 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
0.65 | 9 | 5 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bo Hu | 1 | 161 | 27.21 |
| Srinandan Dasmahapatra | 2 | 330 | 35.41 |
| David Dupplaw | 3 | 257 | 26.86 |
| Paul Lewis | 4 | 175 | 16.00 |
| Nigel Shadbolt | 5 | 4273 | 321.53 |