Lightweight Ontologies in Context - Relationship between Ontology Characteristics and Context Parameters

Ontologies, mainly lightweight ontologies, are ubiquitous throughout the Internet and are succeeding in replacing human expertise. We conducted a study with physicians and nurses performing a search task in the medical domain that demonstrates that lightweight ontologies perform well as a substitute for expertise. The extent of success of the substitution depends upon context of use. Our study investigates lightweight ontologies with respect to the context of use in which they are applied. The better we understand the context of use, the better we can inform ontology design and evaluation. We describe ontologies through characteristics and context through parameters. By varying ontology characteristics and testing the effect on the performance of an ontology-supported task for a context parameter, such as the level of user expertise, we increase our understanding of ontology design and evaluation. Our study shows that changing ontologies by varying some of its characteristics has a direct and significant impact on the performance of the ontology-supported task for different levels of user expertise.

[1]  Jason Pascoe,et al.  CAA 97 Enhanced Reality Fieldwork : the Context Aware Archaeological , 2010 .

[2]  Michael Uschold,et al.  Ontologies and semantics for seamless connectivity , 2004, SGMD.

[3]  Gregory D. Abowd,et al.  Towards a Better Understanding of Context and Context-Awareness , 1999, HUC.

[4]  Anind K. Dey,et al.  Context-Aware Computing: The CyberDesk Project , 1998 .

[5]  James A. Thom,et al.  Requirements-oriented methodology for evaluating ontologies , 2009, Inf. Syst..

[6]  Amit P. Sheth,et al.  Ontological Evaluation and Validation , 2010 .

[7]  Kieron O'Hara,et al.  Editorial: Knowledge representation with ontologies: Present challenges-Future possibilities , 2007 .

[8]  M. Peterson,et al.  Asthma guidelines: an assessment of physician understanding and practice. , 1999, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[9]  N. F. Noy,et al.  Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology , 2001 .

[10]  Darijus Strasunskas,et al.  Empirical Insights on a Value of Ontology Quality in Ontology-Driven Web Search , 2008, OTM Conferences.

[11]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing? , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[12]  Martin L. King,et al.  Towards a Methodology for Building Ontologies , 1995 .

[13]  Aldo Gangemi,et al.  Modelling Ontology Evaluation and Validation , 2006, ESWC.

[14]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Similar and Different: The Differentiation of Basic-Level Categories , 1997 .

[15]  A. Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Evaluation of ontologies , 2001, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[16]  Paul Ward,et al.  Expert Performance in Nursing: Reviewing Research on Expertise in Nursing Within the Framework of the Expert‐Performance Approach , 2007, ANS. Advances in nursing science.

[17]  Bill N. Schilit,et al.  Disseminating active map information to mobile hosts , 1994, IEEE Network.