Towards savvy adoption of semantic technology: From published use cases to category-specific adopter readiness models

The decision of organizations to invest (or not) into a semantic application is, currently, often based on vague considerations and personal feelings. What is lacking is a model that would help determine whether semantic approaches would be adequate, given the aspects of the particular business and concrete adopter. Such a model would however need to take into account the heterogeneity of different applications that exhibit semantic features. We present a thorough exercise, and a prototypical methodology abstracted from it, for proceeding in multiple steps, from loosely sorted and purely textual descriptions of semantic applications to structured and instructive adopter readiness models. The whole process relies on expert-level manual analysis of textual descriptions, automatic cluster analysis (leading to plausible categories of semantic applications), critical factor analysis, questionnaire survey addressing the developers of applications, and adaptation of principles known from building multi-layer Capability Maturity Models. Although the overall approach relies to a large degree on (potentially subjective) manual analysis, very lightweight quantitative evaluation was also made for relevant steps in the process.

[1]  Jan W. Owsiński,et al.  Book reviews: ''Cluster analysis for data mining and system identification'' by János Abonyi and Balázs Feil , 2008 .

[2]  Vojtech Svátek,et al.  Towards Models for Judging the Maturity of Enterprises for Semantics , 2009, BIS.

[3]  K. Charmaz,et al.  Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis Kathy Charmaz Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis Sage 224 £19.99 0761973532 0761973532 [Formula: see text]. , 2006, Nurse researcher.

[4]  Matthias Schonlau,et al.  Visualizing non-hierarchical and hierarchical cluster analyses with clustergrams , 2004, Comput. Stat..

[5]  Stefan Decker,et al.  Implementing Semantic Web applications : reference architecture and challenges , 2009 .

[6]  Martin Hepp,et al.  Possible Ontologies: How Reality Constrains the Development of Relevant Ontologies , 2007, IEEE Internet Computing.

[7]  Jaehun Joo,et al.  Adoption of Semantic Web from the perspective of technology innovation: A grounded theory approach , 2011, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[8]  Balazs Feil,et al.  Cluster Analysis for Data Mining and System Identification , 2007 .

[9]  Elena Paslaru Bontas Simperl,et al.  ONTOCOM Revisited: Towards Accurate Cost Predictions for Ontology Development Projects , 2009, ESWC.

[10]  R. Kozinets Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online , 2009 .

[11]  Mark C. Paulk,et al.  The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process , 1994 .

[12]  David Parmenter,et al.  Key Performance Indicators: Developing, Implementing,and Using Winning KPIs , 2007 .

[13]  Steffen Staab,et al.  International Handbooks on Information Systems , 2013 .

[14]  Matthias Schonlau,et al.  The Clustergram: A Graph for Visualizing Hierarchical and Nonhierarchical Cluster Analyses , 2002 .

[15]  Mike Uschold,et al.  A Framework for Understanding and Classifying Ontology Applications , 1999 .

[16]  Les Carr,et al.  A Research Agenda for Linked Closed Data , 2011 .

[17]  Emanuele Della Valle,et al.  Results of a Survey on Improving the Art of Semantic Web Application Development , 2011 .