A transdisciplinary ontology of innovation governance

Intellectual property law tends to be viewed as the only (or most significant) mechanism for achieving policy goals relating to innovation assets. Yet more creative and effective solutions are often available. When analysed from a transdisciplinary perspective, relying on the cooperative efforts of researchers from fields other than law, innovation governance is characterized not simply as the product of legal rules, but as a function of the interaction of legal rules, practices and institutions. When policy-makers seek to identify conditions under which the creation, use and exchange of innovation assets flourishes, care should be taken to focus on this combination of factors. This article describes the development of an ontology--a computerized method of representing knowledge as concepts and relations between concepts--to convey such understanding. Policy makers (and researchers) are provided with an organized, accessible representation of innovation governance that enriches their understanding and improves their decision-making.

[1]  Dagobert Soergel.  The rise of ontologies or the reinvention of classification , 1999 .

[2]  André Valente,et al.  Types and Roles of Legal Ontologies , 2003, Law and the Semantic Web.

[3]  Jaap Hage,et al.  The law as a dynamic interconnected system of states of affairs: a legal top ontology , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[4]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A principled approach to developing legal knowledge systems , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[5]  L. Mommers.  Searching for arguments: applying a knowledge‐based ontology of the legal domain , 2004 .

[6]  Birger Hjørland,et al.  A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval , 2005, J. Documentation.

[7]  Michael Uschold,et al.  Ontologies: principles, methods and applications , 1996, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[8]  G Stix,et al.  The mice that warred. , 2001, Scientific American.

[9]  Mohammad Nasir Uddin,et al.  Faceted classification in web information architecture: A framework for using semantic web tools , 2007, Electron. Libr..

[10]  Kaustubh Supekar,et al.  A Peer-review Approach for Ontology Evaluation , 2005 .

[11]  A. Delbecq,et al.  The nominal group as a research instrument for exploratory health studies. , 1972, American journal of public health.

[12]  Vijayan Sugumaran,et al.  A semiotic metrics suite for assessing the quality of ontologies , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

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

[14]  Xiaomeng Su,et al.  A Comparative Study of Ontology Languages and Tools , 2002, CAiSE.

[15]  Guiraude Lame.  Using NLP Techniques to Identify Legal Ontology Components: Concepts and Relations , 2003, Law and the Semantic Web.

[16]  Pamela J. D. Smith,et al.  The unexamined assumptions of intellectual property: adopting an evaluative approach to patenting biotechnological innovation. , 2004, Public affairs quarterly.

[17]  James H. Gerlach,et al.  Determining the cost of IT services , 2002, CACM.

[18]  David Bawden,et al.  Book review: The Future of Classification , 2000 .

[19]  Wei-Pang Yang,et al.  Ontological techniques for reuse and sharing knowledge in digital museums , 2006, Electron. Libr..

[20]  J. Sterman.  Business Dynamics , 2000 .

[21]  Andre Valente,et al.  Legal ontologies: a functional view , 1997 .

[22]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Building Legal Ontologies with METHONTOLOGY and WebODE , 2003, Law and the Semantic Web.

[23]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[25]  M. Fernández-López,et al.  Overview of methodologies for building ontologies , 1999, IJCAI 1999.

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

[27]  Elin K. Jacob.  Ontologies and the Semantic Web , 2005 .

[28]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean , 2002, CACM.

[29]  G. Heath,et al.  Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights , 2000, Status of WTO Legal Instruments.

[30]  Schubert Foo,et al.  Ontology research and development. Part 1 - a review of ontology generation , 2002, J. Inf. Sci..

[31]  Birger Hjørland,et al.  Book review: The future of classification, edited by Rita Marcella and Arthur Maltby , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[32]  Aldo Gangemi,et al.  A theoretical framework for ontology evaluation and validation , 2005, SWAP.

[33]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  METHODOLOGIES FOR ONTOLOGY DEVELOPMENT , 2007 .

[34]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A Comparison of Four Ontologies for the Design of Legal Knowledge Systems , 1998, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[35]  Joost Breuker,et al.  Towards principled core ontologies , 1996 .