Advertisement

Platforms and Knowledge Management

  • Michael K. Bergman
Chapter

Abstract

One can create a proper enterprise knowledge management environment at acceptable cost using available open-source components and solid architectural design. Component services provide ontology and knowledge management functions in piecemeal functionality that we can integrate directly into existing workflows. Our purposes in data interoperability and KBAI—supported by general KM (knowledge management)—set the overall application scope for our platform. We want to handle our concepts, and their definitions and relationships (TBox), separate from our instance data (ABox), and subject to rigorous testing, vetting, and updating. The platform should perform these tasks: we need to insert and update concepts in the upper ontology; we need to update and manage attributes and track-specific entities as new sources of data are entered into the system; we need to establish coherent linkages and relations between things; we need to ensure that these updates and changes are done wholly and consistently while satisfying the logic already in place; we need to update how we name and refer to things as we encounter variants; we need to understand and tag our content workflows such that we can determine provenance and authority and track our content; and we need to do these tasks using knowledge workers, who already have current tasks and activities. These requirements mean that use and updates of the semantic technology portion, the organizing basis for the knowledge in the first place, must be part of daily routines and work tasking, subject to management and incentives.

Keywords

Platform Data interoperability Knowledge management 

References

  1. 1.
    T. Berners-Lee, O. Lassila, J. Hendler, The semantic web, in Scientific American Magazine (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    N.F. Noy, M. Sintek, S. Decker, M. Crubézy, R.W. Fergerson, M.A. Musen, Creating semantic web contents with Protege-2000. IEEE Intell. Syst. 16, 60–71 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Y. Sure, M. Erdmann, J. Angele, S. Staab, R. Studer, D. Wenke, OntoEdit: Collaborative ontology development for the semantic web. The Semantic Web—ISWC 2002, 221–235 (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Bechhofer, I. Horrocks, C. Goble, R. Stevens, OilEd: a reasonable ontology editor for the semantic web, in Working Notes of the 2001 International Description Logics Workshop (DL-2001). pp. 1–9Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Bechhofer, R. Volz, P. Lord, Cooking the Semantic Web with the OWL API (Springer, International Semantic Web Conference, 2003), pp. 659–675Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Horridge, S. Bechhofer, The OWL API: A Java API for OWL ontologies. Semantic Web 2, 11–21 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.K. Bergman, Large-scale RDF graph visualization tools, in AI3:::Adaptive Information (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.T. Fielding, Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-Based Software Architectures. Ph.D., University of California, Irvine (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. Richardson, S. Ruby, RESTful Web Services (O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol, CA, 2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael K. Bergman
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognonto CorporationCoralvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations