Ontology-driven Knowledge Management: Philosophical, Modelling and Organizational Issues

  • Simon Buckingham Shum
  • John Domingue
  • Enrico Motta


Our approach to knowledge management, called Ontology-Driven Document Enrichment, aims to support knowledge creation and sharing by enriching documents through formal models. These reflect a particular viewpoint over a set of resources, which is shared by a community of practice. In the first part of this chapter we describe the basic tenets of the approach and we briefly illustrate the technologies which we have developed to support it and the application domains in which it has been applied. In the second part of this chapter we evaluate our approach in terms of a number of issues, which have been raised in the research community. These pose important research questions for designers of knowledge management technologies that make use of formal knowledge models. These questions address issues of epistemology (what happens to the knowledge as it is formalized?), socio-technology (how to integrate knowledge technologies into work practice?), and usability (do end-users understand, and use, the formal scheme?). In the chapter we show how these issues are tackled in our approach and we emphasize the multi-faceted nature of knowledge management solutions.


Generic Ontology Knowledge Management Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Creation Organizational Memory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Motta E. (1999). Reusable Components for Knowledge Models. IOS Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation. Organization Science, 2, pp. 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing Knowledge. California Management Review,40, 3, pp. 90–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Gruber, T. R. (1993). A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Domingue, J. & Motta, E. (1999). A Knowledge-Based News Server Supporting Ontology-Driven Story Enrichment and Knowledge Retrieval. In D. Fensel and R. Studer (editors), Proceedings of the 11th European Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modelling, and Management (EKAW ‘99), LNAI 1621, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Domingue, J. & Motta, E. (2000). Planet-Onto: From News Publishing to Integrated Knowledge Management Support. IEEE Intelligent Systems, May/June 2000.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Motta, E., Domingue, J., Hatala, M. et al (1999). Ontology-Driven Management of Medical Guidelines. PatMan Project Deliverable D6, Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, UK.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Buckingham Shum, S., Motta, E., & Domingue, J. (1999). Representing Scholarly Claims in Internet Digital Libraries: A Knowledge Modelling Approach. In S. Abiteboul and A.-M. Vercoustre (Ed.), Proc. of ECDL ‘99: Third European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries. Paris, France, September 22–24,1999: Springer-Verlag (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Available at: Scholar
  10. [10]
    Sumner, T., & Buckingham Shum, S. (1998). From Documents to Discourse: Shifting Conceptions of Scholarly Publishing. Proc. CHI 98: Human Factors in Computing Systems, (Los Angeles, CA), pp. 95–102. ACM Press: NY. Available at: Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Wideman, H.H. & Owston, R.D. (1993). Knowledge Base Construction as a Pedagogical Activity. Educational Computing Research, 9(2), pp. 165–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Lenat, D.B. & Guha, R.V. (1990). Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems: Representation and Inference in the Cyc Project. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Sowa J. F. (1995). Top-Level Ontological Categories. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43(5/6), pp. 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Uschold M. & Gruninger M. (1996). Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications. Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(2), pp. 93–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Greenbaum, J. & Kyung, M. (1991). Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Selvin, A. (1999). Supporting Collaborative Analysis and Design with Hypertext Functionality. Journal of Digital Information, 1, (4).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Shipman, F. M. & Marshall, C. C. (1999). Formality Considered Harmful: Experiences, Emerging Themes, and Directions on the Use of Formal Representations in Interactive Systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 4, pp. 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Domingue, J. (1998). Tadzebao and WebOnto: Discussing, Browsing, and Editing Ontologies on the Web. In Gaines & Musen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, April 18th–23th, Banff, Canada. Available at Scholar
  19. [19]
    Motta E., Buckingham-Shum, S. & Domingue, J. (2000). Ontology-Driven Document Enrichment: Principles, Tools and Applications. To appear in the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Boland Jr, R. J. & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing. Organization Science, 6, 4, pp. 350–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Robinson, M. & Bannon, L. (1991). Questioning Representations. In L. Bannon, M. Robinson, & K. Schmidt, Proc. of ECSCW ‘91: 2nd European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Work (pp. 219–233). Amsterdam Sept 25–27: KluwerGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Buckingham Shum, S., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V. et al (1997). Graphical Argumentation and Design Cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 3, 267–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Fischer, G., Lemke, A. C., McCall, R., et al (1991). Making Argumentation Serve Design. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 3&4, pp. 393–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Buckingham Shum, S. & Hammond, N. (1994). Argumentation-Based Design Rationale: What Use at What Cost? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 4, pp. 603–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Cohen, P., Chaudhri, V., Pease, A. & Schrag, R. (1999). Does prior knowledge facilitate the development of knowledge-based systems? In Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 99, Orlando, FL, USA, 221–226.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Buckingham Shum
    • 1
  • John Domingue
    • 1
  • Enrico Motta
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge Media InstituteThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations