A Semantic Framework for Enterprise Knowledge Management

  • M. Ruffolo


This paper presents a semantic enterprise model-ling approach that allows the representation of enterprise knowledge by means of ontologies. The approach supports the analysis and design of KMSs and KM strategies by enabling the representation of Semantic Enterprise Models (SEM). A SEM expresses the enterprise knowledge by means of two interconnected ontologies: The Top Level Ontology (TLO) and the Core Enterprise Entities Ontology (CEKEO). The TLO contains concepts related to the different topics characterizing business activities, the CEEO describes organizational, business, technical, knowledge resources. The paper presents also a semantic annotation approach that allows to annotate Core Enterprise Entities (CEE) with respect to one or more TLO concepts. This way SEMs allow both to formally represent enterprise knowledge and to semi-automatically annotate CEE whit respect to relevant enterprise concepts. SEM can be used as kernel of a new family of Enterprise Knowledge Management Systems providing capabilities for semantically manage all the relevant enterprise knowledge resources.


Knowledge Management Knowledge Object Ontology Concept Semantic Framework Semantic Metadata 
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.
    Alvesson, M. (1993). Organizations as Rhetoric: Knowledge Intensive Firms and the Struggle with Ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 30:997-1015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge. How Organization Manage What they Know. Boston, Harvard Business School Press Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tiwana, A. (1999). Knowledge Management Toolkit, The: Practical Techniques for Building a Knowledge Management System, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tyndale, P. (2002). A Taxonomy of Knowledge Management Software Tools: Origins and Applications. Evaluation and Program Planning, 25:183-190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maier, D. & Delcambre, M. L. (1999). Superimposed Information for the Internet. Proceedings of WebDB, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, pp. 1-9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fox, M.S. & Gruninger, M. (1998). Enterprise Modelling, AI Magazine, AAAI Press, Fall, pp. 109-121Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fox, M.S. (1992). The TOVE Project: Towards a Common-sense Model of the Enterprise, Toronto, Enterprise Integration Laboratory Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fillion, E., Menzel, C., Blinn, T., & Mayer, R. (1995). An Ontology-Based Environment for Enterprise Model Integration. Paper presented at the IJCAI Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, 19-20 August, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heuluy, B. & Vernadat, F.B. (1997). The CIMOSA Enterprise Ontology. Proceedings of the IFAC Workshop-MIM’97, 3-5 February, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. London, UK, Routledge & Kegan Paul Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Com-panies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York, USA, Oxford University Press Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ehrig M., de Bruijn J., Manov D., & Martín-Recuerda F. (2004). State-of-the-art Survey on Ontology Merging and Aligning V1 SEKT Deliverable 4.2.1, Innsbruck, DERIGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ruffolo, M. & Manna, M. (2006). A Logic-Based Approach to Semantic Information Ex-traction. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS’06), Paphos, CyprusGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Ruffolo
    • 1
  1. 1.CNR-ICARPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations