An ontology to model the research process in information systems

The IS community has relied mostly on two main paradigms to undertake IS research: positivist and interpretivist. This paper argues that the ongoing debate around which of these paradigms is better suited to undertake IS research has created confusion amongst IS researchers, particularly between those who are relatively inexperienced (e.g. PhD researchers). Inexperienced researchers tend to place emphasis on the justification of their research approaches in the context of existing paradigms without offering a clear description of how the chosen methods and paradigms are applied in the context of their own research, a key issue to assess and understand any research output. This paper does not attempt to give any suggestions as to which research methods/paradigms should be used for IS research, but to raise the awareness that the way we currently communicate our thoughts in the research methods domain may not be very effective. We argue that an initial step to undertake this challenge could be to take a more “practical” approach by focusing on the process of thinking and planning the research activity rather than focusing on the justification of the use of one or many research methods usually “loaned” from other discipline

Continuous Improvement Through Knowledge-Guided Analysis in Experience Feedback

Continuous improvement in industrial processes is increasingly a key element of competitiveness for industrial systems. The management of experience feedback in this framework is designed to build, analyze and facilitate the knowledge sharing among problem solving practitioners of an organization in order to improve processes and products achievement. During Problem Solving Processes, the intellectual investment of experts is often considerable and the opportunities for expert knowledge exploitation are numerous: decision making, problem solving under uncertainty, and expert configuration. In this paper, our contribution relates to the structuring of a cognitive experience feedback framework, which allows a flexible exploitation of expert knowledge during Problem Solving Processes and a reuse such collected experience. To that purpose, the proposed approach uses the general principles of root cause analysis for identifying the root causes of problems or events, the conceptual graphs formalism for the semantic conceptualization of the domain vocabulary and the Transferable Belief Model for the fusion of information from different sources. The underlying formal reasoning mechanisms (logic-based semantics) in conceptual graphs enable intelligent information retrieval for the effective exploitation of lessons learned from past projects. An example will illustrate the application of the proposed approach of experience feedback processes formalization in the transport industry sector

An ontology for ISO software engineering standards: 1) Creating the infrastructure

Software engineering standards developed under the auspices of ISO/IEC JTC1's SC7 have been identified as employing terms whose definitions vary significantly between standards. This led to a request in 2012 to investigate the creation of an ontological infrastructure that aims to be a single coherent underpinning for all SC7 standards, present and future. Here, we develop that necessary infrastructure prior to its adoption by SC7 and its implementation (likely 2014). The proposal described here requires, firstly, the identification of a single comprehensive set of definitions, the definitional elements ontology (DEO). For the scope of an individual standard, only a subset of these definitional elements will be needed. Once configured, this definitional subset creates a configured definitional ontology or CDO. Both the DEO and the CDO are essentially foundational ontologies from which a domain-specific ontology known as a SDO or standard domain ontology can be created. Consequently, all such SDOs are conformant to a CDO and hence to the single DEO thus ensuring that all standards use the same ontological base. Standards developed in this fashion will therefore be not only of a higher quality but also, importantly, interoperable. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

An agent-based architecture for managing the provision of community care - the INCA (Intelligent Community Alarm) experience

Community Care is an area that requires extensive cooperation between independent agencies, each of which needs to meet its own objectives and targets. None are engaged solely in the delivery of community care, and need to integrate the service with their other responsibilities in a coherent and efficient manner. Agent technology provides the means by which effective cooperation can take place without compromising the essential security of both the client and the agencies involved as the appropriate set of responses can be generated through negotiation between the parties without the need for access to the main information repositories that would be necessary with conventional collaboration models. The autonomous nature of agents also means that a variety of agents can cooperate together with various local capabilities, so long as they conform to the relevant messaging requirements. This allows a variety of agents, with capabilities tailored to the carers to which they are attached to be developed so that cost-effective solutions can be provided. </p

The relevance of perspectivism to the task of modularisation in ontology development

An ontology development methodology seeks to provide developers with established principles, processes, practices, methods and activities for developing ontologies (Gasevic et al., 2009). Diverse methodologies have been published for the development of ontologies, and have evolved, based on the diverse experiences of researchers and practitioners, and the development teams who surveyed the benefits and shortcomings of the available methodologies in order to determine the applicability of methodologies to particular contexts. An evaluation of existing ontology development methodologies has identified that the concept formulation process is not well defined, or based on rigorous processes (Castro et al., 2006; Winters &amp; Tolk, 2009). In order for the validity of the social realism of the actors in a social setting to be captured, the perspectives of each actor needs to be acknowledged and incorporated into the concept formulation process / framework. This paper demonstrates how consideration of perspectivism leads to a meaningful modularisation of the resultant ontology.<br /