A social software/Web 2.0 approach to collaborative knowledge engineering
Introduction
Sharing what we hold in our heads is a major challenge facing postindustrial knowledge economies. Some of what we “know” can be articulated, codified, structured and stored in repositories such as books, databases and knowledge bases. In the past the focus of computer systems has been on managing data, information and explicit type knowledge, such as was found in expert systems. More recently techniques have emerged for acquiring softer (or implicit) knowledge using social software such as Wikis, online Communities of Practice (CoPs) and WebLogs which also “helps to realize the original vision of the Web as a space where anyone can participate” [19, p. 2]. These emergent behaviours reveal a trend, known as Web 2.0, for creative uses by individuals of existing internet-based technology involving information sharing and collaboration. Recognising that research has shown that decisions are arrived at through the combined use of almost equal amounts of tacit and explicit knowledge [10], we seek to leverage the collective benefits of formalised knowledge in traditional expert systems and informal knowledge such as we find in Web 2.0 applications. We1 propose an approach which uses problem situations as they arise to motivate the capture and description of the problem and the explicit rules which define how to handle such incidents. In this way we bring together expert systems which provide structured and reusable knowledge, often in the form of production rules, with less formal knowledge shared amongst social networks of people, often in the form of cases, experiences and stories.
Traditional approaches to knowledge engineering, as with use of the traditional Waterfall model in software engineering, may be appropriate when the goal is to build a static model of a narrow, well defined and well-understood domain but they do not work well for dynamic domains and evolving knowledge [9]. While the resulting knowledge model may have been shared, it was not engineered through incremental acquisition and refinement of knowledge by multiple distributed users with different levels of expertise and conflicting views and knowledge. In summary, “When this [traditional] process [is] applied to a more flexible domain like social networks and knowledge communities, it lacks the opportunity of changing and redefining the chosen knowledge structures… Often the classical knowledge engineering process in social networks leads to the contra productive result that the built knowledge structures, their semantics and meaning are challenged … The problem of maintaining and adapting knowledge models to flexible needs of the users takes a lot of effort” [11, p. 166].
In knowledge engineering, ontologies are typically offered as the means to support development of a shared understanding. The irony is that most approaches to ontology development do not support collaborative ontological engineering as shown in a comparative study of ontological engineering tools [5]. Ontolingua was an exception and allowed editing by multiple users but other users were not notified of changes and who had done them. More recently Bao and Honavar [1] conducted a similar study and found that while many of the ontology editors provide concurrent access control with transaction oriented locking and in some cases even rollback, “there is an urgent need for principled approaches and flexible tools for allowing individuals to collaboratively build, refine, and integrate existing ontologies as needed in specific contexts or for specific applications” [1, p. 8].
Consistent with our experience, the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) project [11] found that in order to support social networks of people to collaboratively engineer a knowledge base it is necessary to:
- 1.
build a shared repository which achieves a common understanding and structure together with a means of finding out what projects or problems people are working on (providing opportunities for sharing and reuse);
- 2.
allow people to create content in their own way using their own terms and concepts;
- 3.
develop a top-down knowledge map in the form of an ontology or concept map to assist people to define and structure their own concepts within the bigger picture;
- 4.
allow the knowledge nuggets to emerge bottom-up, or top-down where appropriate, in an ad hoc, immediate and spontaneous manner.
Additionally, we found the system needs to:
- 5.
support a range of expertise levels, views of the knowledge and access rights;
- 6.
provide a review process in which users can register their approval or disagreement;
- 7.
test and keep track of the consistency between all elements of the knowledge system and notify users when conflicts occur;
- 8.
be compatible with a wide range of existing systems and knowledge sources;
- 9.
provide an intuitive, simple and yet structured knowledge maintenance cycle;
- 10.
support primary ownership and management of the domain knowledge by domain users, not a third party such as a knowledge engineer.
Finally, a collaborative knowledge management tool needs to:
- 11.
be configurable to each enterprise allowing changes to the ontology, the workflow/process of acquiring knowledge and the user interface over the life of the system [26].
This paper presents a system design and prototype which embodies the above 11 requirements. In the next section the motivation for collaboratively building knowledge based systems is discussed further. Section 3 describes some approaches to collaboration. Section 4 introduces the approach known as C-MCRDR. Contributions and conclusions are found in Section 5.
Section snippets
A case for collaborative KBS
Many philosophers have considered the context-dependent and socially-situated nature of knowledge (e.g. [3]). While in the past knowledge based systems (KBS) may have allowed multiple users to utilise the knowledge, conflicts were minimised by partitioning the knowledge base into areas of expertise with one domain expert responsible for maintenance of that subdomain or in many cases responsibility for acquisition, maintenance and verification and validation of the knowledge was often performed
Handling collaboration
Solutions to the collaboration issue often involve the use of database schemas, concept maps or ontologies which are then aligned, merged or integrated. The latter are the most popular approach to knowledge sharing in the knowledge engineering community. While these terms may be used differently by various researchers, we distinguish alignment as the use of mappings (e.g. [9]) to identify the correspondence between concepts in two or more separate ontologies; merging as combining two or more
Background concepts
Multiple Classification Ripple Down Rules extended the original single classification exception-based knowledge representation, Ripple Down Rules (RDR) [3] to handle classification tasks where multiple independent classifications are required [12], [13]. MCRDR builds n-ary trees and consists only of exception branches. A better description may be sets of decision lists joined by exceptions. In single classification RDR a binary tree consisting of except (true) and if-not (false) branches was
Collaborative knowledge acquisition
The C-MCRDR approach allows distributed knowledge to be acquired overtime by providing: (1) a mechanism for capturing the knowledge (that is, an incoming case in need of a solution/classification); (2) a mechanism for linking problem and solution cases (that is, one or more rules which allow conditions in the problem and solution cases to be matched); and (3) a mechanism for identifying conflicts and resolving them. While not all systems support (1) and (2), in the organisation we were working
Acknowledgements
This work has been funded via an ARC Linkage, MU RAACE and industry topup scholarships (commercial in confidence). Thanks to Megan for her review of the CSCWD conference version of this paper and use of the diagrams from her thesis.
References (27)
- et al.
Mapping domains to methods in support of reuse
International Journal of Human–Computer Studies
(1994) - et al.
Taking up the situated cognition challenge with ripple down rules
International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, Special Issue on Situated Cognition
(1998) Concept lattices and conceptual knowledge systems
Computers and Mathematics with Applications
(1992)- J. Bao, V. Honavar, Collaborative Ontology Building with Wiki@nt – a multi-agent based ontology building environment,...
- et al.
Cooperative modeling evaluated
International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems
(2005) - P.J. Compton, R. Jansen, A philosophical basis for knowledge acquisition, in: Third EKAW, Paris, 1989, pp....
- P. Compton, L. Peters, G. Edwards, T.G. Lavers, Experience with ripple-down rules, in: Proceedings of AI-2005, the...
- J. Duineveld, R. Stoter, M.R. Weiden, B. Kenepa, V.R. Benjamins, WonderTools? A comparative study of ontological...
- S. Easterbrook, Elicitation of Requirements from Multiple Perspectives, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial...
- et al.
Using viewpoints for inconsistency management
BCSEEE Software Engineering Journal
(1996)
The impact of tacit knowledge on purchasing decisions
Journal of Supply Chain Management Tempe
Knowledge networks–managing collaborative knowledge spaces
Cited by (60)
Loki – the semantic wiki for collaborative knowledge engineering
2023, Expert Systems with ApplicationsCapturing and managing knowledge using social software and semantic web technologies
2018, Information SciencesCitation Excerpt :In the same paper, they distilled a set of best-practices to fully exploit wikis, starting from a cognitive analysis of different KM models. Similarly, starting from the observation that wikis’ openness “tends to produce unstructured knowledge that is difficult to execute, reason over or automatically validate”, Richards [32] propose a rule-based approach that allows users to collaboratively create and refine knowledge and its structure. Our work tries to address similar problems but we rely on (and promote) emergent mechanisms rather than enforcing rules and predefined best practices.
CDNFRE: Conflict detector in non-functional requirement evolution based on ontologies
2016, Computer Standards and InterfacesCitation Excerpt :For example, business considerations such as target market and brand position must be considered when designing the interface during electronic commerce websites design. Ontology is typically offered to support a shared understanding [29]. An ontology includes both concepts and their relationships [4,10].
The Role of Virtual Communities of Practice in Knowledge Management Using Web 2.0
2015, Procedia Computer ScienceA model to develop nurse leaders for rural practice
2014, Journal of Professional NursingMulti-criteria decision making in ontologies
2013, Information Sciences