This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Argumentation-Based Ontology Engineering
November/December 2007 (vol. 22 no. 6)
pp. 52-59
Christoph Tempich, University of Karlsruhe
Elena Simperl, Free University of Berlin
Markus Luczak, Free University of Berlin
Rudi Studer, University of Karlsruhe
H. Sofia Pinto, Technical University of Lisbon
This article applies the theory of argumentation to ontology engineering. Recent research in ontology engineering has highlighted the importance of controlled discussions for creating commonly agreed-on and widely accepted ontologies. The article analyzes how agreement is reached in the context of ontology development using rhetorical structure theory and identifies the most frequently used argument types. Case study-based investigations have shown that restricting the set of arguments participants use to express their positions can significantly facilitate reaching an agreement. The DILIGENT argumentation framework, consisting of a process, a formal model and a support tool, was built on the basis of these empirical findings. The formal model complies to the IBIS methodology, which was adapted to the ontology-specific requirements. It helps capture and record the design deliberations in ontology-engineering discussions, makes consensus building tasks more efficient, and provides detailed guidance for nonexperts. The authors successfully evaluated the framework in several case studies. This article is part of a special issue on argumentation technology.

1. A. Gómez-Pérez, M. Fernández-López, and O. Corcho, "Ontological Engineering," Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing, Springer, 2003.
2. C.W. Holsapple and K.D. Joshi, "A Collaborative Approach to Ontology Design," Comm. ACM, vol. 45, no. 2, 2002, pp. 42–47.
3. P. McBurney, D. Hitchcock, and S. Parsons, "The Eightfold Way of Deliberation Dialogue," Int'l J. Intelligent Systems, vol. 22, no. 1, 2007, pp. 95–132.
4. W. Kunz and H.W.J. Rittel, Issues as Elements of Information Systems, working paper 131, Inst. Urban and Regional Development, Univ. of California, 1970.
5. A. Selvin et al., "Compendium: Making Meetings into Knowledge Events," Proc. Knowledge Technologies, AKT Technologies, 2001; http://eprints.aktors.org155.
6. C. Tempich, "Ontology Engineering and Routing in Distributed Knowledge Management Applications," doctoral dissertation, Institut für Angewandte Informatik und Formale Beschreibungsverfahren, Univ. Karlsruhe, 2006.
7. C. Potts and G. Bruns, "Recording the Reasons for Design Decisions," Proc. 10th Int'l Conf. Software Eng.," IEEE CS Press, 1988, pp. 418–427.
8. M. Uschold and M. Grueninger, "Ontologies, Principles, Methods and Applications," Knowledge Sharing and Rev., vol. 11, no. 2, 1996, pp. 93–155.
9. W.C. Mann and S.A. Thompson, "Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization," The Structure of Discourse, L. Polanyi, ed., Ablex Publishing, 1987, pp. 85–96.
10. I. Rahwan et al., "Argumentation-Based Negotiation," Knowledge Eng. Rev., vol. 18, no. 4, 2003, pp. 343–375.
11. A. Souzis, "Building a Semantic Wiki," IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 20, no. 5, 2005, pp. 87–91.

Index Terms:
argumentation technology, ontologies, Semantic Web, ontology engineering
Citation:
Christoph Tempich, Elena Simperl, Markus Luczak, Rudi Studer, H. Sofia Pinto, "Argumentation-Based Ontology Engineering," IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 52-59, Nov.-Dec. 2007, doi:10.1109/MIS.2007.103
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.