• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
A Consensus-Building Support System based on Ontology Exploration
 

A Consensus-Building Support System based on Ontology Exploration

on

  • 591 views

Consensus-building among various stakeholders from different fields is an important issue in order to facilitate policy and decision-making. For consensus-building stakeholders have to know what ...

Consensus-building among various stakeholders from different fields is an important issue in order to facilitate policy and decision-making. For consensus-building stakeholders have to know what others are thinking about each other because differences of their viewpoints cause some conflicts. In this paper we propose a consensus-building support system based on ontology exploration. The key ideas consists two steps 1) developing an ontology to provide a base knowledge to be shared among the users (stakeholders), 2) each user explore the ontology according to his/her viewpoint and generate conceptual maps as the result of the exploration, and 3) they know differences of viewpoints through comparison of generated maps. This paper shows an overview of this tool, and discusses its usability and effectiveness through evaluation experiments by domain experts.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
591
Views on SlideShare
588
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 3

http://localhost 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    A Consensus-Building Support System based on Ontology Exploration A Consensus-Building Support System based on Ontology Exploration Presentation Transcript

    • IESD2012 9th Oct. 2012, Galway, Ireland A Consensus-Building Support System based on Ontology Exploration Kouji Kozaki1, Osamu Saito2 and Riichiro Mizoguchi3 1The Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, Osaka University, Japan 2United Nations University, Institute for Sustainability and Peace 3Research Center for Service Science, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 1
    • Outline  Motivation  A Consensus-Building Support System based on Ontology Exploration  Divergent exploration of an ontology  Consensus-Building Support System based on Ontology Exploration  Experiment for evaluation in biofuel domain  Demo  Concluding remarks9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 2
    • Motivation  Consensus-building among various stakeholders  It is one of key issues to solve for facilitating their collaboration.  In order to build consensus, it is important to know what others are thinking about each other because differences of their viewpoints cause some conflicts.  However, it is difficult to understand different views in particular when they come from different fields.  Our Approach  We propose an ontology based system which shows differences of viewpoints by different stakeholders in order to facilitate consensus-building among them.  This presentation  Consensus-building support system based on ontology exploration.  Evaluation experiments by domain experts in sustainable science (environmental) domain (in particular biofuel).9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 3
    • Our approach: Consensus-Building Support based on Ontology Exploration 1) An ontology provides 2) They explore the Understanding from the a base knowledge to ontology according to their own viewpoints be shared among the their viewpoint and users (stakeholders). generate conceptual Stakeholder 1 Target World maps as the result. × Ontology developer Conceptual Stakeholder 2 map Ontology × Stakeholder 1 Stakeholder 3 ✓ consensus-building is difficult Stakeholder 2 Stakeholder 3 ✓ It can facilitate consensus- 3) They can understand building among differences of viewpoints through stakeholders. comparison of generated maps.9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 4
    • (Divergent)Ontology exploration tool 1) Exploration of multi-perspective conceptual chains 2) Visualizations of conceptual chains Visualizations as Exploration of an ontology conceptual maps from different view points “Hozo” – Ontology Editor Multi-perspective conceptual chains represent the explorer’s understanding of ontology from the specific viewpoint. Conceptual maps9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 5
    • Node represents Is-a (sub-class-of) a concept relationshp Referring to (=rdfs:Class) another concept slot represents a relationship (=rdf:Property)9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 6
    • 9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 7
    • Option settings for exploration Selected relationships Kinds of aspects are traced and shown as links in conceptual map property names constriction tracing classes Conceptual map visualizer Aspect dialog9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 8
    • Functions for ontology exploration  Exploration using the aspect dialog: Manual exploration  Divergent exploration from one concept using the aspect dialog for each step Machine exploration  Search path:  Exploration of paths from stating point and ending points.  The tool allows users to post-hoc editing for extracting only interesting portions of the map.  Change view:  The tool has a function to highlight specified paths of conceptual chains on the generated map according to given viewpoints.  Comparison of maps:  The system can compare generated maps and show the common conceptual chains both of the maps.9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 9
    • Search Path Ending point (1) Selecting of ending points Finding all possible paths from stating point to ending points Starting point Ending point (2) Ending point (3)9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 10
    • Search Path Selected ending points9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 11
    • Functions for ontology exploration  Exploration using the aspect dialog:  Divergent exploration from one concept using the aspect dialog for each step  Search path:  Exploration of paths from stating point and ending points.  The tool allows users to post-hoc editing for extracting only interesting portions of the map.  Change view:  The tool has a function to highlight specified paths of conceptual chains on the generated map according to given viewpoints. →Differences between  Comparison of maps: Viewpoints of stakeholders  The system can compare generated maps and show the common conceptual chains both of the maps.9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 12
    • Consensus-building support based on ontology exploration ・Display multiple concept Map maps 2 ・Highlight common concepts Map ・Highlight different concepts 1 Map 4 Touch-Table Map 3 2nd Step: Collaborative workshop 1st Step: Individual concept map creation9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 13
    • Comparison of conceptual mapsThe system facilitates discussion among stakeholders throughcomparison of conceptual maps they generated.The system integrates conceptual maps generated by the stakeholdersinto an integrated map which consists of all paths appeared in themaps. In the generated map, each path is shown in different color according to stakeholders. When the same nodes appeared in both of maps by different stakeholders, they are shown in graduations of colors corresponds to them. 14
    • Experiments for Evaluation  Target domain and topics  Biofuel production in sustainability science (environmental domain) .  An experiment for evaluating ontology exploration tool by domain experts [Kozaki 2011]  Subjects: 4 domain experts  Goal: To evaluate whether the tool can generate maps which are meaningful for domain experts.  An experiment of consensus building by role-play discussion9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 15
    • Experiment for evaluating ontology exploration tool  Experimental method 1) The four experts to generated conceptual maps with the tool in accordance with condition settings of given tasks. 2) They remove paths that were apparently inappropriate from the paths of conceptual chains included in the generated maps. The subjects: 3) They select paths according to their 4 experts in different fields. interests and enter a four-level general A: Agricultural economics evaluation with free comments. B: Social science (stakeholder analysis) A: Interesting C: Risk analysis B: Important but ordinary D: Metropolitan environmental planning C: Neither good or poor D: Obviously wrong9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 16
    • Experimental results Table.2 Experimental results . l Number of maps Number of Path distribution based on general evaluation generated: 13 selected paths A B C D a Expert A 2 2 Number of paths evaluated:1 61 Expert A 1 (second time) A: Expert B Interesting 307 (49%) 4 1 85% 2 B: Expert B Important but6 ordinary 22 (36%) Task 1 3 3 C: Expert C good or poor 8(13%)5 Neither (second time) 8 1 2 D: Expert D Obviously wrong 1(2%) 3 1 1 1 Expert A 1 1 E We can conclude that the tool could generate Task 2 Expert B 6 1 5 n Expert C 7 4 1 2 in maps or paths sufficiently meaningful for experts. Expert D 5 1 13 c Expert B 8 4 2 2 n Number of paths Task 3 Expert C 4 2 2 Expert D 3 3 p evaluated: 61 Total 61 30 22 8 19 Oct 2012 IESD2012 17
    • Evaluation experiment  Target domain and topics  Biofuel production in sustainability science (environmental domain) .  An experiment for evaluating ontology exploration tool by domain experts [Kozaki 2011]  Subjects: 4 domain experts  Goal: To evaluate whether the tool can generate maps which are meaningful for domain experts.  An experiment of consensus building by role-play discussion  Subjects: 4 students and 5 domain experts  Goal: To evaluate whether ontology explorations and generated maps could facilitate a better mutual understanding for consensus-building among stakeholders.9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 18
    • An experiment of consensus building by role-play discussion  Subjects  Group A: 4 students in environmental engineering + 1 domain expert in sustainability science (moderator)  Group B: 4 domain experts in sustainability science  Methods  1) The subjects were assigned roles of stakeholders related to biofuel production and policy making for it.  2) They discussed the related topics by role-playing to reach a reasonable consensus among stakeholders.  Group A generated conceptual maps using the ontology exploration tool and made a discussion through comparisons of the generated maps.  Group B did not use the ontology exploration tool and generated maps.  The roles of stakeholders played by subjects in the experiment  a. Industry (Sugarcane farmers, investors, Sugar processing plants, etc.)  b. Government (Presidents, the relevant ministry, etc.)  c. Employees (Labors union, etc.)  d. Environmental NGO9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 19
    • Time table of the experiment Time used Group A Group B 4 students Group A 4 Group B expert in minute + 1 expert (moderator) 10 Instruction of the experiment 15 Preparation(1)[making a rough plan] Experiment 1 20 Group discussion(1)[without the system] Preparation(2) 15 Preparation(2) [rough planning] 35 [Each builds a map] Group discussion(2) 20 Experiment 2 [without a map] Group discussion (2) Participate in the 20 [Discussion with maps] discussion by group B 20 Answering inquiries with wrap-up discussion9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 20
    • Ontology explorations and generations of maps by Group A  Methods to generate maps  To minimize the deviation of the generated maps, we restrict the map generation command to “search path”.  The focal point (starting point): “production of biofuels”  The ending points : a couple of keywords (3 to 5) selected by the subjects from about 120 keywords prepared in advance.  To make the maps compact and easy to interpret  The subjects delete paths which they find not interesting.  They extend paths that they want to explore further. They got maps including only interesting and meaningful paths according to viewpoints of the stakeholders. Discussion using integrated maps displayed on a touch-table display9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 21
    • Result: Comparison between the discussion done by groups A and B Time used Group A Group B 4 students Group A 4 Group B expert in minute + 1 expert (moderator) 10 There is no significant difference of the number Instruction of the experiment of topics appearing the first discussion. 15 Preparation(1)[making a rough plan] Experiment 1 20 Group discussion(1)[without the system] Preparation(2) 15 The number of topics appearing Preparation(2) the second discussion [rough planning] 35 [Each builds a map] Group discussion(2) 20 Experiment 2 [without a map] Group discussion (2) Participate in the 20 [Discussion with maps] discussion by group B 20 Answering inquiries with wrap -up discussion9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 22
    • Discussion: Comparison between the discussion done by groups A and B  Usability Problem  The subjects in group A took much time to learn how to use the system so that they did not have enough time to perform discussion.  We had quite a few requests on improvement of the tool. →The system needs further improvement on its usability.  Coverage of Ontology  The discussion done by group B includes concepts that are not covered by the current ontology. →We need extension of the ontology to cover wider and deeper topics.9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 23
    • Result: Discussion by Group A through comparison of the generated maps Time used Group A Group B 4 students Group A 4 Group B expert in minute + 1 expert (moderator) 10 Instruction of the experiment 15 Preparation(1)[making a rough plan] Experiment 1 20 Group discussion(1)[without the system] Preparation(2) 15 Preparation(2) [rough planning] 35 [Each builds a map] Group discussion(2) 20 Experiment 2 [without a map] Group discussion (2) Participate in the 20 [Discussion with maps] discussion by group B 20 Answering inquiries with wrap -up discussion9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 24
    • Result: The number of nodes includedin each map built by each subject ingroup A * The numbers of overlapping nodes indicate the how much the stakeholders share common interests. Number Number of overlapping nodes of nodes in d: Environmental the map a: Industry b:Government c:Employees NGO a:Industry 110 16 21 10 b:Government 88 - 12 5 c:Employees 187 - Employees and- 49 Environmental NGO shared:Environmental NGO 115 - - - a lot of common interests. This interpretation is supported by the result of stakeholder analysis by an domain Sexpert [Shiroyama H, et al. 2010].9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 25
    • Result: Distributions ofoverlapping nodes in the integrated mapIn the integrated map, overlapping nodes (nodes appeared in both ofmaps by different stakeholders) are show in gradation of different colors. a: Industry ∩ c:Employees c:Employees ∩ d: Environmental NGONodes in gradation of colors are Nodes in gradation of colors arenear by the center of the map. widely distributed in the map.We can understand the differences between viewpoints of stakeholders. 26
    • Feedbacks from the subjects  The positive opinions we got from the subjects include:  Visualization of conceptual maps is helpful to understand what respects we are different by identifying what concepts we share and don’t from the map.  It sometimes helps us to understand the issues better by explicating unexpected relations or dependencies between concepts.  It is useful for organizing my opinion to enable smooth discussion.  It is useful to clarify overlap and distinction between us objectively.  These show the feasibility and utility of the system to some extent. DEMO9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 27
    • Concluding Remarks  A consensus-building supporting system based on ontology exploration.  It generates conceptual maps through ontology exploration by the users.  Because the generated maps represent the users’ viewpoints to understand the target domains of the ontology, it could show differences of viewpoints through comparisons of them.  Experiment of consensus building by role-play discussion in biofuel domain  The result shows an integrated map could well represent differences viewpoints of several stakeholders and could help their consensus-building through discussions using the map.  It would contribute to consensus-building on interdisciplinary domains which consist various fields across multiple domains.  Future work  There are some rooms to improve the system because we had several comments about its user interfaces by the subjects.  Investigations on useful viewpoints to generate conceptual maps  Application of our approach to ontology with instances and Linked Data.9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 28
    • Acknowledgement This research partially supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (E-0802) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan and Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) 22240011. Thank you for your attention! HOZO with the ontology exploration tool is available at http://www.hozo.jp/ *The client version is available as a sub-system of Hozo. *Web service version is also available.9 Oct 2012 IESD2012 29