Kontrast@TKE 2012

733 views

Published on

This paper is part of a study focusing on the terminological and socio-organizational analysis of a corpus of 18 national and international standards, written in English, in the domains of business continuity activity management and risk management. The aim is to determine whether lobbying by certain countries seeking to impose their own national standards is a decisive element in standardization. First, we present the building of a new tool, called KONTRAST, designed to exploit the terminological variants in a non-stabilized terminological domain. Then we describe the workflow to build an RDF/SKOS/OWL base from an XML glossary and a use case to illustrate the ability of KONTRAST to detect influence networks.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
733
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Kontrast@TKE 2012

  1. 1. KONTRAST TKE 2012 Brigitte Juanals Martin Lafréchoux Jean-Luc MinelHi.I am Martin Lafréchoux.Photo : http://www.flickr.com/photos/daynoir/2180507211/
  2. 2. Standardization and Global SecurityThe work I am about to present was part a three-year project called NOTSEG (www.notseg.fr,ANR-CSOG 2009).We acknowledge funding from the French National Research Agency (ANR)
  3. 3. KONTRAST is a termino- ontological resource designed to represent and analyze the vocabulary used in international management standardsIn short...Photo : http://www.flickr.com/photos/natureindyablogspotcom/3038070680
  4. 4. I. Context II. Model III. Use CaseI will briefly describe the context of our work, i.e. the challenges faced by terminology inmanagement standards. I’ll then describe the representation model we came up with toaddress these challenges, as well as our workflow. The last part of this talk will show you aquick use case.Photo : http://www.flickr.com/photos/natureindyablogspotcom/3038070680
  5. 5. I. Context
  6. 6. Standards & TerminologyKontrast was designed to address the specific issues of terminology in the contextmanagement standards.Let me begin by giving you an overview of these specificities.
  7. 7. StandardsStandards can refer to many things.The first thing that comes to your minds is probably something very down to earth, likepower outlets or the size of vegetables.That’s not what I’ll be talking about today. I’ll talk about management standards, and moreprecisely I’ll talk about business continuity.Illustration : http://www.flickr.com/photos/double-m2/4341910416/
  8. 8. Business Continuity: The activity performed by an organization to ensure that critical functions will be available to those who need them even in the event of a disaster.Just a quick reminder.Business continuity is a subtask of risk management.
  9. 9. • Management standards are not about physical objects • They deal with the abstract — processes, business rules, concepts, methods • Standards include a ‘Terms and Definitions’ (T&D) section to alleviate ambiguityGenerally speaking, management standard use natural language to standardize an abstractmaterial: rules, processes, and so on.Given that there is nothing tangible, concrete to refer to, only words and abstractions, thesestandards have to include some manner of terminology. That’s the use of their T&D section.This is what we studied.Illustration : http://www.flickr.com/photos/double-m2/4341910416/
  10. 10. Here you can see the beginning of the T&D of ISO 31000:2009. It’s a glossary, eitherthematic or alphabetical.We chose to study T&D because we witnessed some heated discussion about them during thewriting process of certain ISO standards. They seemed to be some kind of focal point wherewe could observe the different influences at play. This was confirmed by the AFNOR expertswe worked with: it’s not easy to agree on a terminology when writing international standards.
  11. 11. ConsensusIf I oversimplify things a bit, the international standardization process goes something likethis:Illustration : http://www.flickr.com/photos/double-m2/4324115629/
  12. 12. • Each standards organization can define its own vocabulary • International standards have to choose between several concurrent vocabularies • The writing process follows a so- called ‘consensual procedure’.On a given topic, several countries write their own national standard. Each one comes with itsown T&D.When ISO decides to write an international standard on this topic, these countries senddelegations and of course, each country wants his own terminology to prevail, as it wouldgive a competitive advantage to those who have already adopted its national standard.There is this competition between several vocabularies, none of which can be seen as morevalid as the others.Illustration : http://www.flickr.com/photos/double-m2/4324115629/
  13. 13. ExpertsThis is where the ‘experts’ come in.Experts is a generic term to describe the people sent by each organisation and country toISO. They are mostly consultants or from corporate background.When writing a standard, a so-called ‘consensual procedure’ is used, where one expert(secretary) will review each definition proposal and every other expert can ask formodifications. There is no formal definition of this procedure.Illustration : http://www.flickr.com/photos/beatnic/3683822225/
  14. 14. • The way a standard will be implemented depends largely on its T&D • T&D are a product of the notional systems of the experts who wrote them • T&D are an economical, sometimes political issueSince the way a standard will be implemented depends largely on its T&D, the T&D canbecome economical and political issues. The hypothesis we are trying to verify is this: can thepower plays and maneuvers that took place when writing international standards be traced intheir T&D?Illustration : http://www.flickr.com/photos/beatnic/3683822225/
  15. 15. Authority?International standardization has one major specificity compared to other terminology-heavyfields - like, say, industry. No one has authority.Illustration : http://www.flickr.com/photos/double-m2/4324611290/
  16. 16. • ISO has no authority over national standardization organisations • ISO vocabularies do not replace nor supercede other terminologies • ISO itself is not monolithic. Different subgroups coexist among ISO.Standards are not laws. They are only references. An organization is free to use a standard ornot.In the same way, ISO has no authority over national organisations.
  17. 17. “resilience” ISO/IEC 27031:2011 ISO DIS 22300:2011“The ability of an “The adaptive capacityorganization to resist being of an organization in aaffected by an incident” complex and changing environment”For example here are two definitions of the word ‘resilience’ in two ISO standards written in2011. Resilience is a key concept in business continuity.But more on that later.
  18. 18. Borrowings & ReferencesAs I said, each country *can* create its own vocabulary. That does not mean that they alwaysdo.Photo : http://www.flickr.com/photos/linneberg/6976347269/
  19. 19. • Creating a new terminology is a tedious and costly process • Standards frequently recycle or reuse other definitions • These quotes and reuses sometimes go unacknowledgedAs I am sure you are all aware, creating a terminology can be a long, daunting, costlyprocess.Often a standard will reuse the T&D of an existing standard, in part or in total, or at leastrefer to it. These quotes and borrowings create a complex network, which is what we wantour system to track.Photo : http://www.flickr.com/photos/linneberg/6976347269/
  20. 20. ReuseThe most simple case is a straight reuse. In effect it is similar to ‘importing’ a library in aprogramming language.Source : ISO DIS 22301:2010
  21. 21. QuoteWhen a standard quotes a single definition, the ID of the original standard is in brackets.
  22. 22. Modified QuoteSome quotes are shortened or modified.
  23. 23. Quote?Some even go unacknowledged, which is, of course, of particular interest to us.Guide 81 vs. BS 25999 1 - impact
  24. 24. ReferenceSome definitions also refer to another one.
  25. 25. • A wide range of terminological systems are coexisting • They are interlinked by a complex network of influence, borrowings, adaptations and reuses • How can we represent them simultaneously without alignement?Photo : http://www.flickr.com/photos/moofbong/4240137966/
  26. 26. II. ModelHere is the termino-ontological model we designed to address these issues.Photo : http://www.flickr.com/photos/esm723/3573226450/
  27. 27. A contrastive ontological glossaryAs you will see, it is not a ‘proper’ ontoterminology, so we call it a contrastive ontologicalglossary instead.Photo : http://www.flickr.com/photos/esm723/3573226450/
  28. 28. • A 2 part-model : - Terminological Data - Structural DataIt’s a 2-part structure.Photo : http://www.flickr.com/photos/esm723/3573226450/
  29. 29. Terminological DataPhoto : http://www.flickr.com/photos/fijneman/2971217479/
  30. 30. • Terminology in standards offers unique challenges to knowledge engineering • How can several semi-identical concepts coexist? • We built on the operational properties of OWL ontologies with a twist: an unorthodox definition of the ‘concept’The main challenge is that we had to represent several conflicting concepts at the same time,without alignment and without any central authority to choose the ‘right one’.
  31. 31. In Kontrast a ‘concept’ is therelationship between a term, acontext of use and a definition.
  32. 32. “An unstable condition involving an impending abrupt or significant change...”@en DéfinitionThis allowed us to designed a scattered, decentralised model, where the individualrepresenting concepts are nothing more than the reification of a ternary relationship betweena term, a standard and a definition.Please allow me to reiterate: this was a technical design decision.
  33. 33. One of the first advantages of this definition was that it worked well with the concept asdefined by SKOS.SKOS is designed to represent several thesaurus that may share terms and / or definitions,which worked well for us.Illustration : http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102/
  34. 34. Ontology BuildingHere is how we worked.
  35. 35. • A linear XML glossary is converted to RDF/OWL • XSLT perform most of the work • Python scripts extract relationships between conceptsIn a different part of the NOTSEG project, a glossary was manually compiled from the 20standards of our corpus. We then applied automatic and manual treatments over thisglossary.I’ll walk you over the different steps.
  36. 36. Here is an entry of the XML glossary.
  37. 37. 31000:2009Here is a diagram representing the same entry in Kontrast.
  38. 38. First the term.
  39. 39. 31000:2009It is used in several places in the ontology: as a term (left), as part of the ID for the concept(center), and as a label (right).
  40. 40. Definition
  41. 41. 31000:2009Transposed as a concept property
  42. 42. The standards in which the concept appears...
  43. 43. 31000:2009... are represented as skos:conceptSchemes, which makes them independent thesaurus.
  44. 44. Relationship ExtractionNext step is extracting relationships
  45. 45. “vulnerability” ISO Guide 73:2009 ASIS SPC.1:2009 intrinsic properties of something resulting in Intrinsic properties of something that create susceptibility to a risk source (3.5.1.2) that can susceptibility to a source of risk (3.53) that can lead to an event with a consequence (3.6.1.3) lead to a consequence. [ISO/IEC Guide 73:2002] AS/NZS 5050:2010 ISO DIS 22300:2011 Intrinsic properties of something resulting in susceptibility to a risk source that can lead to an intrinsic properties of something resulting in event with a consequence. susceptibility to a risk source that can lead to an [ISO Guide 73:2009, Risk Management— event with a consequence Vocabulary, definition 3.6.1.6]Another example.Here are four definitions of ʻvulnerabilityʼ.
  46. 46. “vulnerability” ISO Guide 73:2009 ASIS SPC.1:2009 intrinsic properties of something resulting in Intrinsic properties of something that create susceptibility to a risk source (3.5.1.2) that can susceptibility to a source of risk (3.53) that can lead to an event with a consequence (3.6.1.3) lead to a consequence. [ISO/IEC Guide 73:2002] AS/NZS 5050:2010 ISO DIS 22300:2011 Intrinsic properties of something resulting in susceptibility to a risk source that can lead to an intrinsic properties of something resulting in event with a consequence. susceptibility to a risk source that can lead to an [ISO Guide 73:2009, Risk Management— event with a consequence Vocabulary, definition 3.6.1.6]To compare them, we normalize the text — i.e. get rid of everything in brackets, of punctuation andcapital letters.
  47. 47. “vulnerability” ISO Guide 73:2009 ASIS SPC.1:2009 intrinsic properties of something resulting in Intrinsic properties of something that create susceptibility to a risk source (3.5.1.2) that can susceptibility to a source of risk (3.53) that can lead to an event with a consequence (3.6.1.3) lead to a consequence. [ISO/IEC Guide 73:2002] AS/NZS 5050:2010 ISO DIS 22300:2011 Intrinsic properties of something resulting in susceptibility to a risk source that can lead to an intrinsic properties of something resulting in event with a consequence. susceptibility to a risk source that can lead to an [ISO Guide 73:2009, Risk Management— event with a consequence Vocabulary, definition 3.6.1.6]Three of them match: we create a skos:exactMatch relationship.
  48. 48. “vulnerability” ISO Guide 73:2009 ASIS SPC.1:2009 intrinsic properties of something resulting in Intrinsic properties of something that create susceptibility to a risk source (3.5.1.2) that can susceptibility to a source of risk (3.53) that can lead to an event with a consequence (3.6.1.3) lead to a consequence. [ISO/IEC Guide 73:2002] AS/NZS 5050:2010 ISO DIS 22300:2011 Intrinsic properties of something resulting in susceptibility to a risk source that can lead to an intrinsic properties of something resulting in event with a consequence. susceptibility to a risk source that can lead to an [ISO Guide 73:2009, Risk Management— event with a consequence Vocabulary, definition 3.6.1.6]The fourth one is slightly different. Itʼs very close, but we have no way to confirm it automatically. Onsuch short texts, a variation of a few words can be huge. A human analysis is still needed.The best we can do is to create a temporary file for humans to check afterwards.
  49. 49. exactMatch closeMatch relatedMatch Recall 1.0 0.38 0.21 Precision 1.0 1.0 1.0Our test are designed for maximum precision. They cannot fail. The obvious downside is thatrecall is very low.
  50. 50. •20 standards• 291 terms• 649 concepts• 1107 matching relationships • 486 skos:relatedMatch • 85 skos:exactMatch • 535 skos:closeMatch
  51. 51. Structural DataBriefly, here is the other part of the resource.Photo : http://www.flickr.com/photos/hindrik/1919291052/
  52. 52. Data about... • the standards: release date, version, current status, reach... • the standardization process: publishers, working groups, institutions...It contains mostly metadata about the standars and the writing process.Photo : http://www.flickr.com/photos/hindrik/1919291052/
  53. 53. This data is linked with the terminological data through the individuals representingstandards.We used Dublin Core (dcterms) whenever possible to ensure maximum interoperability.
  54. 54. Standards are revised regularly. Through the borrowings and quotes, an ‘older’ definition canremain in use even if a new version of the standard has been published. So we have torepresent several versions of the same standard at the same time.We also used dcterms.
  55. 55. Some standards of our corpus are present in DBPedia. We used owl:sameAs ordcterms:isPartOf assertions to connect Kontrast with the Linked Data.
  56. 56. • Decentralized, simple and extensible model • Uses standard semantic web vocabularies • Connected to the linked dataPhoto : http://www.flickr.com/photos/sperkyajachtu/5497757852/
  57. 57. III. Use CasePhoto : http://www.flickr.com/photos/daynoir/2180507271/
  58. 58. ‘resilience’Kontrast does not have its own GUI. We used third-party tools such as RDF Gravity orOntograf to display a graphical representation of Kontrast.
  59. 59. “resilience” ISO/IEC 27031:2011 ISO DIS 22300:2011“The ability of an “The adaptive capacityorganization to resist being of an organization in aaffected by an incident” complex and changing environment”Let’s get back to resilience.
  60. 60. “resilience”Here are the concepts using the term resilience in KontrastIn yellow, skos:closeMatches, in green skos:exactMatches, in brown skos:relatedMatches.Capture : Ontograf (Protégé plug-in)
  61. 61. “resilience”These three nodes are British standards — the two parts of the BS25999 standard, and theassociated good practice guide.
  62. 62. “resilience” “The ability of an organization to resist being affected by an incident”They use the same definition of ‘resilience’.The UK has worked on emergy planning since the 1980’s. It has been a business continuityleader since then, and their standards have been used as international references for a longtime.It led the BSI to a prominent position within ISO for business continuity standards.
  63. 63. “resilience” “The ability of an organization to resist being affected by an incident”ISO 27031 was recently published and uses the british definition.
  64. 64. “resilience”On the other side of the graph are definitions under American influence.
  65. 65. “resilience”Towars the center you can see the ASIS SPC.1:2009 definition.
  66. 66. “resilience” ASIS SPC.1:2009 The adaptive capacity of an organization in a complex and changing environment. - NOTE 1: Resilience is the ability of an organization to resist being affected by an event or the ability to return to an acceptable level of performance in an acceptable period of time after being affected by an event.«The adaptive capacity of an organization in a complex and changing environment.»At first, the definition seems different. But if you take a closer look...
  67. 67. “resilience” ASIS SPC.1:2009 The adaptive capacity of an organization in a complex and changing environment. - NOTE 1: Resilience is the ability of an organization to resist being affected by an event or the ability to return to an acceptable level of performance in an acceptable period of time after being affected by an event.The first note reproduces the british definition.In 2009, when the ASIS standard was published, the british influence was still very strong andcompletely foregoing the british definition would have handicapped the standard.
  68. 68. “resilience” “The adaptive capacity of an organization in a complex and changing environment”After the publication of this standard, the US used a different strategy. They kind of wentaround the british influence and pushed to have their definition of ‘resilience’ adopted inbroader standards — the ISO 31000 series which deals with risk management.With the help of an Israeli expert, the US managed to get their definition in the 2009 versionof the ISO Guide 73 (rightmost node). This was a good move because the definitions of ISOGuide are often quoted or borrowed, as we can see at here at the bottom of the graph (theAustralia / New Zealand standard).
  69. 69. “resilience”“The adaptive capacity ofan organization in acomplex and changingenvironment, to achieve theorganizations objectivesNOTE 1Resilience is the ability ofan organization to managethe risks of events”In 2011, the US pushed for a new definition to be adopted in the ISO 22300 series. Thiscaused quite a stir, as the 22300 series is a purely BC standard series, where the britishconcepts usually prevail.The debate is still ongoing.
  70. 70. “resilience”And that’s how you end up with two conflicting definitions of an important concept in twostandards written within the same organization, during the same year.
  71. 71. “resilience” ISO/IEC 27031:2011 ISO DIS 22300:2011“The ability of an “The adaptive capacityorganization to resist being of an organization in aaffected by an incident” complex and changing environment”These definitions are important because they translate two different visions of businesscontinuity: in short, the US / Israeli position is about the planning and reactive capacities ofan organisation, whereas the british experts believe that risk assessment is costly and notvery realistic, as it is impossible to anticipate all possible risks.Photos : http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmillera4/6366227011/ & http://www.flickr.com/photos/adrianclarkmbbs/3050195566/
  72. 72. ConclusionPhoto : http://www.flickr.com/photos/bruceberrien/4262228892/
  73. 73. • Standardization terminology offers unique challenges to knowledge engineering • Influence can be traced in terms and definitions and Kontrast can be a useful tool to assist human analysis • Many possible optimizations: use Lemon instead of SKOS, automate relationship extraction...SKOS was great for us because it was readily available and simple to set-up, but now webegin to feel its limits.Lemon would allow us to push our idea further.Photo : http://www.flickr.com/photos/bruceberrien/4262228892/
  74. 74. Thank you

×