Dienst van SURF
© 2025 SURF
In this paper we present an experiment which has been performed to validate a pragmatic-based, expert-based and basic-level ontology. These ontologies were created for use in an application which generates questions for ordinary people with the purpose to determine a crisis situation. All three ontologies have specific characteristics related to their method of creation. This experiment shows that using the basic-level ontology results in the fastest and least ambiguous determination of a crisis situation.
MULTIFILE
Organisations operate in an increasingly dynamic environment. Consequently, the business models span several organisations, dealing with multiple stakeholders and their competing interests. As a result, the enterprise information systems supporting this new market setting are highly distributed, and their components are owned and managed by different stakeholders. For successful businesses to exist it is crucial that their enterprise architectures are derived from and aligned with viable business models. Business model ontologies (BMOs) are effective tools for designing and evaluating business models. However, the viability perspective has been largely neglected. In this paper, current BMOs have been assessed on their capabilities to support the design and evaluation of viable business models. As such, a list of criteria is derived from literature to evaluate BMOs from a viability perspective. These criteria are subsequently applied to six well-established BMOs, to identify a BMO best suited for design and evaluation of viable business models. The analysis reveals that, although none of the BMOs satisfy all the criteria, e3-value is the most appropriate BMO for designing and evaluating business models from a viability perspective. Furthermore, the identified deficits provide clear areas for enhancing the assessed BMOs from a viability perspective.
Using an ontology to automatically generate questions for ordinary people requires a structure and concepts com- pliant with human thought. Here we present methods to develop a pragmatic, expert-based and a basic-level ontology and a framework to evaluate these ontologies. Comparing these ontologies shows that expert-based ontologies are most easy to con- struct but lack required cognitive semantic characteristics. Basic-level ontologies have structure and concepts which are better in terms of cognitive semantics but are most expensive to construct.