为什么以及如何让专家利益相关者参与本体开发:来自社会和行为科学的见解。

IF 1.6 3区 工程技术 Q3 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Emma Norris, Janna Hastings, Marta M Marques, Ailbhe N Finnerty Mutlu, Silje Zink, Susan Michie
{"title":"为什么以及如何让专家利益相关者参与本体开发:来自社会和行为科学的见解。","authors":"Emma Norris, Janna Hastings, Marta M Marques, Ailbhe N Finnerty Mutlu, Silje Zink, Susan Michie","doi":"10.1186/s13326-021-00240-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Incorporating the feedback of expert stakeholders in ontology development is important to ensure content is appropriate, comprehensive, meets community needs and is interoperable with other ontologies and classification systems. However, domain experts are often not formally engaged in ontology development, and there is little available guidance on how this involvement should best be conducted and managed. Social and behavioural science studies often involve expert feedback in the development of tools and classification systems but have had little engagement with ontology development. This paper aims to (i) demonstrate how expert feedback can enhance ontology development, and (ii) provide practical recommendations on how to conduct expert feedback in ontology development using methodologies from the social and behavioural sciences.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>Considerations for selecting methods for engaging stakeholders are presented. Mailing lists and issue trackers as existing methods used frequently in ontology development are discussed. Advisory boards and working groups, feedback tasks, consensus exercises, discussions and workshops are presented as potential methods from social and behavioural sciences to incorporate in ontology development.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A variety of methods from the social and behavioural sciences exist to enable feedback from expert stakeholders in ontology development. Engaging domain experts in ontology development enables depth and clarity in ontology development, whilst also establishing advocates for an ontology upon its completion.</p>","PeriodicalId":15055,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biomedical Semantics","volume":"12 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7985588/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why and how to engage expert stakeholders in ontology development: insights from social and behavioural sciences.\",\"authors\":\"Emma Norris, Janna Hastings, Marta M Marques, Ailbhe N Finnerty Mutlu, Silje Zink, Susan Michie\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13326-021-00240-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Incorporating the feedback of expert stakeholders in ontology development is important to ensure content is appropriate, comprehensive, meets community needs and is interoperable with other ontologies and classification systems. However, domain experts are often not formally engaged in ontology development, and there is little available guidance on how this involvement should best be conducted and managed. Social and behavioural science studies often involve expert feedback in the development of tools and classification systems but have had little engagement with ontology development. This paper aims to (i) demonstrate how expert feedback can enhance ontology development, and (ii) provide practical recommendations on how to conduct expert feedback in ontology development using methodologies from the social and behavioural sciences.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>Considerations for selecting methods for engaging stakeholders are presented. Mailing lists and issue trackers as existing methods used frequently in ontology development are discussed. Advisory boards and working groups, feedback tasks, consensus exercises, discussions and workshops are presented as potential methods from social and behavioural sciences to incorporate in ontology development.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A variety of methods from the social and behavioural sciences exist to enable feedback from expert stakeholders in ontology development. Engaging domain experts in ontology development enables depth and clarity in ontology development, whilst also establishing advocates for an ontology upon its completion.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15055,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Biomedical Semantics\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7985588/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Biomedical Semantics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-021-00240-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biomedical Semantics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-021-00240-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在本体开发中纳入专家利益相关者的反馈对于确保内容适当、全面、满足社区需求以及与其他本体和分类系统可互操作非常重要。然而,领域专家通常没有正式参与本体开发,而且关于如何最好地进行和管理这种参与,几乎没有可用的指导。社会和行为科学研究通常涉及工具和分类系统开发中的专家反馈,但很少涉及本体开发。本文旨在(i)展示专家反馈如何增强本体开发,以及(ii)就如何使用社会科学和行为科学的方法在本体开发中进行专家反馈提供实用建议。主体:介绍了选择利益相关者参与方法的考虑因素。讨论了本体开发中常用的邮件列表和问题跟踪方法。咨询委员会和工作组、反馈任务、共识练习、讨论和研讨会被认为是社会和行为科学纳入本体发展的潜在方法。结论:社会科学和行为科学中存在各种方法,可以在本体开发中获得专家利益相关者的反馈。让领域专家参与本体开发可以使本体开发具有深度和清晰度,同时也可以在本体完成后为其建立倡导者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why and how to engage expert stakeholders in ontology development: insights from social and behavioural sciences.

Background: Incorporating the feedback of expert stakeholders in ontology development is important to ensure content is appropriate, comprehensive, meets community needs and is interoperable with other ontologies and classification systems. However, domain experts are often not formally engaged in ontology development, and there is little available guidance on how this involvement should best be conducted and managed. Social and behavioural science studies often involve expert feedback in the development of tools and classification systems but have had little engagement with ontology development. This paper aims to (i) demonstrate how expert feedback can enhance ontology development, and (ii) provide practical recommendations on how to conduct expert feedback in ontology development using methodologies from the social and behavioural sciences.

Main body: Considerations for selecting methods for engaging stakeholders are presented. Mailing lists and issue trackers as existing methods used frequently in ontology development are discussed. Advisory boards and working groups, feedback tasks, consensus exercises, discussions and workshops are presented as potential methods from social and behavioural sciences to incorporate in ontology development.

Conclusions: A variety of methods from the social and behavioural sciences exist to enable feedback from expert stakeholders in ontology development. Engaging domain experts in ontology development enables depth and clarity in ontology development, whilst also establishing advocates for an ontology upon its completion.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Biomedical Semantics
Journal of Biomedical Semantics MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
28
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Biomedical Semantics addresses issues of semantic enrichment and semantic processing in the biomedical domain. The scope of the journal covers two main areas: Infrastructure for biomedical semantics: focusing on semantic resources and repositories, meta-data management and resource description, knowledge representation and semantic frameworks, the Biomedical Semantic Web, and semantic interoperability. Semantic mining, annotation, and analysis: focusing on approaches and applications of semantic resources; and tools for investigation, reasoning, prediction, and discoveries in biomedicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信