Skip to main content
Log in

An Ontology for G2G Collaboration in Public Policy Making, Implementation and Evaluation

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper concerns the development and use of ontologies for electronically supporting and structuring the highest-level function of government: the design, implementation and evaluation of public policies for the big and complex problems that modern societies face. This critical government function usually necessitates extensive interaction and collaboration among many heterogeneous government organizations (G2G collaboration) with different backgrounds, mentalities, values, interests and expectations, so it can greatly benefit from the use of ontologies. In this direction initially an ontology of public policy making, implementation and evaluation is described, which has been developed as part of the project ICTE-PAN of the Information Society Technologies (IST) Programme of the European Commission, based on sound theoretical foundations mainly from the public policy analysis domain and contributions of experts from the public administrations of four European Union countries (Denmark, Germany, Greece and Italy). It is a ‘horizontal’ ontology that can be used for electronically supporting and structuring the whole lifecycle of a public policy in any vertical (thematic) area of government activity; it can also be combined with ‘vertical’ ontologies of the specific vertical (thematic) area of government activity we are dealing with. In this paper is also described the use of this ontology for electronically supporting and structuring the collaborative public policy making, implementation and evaluation through ‘structured electronic forums’, ‘extended workflows’, ‘public policy stages with specific sub-ontologies’, etc., and also for the semantic annotation, organization, indexing and integration of the contributions of the participants of these forums, which enable the development of advanced semantic web capabilities in this area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams N., Fraser J., Macintosh A., McKay-Hubbard A. (2003). Towards an Ontology for Electronic Transaction Services. International Journal of Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management 11:173–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antoniou G., Van Harmelen F. (2004). A Semantic Web Primer. The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachussets

    Google Scholar 

  • Benslimane D., Leclercq E., Savonnet M., Terrasse M.-N., Yetongnon K. (2000). On the Definition of Generic Multi-layered Ontologies for Urban Applications. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 24:191–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boer, A., Van Engers, T. M., and Winkels, R. G. F. (2003). Using Ontologies for Comparing and Harmonizing Legislation. In The Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law – ICAIL 2003. Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom, June 24–28, 2003

  • Breuker, J., Valente, A., and Winkels, R. G. F. (1997). Legal Ontologies: A Functional View. In Visser, P. R. S. and Winkels, R. G. F. (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Legal Ontologies – LEGONT ‘97, 23–36. University of Melbourne Law School: Melbourne, Australia

  • Breuker, J., Elhag, A., Petkov, E., and Winkels, R. G. F. (2002). Ontologies for Legal Information Serving and Knowledge Management. In The Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems – JURIX 2000. Foundation for Legal Knowledge Based Systems, London, United Kingdom, December 16–17, 2002

  • Buckingham S. S., Motta E., Domingue J. (2000). ScholOnto: An Ontology-based Digital Library Server for Research Documents and Discourse. International Journal on Digital Libraries 3(3):267–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham S. S., Uren V., Li G., Domingue J., Motta E. (2003). Visualizing Internetworked Argumentation. In Kirschner P. A., Buckingham S. S., Carr C. S. (eds.), Visualizing Argumentation – Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making Springer: Great Britain, 185–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceccaroni, L. (2004). OntoWEDSS – An Ontology-based Environmental Decision Support System for the Management of Wastewater Treatment Plants. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitat Polytecnica de Catalunya

  • Ceccaroni, L., Cortes, U., and Sanchez-Marre, M. (2000). WaWO – An Ontology Embedded into an Environmental Decision Support System for Wastewater Treatment Plant Management. In the Proceedings of ECAI2000 – Wo9: Application of Ontologies and Problem Solving Methods, 2.1–2.9. Berlin, Germany

  • Ceccaroni L., Cortes U., Sanchez-Marre M. (2004). OntoWEDSS: Augmenting Environmental Decision-support Systems with Ontologies. Environmental Modelling and Software 19:785–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekaran, B. and Josephson, J. (1997). The Ontology of Tasks and Methods. Working Notes of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Ontological Engineering, 9–16. Stanford University: CA, USA

  • Conclin J., Begeman M. L. (1988). gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion. ACM Transactions of Office Information Systems 6(4):303–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conklin J., Begeman M. L. (1989). gIBIS: A Tool for All Reasons. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 40(3):200–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conklin J. (2003). Dialog Mapping: Reflections of an Industrial Strength Case Study. In: Kirschner P. A., Buckingham S. S., Carr C. S. (eds.), Visualizing Argumentation – Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making, Springer: Great Britain 117–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Corcho, O., Gomez-Perez, A., Gonzalez-Cabero, R., and Suarez-Figueroa, C. (2004). ODEVAL: A Tool for Evaluating RDF(S), DAML + OIL, and OWL Concept Taxonomies. In Proceedings of the 1st IFIP Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations (AIAI 2004), 369–382. Toulouse, France, August 22–27, 2004

  • Denhardt R. B., Hammond B. R. (1992). Public Administration in Action: Readings, Profiles and Cases. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company: Pacific Grove, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Doerr, M. (2003). The CIDOC CRM – an Ontological Approach to Semantic Interoperability of Metadata. Artificial Intelligence Magazine 24(3): 75–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Doerr, M., Hunter, J., and Lagoze, C. (2003). Towards a Core Ontology for Information Integration. Journal of Digital Information 4(1)

  • Fensel, D. (2004). Ontologies: A Silver Bullet for Knowledge Management and Electronic Commerce. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany

  • Fisher F., Forrester J. (eds.) (1993). The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Duke University Press: Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca F. T., Egenhofer M. J., Davis C. A., Borges K. A. V. (2000). Ontologies and Knowledge Sharing in Urban GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 24:251–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, J., Adams, N., Macintosh, A., McKay-Hubbard, A., Lobo, T. P., Pardo, P. F., Martínez, R. C., and Vallecillo, C. S. (2003). Knowledge Management Applied to e-Government Services: The Use of an Ontology. In The Proceedings of the KMGov2003 – Fourth Working Conference on Knowledge Management in Electronic Government, 116–126. Springer: Rhodes, Greece, May 2003

  • Glassee, E., Van Engers, T. M., and Jacobs, A. (2003). POWER: An Integrated Method for Legislation and Regulations from their Design to their Use in E-government Services and Law Enforcement. In Moens, M. F. (ed.), Digitale Wetgeving – Digital Legislation, 175–204. Die Keure Brugge

  • Gomez-Perez A. (2001). Evaluating Ontologies: Cases of Study. IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications – Special Issue on Verification and Application of Ontologies 16(3):391–409

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber T. R. (1993). A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5:199–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, S. W., Pattuelli, M. C., Brown, R. T., and Wilbur, J. (2003). The Understanding Statistical Concepts and Terms in Context: The GovStat Ontology and the Statistical Interactive Glossary. In The Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 193–199. Long Beach, California, USA, October 19–22, 2003

  • Hartmann, J., Spyns, P., Giboin, A., Maynard, D., Cuel, R., Suarez-Figueroa, C., and Sure, Y. (2005). Methods for Ontology Evaluation. Deliverable D1.2.3 of the ‘Knowledge Web Network of Excelence’, IST Programme of the European Union

  • Holsapple C. W., Joshi K. D. (2002). A Collaborative Approach to Ontology Design. Communications of the ACM 45(2):42–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson G., Scholes K. (2002). Exploring Corporate Strategy – Text and Cases. 6th edn, Prentice Hall Financial Times: Harlow, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Karacapilidis N. (2000). Integrating New Information and Communication Technologies in a Group Decision Support System. International Transaction in Operational Research 7:487–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karacapilidis, N., Loukis, E., and Dimopoulos, St. (2004). A Web-based System for Supporting Structured Collaboration in the Public Sector. In Traunmueller, R. (ed.) Proceedings of Third International Conference EGOV 2004, 218–225. Springer LNCS 3183: Zaragoza, Spain, August 30–September 3, 2004

  • Lagouvardos, A. (1999). The CORINE (CO-oRdination of INformation on the Environment) Project. MSc Project, University College London (UCL)

  • Loukis, E. and Kokolakis, S. (2003). Computer Supported Collaboration in the Public Sector: the ICTE-PAN Project. In Traunmueller, R. (ed.) Proceedings of Second International Conference EGOV 2003, 181–186. Springer LNCS 2739: Prague, Czech Republic, September 1–5, 2003

  • Loukis, E. and Kokolakis, S. (2004). An Architecture for a Flexible Public Sector Collaborative Environment based on Business Process Modeling. Electronic Journal for e-Commerce Technology and Applications, 1(3) (www.ejeta.org)

  • Lozano-Tello A., Gomez-Perez A. (2004). ONTOMETRIC: A Method to Choose the Appropriate Ontology. Journal of Database Management – Special Issue on Ontological Analysis, Evaluation and Engineering of Business Systems Analysis Methods 15(2):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn L. E. (1996). Public Management as Art, Science and Profession. Chatham House Publishers: Chatham, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. (1989). A Language for Legal Discourse, I. Basic features. In The Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 180–189. Vancouver, Canada

  • Nagel S. S. (1984). Public Policy: Goals, Means, and Methods. St. Martin’s Press: New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I., Takeuchi H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford University Press Inc.: USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization of Economic Co-operation, Development (OECD) (2003). Promise and Problems of e-Democracy – Challenges of on-line Citizen Engagement. OECD Publications Service: Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton C. V., Sawicki D. S. (1993). Basic Methods of Policy Analysis & Planning. 2nd edn, Prentice Hall: New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattuelli, M. C., Brown, R. T., and Wilbur, J. (2003). The GovStat Ontology. In The Proceedings of the National Conference on Digital Government Research, dg.o2003, 355–358. Digital Government Research Center: Boston, MA, USA, May 18–21, 2003

  • Perakath P., Menzel C., Mayer R., Fillion F., Futrell M., DeWitte P., Lingineni M. (1994). IDEF5 Method Report. Armstrong Laboratory, US Airforce

    Google Scholar 

  • Rastogi P. N. (1992). Public Analysis and Problem Solving for Social Systems – Towards Understanding, Monitoring and Managing Real World Problems. Sage Publications Ltd.: Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamper R. K. (1991). The role of semantics in legal expert systems and legal reasoning. Ratio Juris 4(2):219–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamper R. K. (1996). Signs, Information, Norms and Systems. In Holmqvist B., Andersen P. B. (eds.) Signs of Work, De Bruyter: Berlin, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Tambouris, E., Gorilas, S., Kavadias, G., Apostolou, D., Abecker, A., Stojanovic, L., and Mentzas, G. (2004). Ontology-Enabled E-gov Service Configuration: An Overview of the OntoGov Project. In Wimmer, M. (ed.) Proceedings of Knowledge Management in Electronic Government – KMGov 2004 – 5th IFIP International Working Conference, 122–127. Springer LNAI 3035: Krems, Austria, May 17–19, 2004

  • Uren, V., Buckingham, S. S., Mancini, C., and Li, G. (2004). Modelling Naturalistic Argumentation in Research Literatures. In The Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop of Computational Models of Natural Argument. Valencia, Spain, August 22–27, 2004

  • Uschold, M. and Grunninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications. Knowledge Engineering Review 11(2)

  • Valente A. (1995). Legal Knowledge Engineering: A Modelling Approach. University of Amsterdam, IOS Press: The Hague, The Netherlands

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Valente A. (2005). Types and Roles of Legal Ontologies. In: Benjamin V. R. et al. (eds.), Law and the Semantic Web, Springer Verlag LNAI 3369: Berlin, Heidelberg Germany 65–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Engers, T. M., Kordelaar, P. J. M., Den Hartog, J., and Glaseee, E. (2000). POWER: Programme for an Ontology Based Working Environment for Modelling and Use of Regulations and Legislation. In Tjoa, W. and Al-Zobaidie (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Workshop of Databases and Expert Systems Applications, 327–334. Greenwich, London, Great Britain

  • Van Kralingen R. W. (1995). Frame-based Conceptual Models of Statute Law. Kluwer Law International Computer/Law Series: The Hague, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Kralingen, R. W. (1997). A Conceptual Frame-based Ontology for the Law. In Visser, P. R. S. and Winkels, R. G. F. (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Legal Ontologies – LEGONT ‘97, 23–36. University of Melbourne, Law School, Melbourne, Australia

  • Van Kralingen R. W., Visser P. R. S., Bench-Capon T. J. M., Van den Herik H. (1999). A Principled Approach to Developing Legal Knowledge Systems. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 51:1127–1154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser P. R. S. (1995). Knowledge Specification for Multiple Legal Tasks – A Case Study of the Interaction Problem in the Legal Domain. Kluwer Law International, Computer/Law Series No. 17, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser, P. R. S. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1996a). On the Reusability of Ontologies in Knowledge Systems Design. In The Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications – DEXA ‘96, 256–261. Zurich, Switzerland

  • Visser, P. R. S. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1996b). The Formal Specification of a Legal Ontology. In Van Kralingen, R. W. (eds.), In The Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Legal Knowledge-Based Systems – jurix ‘96, 15–24. Tilburg, The Netherlands

  • Walters L. C., Sudweeks R. R. (1996). Public Policy Analysis: The Next Generation of Theory. Journal of Socio-Economics 25(4):425–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White L. G. (1994). Policy Analysis as Discourse. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13(3):506–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Euripidis N. Loukis.

Appendix: Typical stages of the public policy lifecycle

Appendix: Typical stages of the public policy lifecycle

As mentioned in Section 5, an analysis of the public policy lifecycle has been formulated into eight typical stages. For each of them in this Appendix we describe its objective and also the corresponding subset of the kinds of elements and relations of the ontology the stage is dealing with.

Problem/goal understanding

The objective of this stage is to understand better a social problem/goal, by collaboratively elucidating its main dimensions and components, their main characteristics, and also the associations among them.

The kinds of elements used in this stage are:

  • ISSUEs, or SYMPTOMs and CAUSEs, POSITIONs, PREFERENCEs,

while the kinds of relations are:

  • GENERALIZE, SPECIALIZE, or QUESTION_REPLACE (between ISSUEs, between SYMPTOMs, between CAUSEs),

  • IS_DUE TO (between SYMPTOMs and CAUSEs),

  • SUPPORTS, OBJECTS, COMMENTS (between POSITIONs on one side and ISSUEs, PREFERENCEs or POSITIONS on the other),

  • REFERS_TO (between PREFERENCEs and POSITIONs).

Strategic analysis

The objective of this stage is to conduct collaboratively a Strategic SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) Analysis (e.g. of a specific geographic region, a national industry or a public organization etc.).

The kinds of elements used in this stage are:

  • STRENGTHs, WEAKNESSes, OPPORTUNITYs, THREATs, POSITIONs, PREFERENCEs,

while the kinds of relations are:

  • GENERALIZE, SPECIALIZE, or QUESTION_REPLACE (between STRENGTHs, between WEAKNESSes, between OPPORTUNITYs, between THREATs),

  • SUPPORTS, OBJECTS, COMMENTS (between POSITIONs on one side and STRENGTHs, WEAKNESSes, OPPORTUNITYs, THREATs, PREFERENCEs or POSITIONS on the other),

  • REFERS_TO (between PREFERENCEs and POSITIONs).

Alternatives generation and evaluation

The objective of this stage is to collaboratively generate and propose alternative actions for an issue, and also to proceed to a first elaboration and evaluation of them, by expressing positive or negative positions on them.

The kinds of elements used in this stage are:

  • ISSUEs, ALTERNATIVEs, POSITIONs, PREFERENCEs,

while the kinds of relations are:

  • RESOLVEs (between ALTERNATIVEs and ISSUEs),

  • SUPPORTS, OBJECTS, COMMENTS (between POSITIONs on one side and ALTERNATIVEs, POSITIONs or PREFERENCEs on the other),

  • REFERS_TO (between PREFERENCEs and POSITIONs).

Evaluation criteria generation

The objective of this stage is to collaboratively generate and propose criteria for evaluating the alternative actions, which have been proposed for an issue, and also to proceed to a first elaboration and evaluation of these criteria, via positive or negative positions (in favour or against them respectively).

The kinds of elements used in this stage are:

  • ISSUEs, CRITERIA, POSITIONs, PREFERENCEs,

while the kinds of relations are:

  • REFERS_TO (between PREFERENCEs and POSITIONs),

  • SUPPORTS, OBJECTS, COMMENTS (between POSITIONs on one side and ISSUEs, CRITERION, POSITIONS or PREFERENCE on the other).

Multicriteria evaluation of alternatives

The objective of this stage is to collaboratively make a multicriteria evaluation of the alternative actions, which have been proposed for an issue, according to a number of predetermined criteria.

The kinds of elements used in this stage are:

  • ALTERNATIVES, CRITERIONs, VALUE,

while the kind of relations is:

  • VALUES (between VALUE and ALTERNATIVE)

  • CONCERNING (between VALUE and CRITERION).

Design of programmes

The objective of this stage is to collaboratively design for each of the selected alternative actions a number of programmes for implementing it, and for then each of these programmes its internal structure (subprogrammes, measures, etc.).

The kinds of elements used in this stage, are:

  • ALTERNATIVE, PROGRAMMEs, POSITIONs, PREFERENCEs,

while the kinds of relations are:

  • SUPPORTS, OBJECTS, COMMENTS (between POSITIONs on one side and PROGRAMMEs, POSITIONS or PREFERENCEs on the other),

  • REFERS_TO (between PREFERENCEs and POSITIONs),

  • IS_PART_OF (between PROGRAMMEs).

Design of projects

The objective of this stage is to collaboratively design for each of the selected programmes a number of projects for implementing it, and for each of these projects its internal structure (tasks, subtasks, deliverables, etc.).

The kinds of elements used in this stage are:

  • PROGRAMMEs, PROJECTs, TASKs, DELIVERABLEs, POSITIONs, PREFERENCEs,

while the kinds of relations are:

  • SUPPORTS, OBJECTS, COMMENTS (between POSITIONs on one side and PROJECTs, TASKs, DELIVERABLEs, POSITIONS or PREFERENCEs on the other),

  • REFERS_TO (between PREFERENCEs and POSITIONs),

  • IS_PART_OF (between PROJECTs on one side and PROJECTs or TASKs on the other, and also between TASKs),

  • DELIVERED_BY (between DELIVERABLEs and TASKs).

Project monitoring

The objective of this stage is to collaboratively monitor each of the projects, concerning both physical implementation and spending financial resources.

The kinds of elements used in this stage are:

  • TASKs, DELIVERABLEs, ASSIGNMENTs, EXPENSEs, DOCUMENTs, POSITIONs, PREFERENCEs.

while the kinds of relations are:

  • DELIVERED_BY (between DELIVERABLEs and TASKs),

  • SUPPORTS, OBJECTS, COMMENTS (between POSITIONs on one side and ASSIGNMENTs, EXPENSEs, POSITIONs or PREFERENCEs on the other),

  • REFERS_TO (between PREFERENCEs and POSITIONs and between DOCUMENTs and ASSIGNMENTs),

  • PART_OF (between ASSIGNMENT and TASK).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Loukis, E.N. An Ontology for G2G Collaboration in Public Policy Making, Implementation and Evaluation. Artif Intell Law 15, 19–48 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-007-9041-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-007-9041-5

Keywords

Navigation