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.
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
Antoniou G., Van Harmelen F. (2004). A Semantic Web Primer. The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachussets
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
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
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
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
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
Conklin J., Begeman M. L. (1989). gIBIS: A Tool for All Reasons. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 40(3):200–213
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
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
Doerr, M. (2003). The CIDOC CRM – an Ontological Approach to Semantic Interoperability of Metadata. Artificial Intelligence Magazine 24(3): 75–92
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
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
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
Gruber T. R. (1993). A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5:199–220
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
Johnson G., Scholes K. (2002). Exploring Corporate Strategy – Text and Cases. 6th edn, Prentice Hall Financial Times: Harlow, England
Karacapilidis N. (2000). Integrating New Information and Communication Technologies in a Group Decision Support System. International Transaction in Operational Research 7:487–507
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
Lynn L. E. (1996). Public Management as Art, Science and Profession. Chatham House Publishers: Chatham, New Jersey
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
Nonaka I., Takeuchi H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford University Press Inc.: USA
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
Patton C. V., Sawicki D. S. (1993). Basic Methods of Policy Analysis & Planning. 2nd edn, Prentice Hall: New Jersey
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
Rastogi P. N. (1992). Public Analysis and Problem Solving for Social Systems – Towards Understanding, Monitoring and Managing Real World Problems. Sage Publications Ltd.: Delhi
Stamper R. K. (1991). The role of semantics in legal expert systems and legal reasoning. Ratio Juris 4(2):219–244
Stamper R. K. (1996). Signs, Information, Norms and Systems. In Holmqvist B., Andersen P. B. (eds.) Signs of Work, De Bruyter: Berlin, Germany
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
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
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
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
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
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
White L. G. (1994). Policy Analysis as Discourse. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13(3):506–525
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-007-9041-5