![TheTopic Map1] Ontology: putting concepts into contextInstancesAssociationsTopicTypes2] Annotate important bits of text with ontology concepts](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tmra-ci-100212113330-phpapp02/85/Building-and-Integrating-Competitive-Intelligence-Reports-Using-the-Topic-Map-Technology-3-320.jpg)
Building and Integrating Competitive Intelligence Reports Using the Topic Map Technology
- 1. Building and Integrating Competitive IntelligenceReports Using the Topic Map TechnologyVojtěch Svátek, Tomáš Kliegr, Jan Nemrava, Martin Ralbovsý, Vojtěch Roček ,Jan RauchUniversity of Economics, Winston Churchill Sq. 4, Prague, Czech RepublicJiří Šplíchal, Tomáš VejlupekTovek s.r.o., Chrudimská 1418, Prague, Czech Republic
- 2. CI and Business ClustersCI – Competitive Intelligence is a sub-field of business intelligence that supports decision makers in understanding the competitive environment by means of reports prepared based on (public) resources.Cluster is a set of companies in related fields operating in the same geographical areaHow to link and searchmultiple CI reports?Envisaged Solution: Create a complementary topic map that would put the important facts into context
- 3. TheTopic Map1] Ontology: putting concepts into contextInstancesAssociationsTopicTypes2] Annotate important bits of text with ontology concepts
- 4. TestbedA case study assignment at an introductory knowledge engineering course, attended by 150- 200 students each semesterThe goal is to get a picture of the whole industryStudents work in groups of 5Each group covers one company and its environmentTwo assignments:Students write CI reports of about 25 pages based on publicly available sources of information. 2) Important pieces of information are expressed in a machine-readable way with topic maps.Each semester we tested a slightly different setting (S1-S3) of tools and techniques… now running for the fourth semester
- 5. S1: Individual ontologies, mergeEach team wrote the CI report (in a text editor)Consequently, they obtained a copy of a startup ontologyStudents extended the ontology with new topic types using Tovek Topic Mapper (TTM): an ontology editor and annotating tool (desktop application)Students used TTM to annotate bits of text with a topic type. Annotated text became an internal occurrence in the topic mapThe ontologies enriched with new topic types and annotations were collected from all teamsWe used OKS to merge the topic mapsExtend ontologyAnnotateDOCHTMLThe result is a linking file between the document and the shared topic mapXTMStartup OntologyResult is a linking file conneting document with the topic map
- 6. Topic Maps MergingMerging of: Business cluster topic map, All unstructured documents, Linking filesLinking filesCI reportsHTMLXTMDOCShared industry topic map
- 7. IssuesAnnotated text fragmented, since each fragment is stored as internal occurrenceLaboriousDuplicate topic typesEffective merging requires unique identifiers, which was achieved only for companies (registration numbers used in subject indicators)
- 8. S2: Collaborative Ontology Population Goal: remove duplicate topic typesStartup ontology was placed on a PostgreSQL serverStudent teams collaboratively enriched the ontology with topic types, association types and occurrence types they assumed to use during the annotation in Topic MapperThe ontology was then frozen: each team got its copy. TTM was used only for annotation, and then OKS for mergingCollaborative Ontology Creationremote repositoryTopic MapsforMergingImportontologyShared topic mapstudentsAnnotate only
- 9. IssuesSeparation of ontology enrichment and document annotation is not natural and requires an experienced annotatorAnnotations still kept as internal occurrencesMultiple concurrent instances of OKS servers resulted in corruption in the topic map, probably due to caching in OKSTwo topic map tools used, original documents not easily accessible
- 10. S3: Annotation by linkingGoal: move annotation fully to the webAll students used one instance of OKS serverCI reports were placed into a CMS (Joomla!)Each structural unit was assigned an id (via HTML’s <a name>)Annotation was done via external occurrencesExternal occurrences point at a specific bookmark at the document, where the annotated fragment starts. The annotated fragment is assumed to span up to the nearest following bookmark.
- 11. Issues … and finally advantagesIssues:OKS Ontopoly was not stable enough in concurrent settingX-Pointer technology, which could be used to mark spans in the document, is not supported by current browsersAdvantages:The text with full content (including even figures or links) in the CMS is more intelligible than fragments in internal occurrencesFurther editing of an article is possible in the CMS without invalidating the annotationFull-text search feature of the CMS can be exploitedBringing the best from the CMS world and OKS
- 12. Summary& PlansOn the competitive intelligence use case, we tested several approaches for collaborative ontology design and document annotation with some 500 users altogether.OKS is a great tool, which gets additional edge by being web-basedWe deem the last approach taken: documents stored in a CMS linked through external occurrences with OKS as usable - contingent on improvements in Ontopoly and Joomla!Ontopoly wishesGreater stability in case of concurrent user accessWe missed user management and versioning in OntopolyJoomla! wishesSupport for „tagging“ arbitrary bits of textA tool for creating XPointer URLs based on user selectionA functionality that would highlight part of the document based on a URL containing XPointer span