Onto4AIR2: An ontology to manage theses from open repositories

Abstract

This paper describes Onto4AIR2, an ontology to manage theses from open repositories, this fosters unique and formal definitions of concepts from the Mexican repositories domain in English and Spanish languages, its goal is to support the construction of machine-readable datasets that are semantically labeled for further consultations in educational organizations. The ontology instances are sample data of theses from the National Repository of Mexico, an initiative promoted by the National Council of Science and Technology. The paper describes advantages derived from the formalisms of the ontology, and describes an assessment technique where participants are developers and potential users. Developers followed a competency questions-based approach and determined that the ontology represents questions and answers using its terminology; whereas potential users participated in a satisfaction survey; the results showed a positive perception. At present, the level of the ontology is proof of concept.

Keywords

Semantic web ontologies machine readable datasets open data repositories metadata management

1 Introduction

For the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT), the main Mexican agency that funds research, a repository, is a centralized technological framework that complies with international standards to store, manage, preserve, and disseminate scientific, technological, and innovative information derived from educational activities, and research processes [1]. According to [2], repositories collect, index, and share the intellectual capital of faculty staff.

In a developing country like Mexico, endeavors to build repositories have been undergoing for several years like the Mexican Network of Institutional Repositories (REMERI, after the initials in the Spanish statement Red Mexicana de Repositorios Institucionales) [3], and the National Repository (NR) [4]. At the time of this writing, the NR interoperates with 107 repositories, integrates 137,927 educational resources, and has answered 19,308,572 queries; its functionality and technical requirements are specified in [1] and [5]. Technically, the NR implements the 2.0 version of the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH protocol) [6], an international interoperability standard that uses unqualified Dublin Core (DC) as the default metadata format [7]. The retrieval mechanisms of the NR match keywords from authors, titles, subjects, and dates.

By exploring metadata from repositories, specially those from theses, there are differences in the use of DC elements. As a way of illustration of the exposed problematic, the DC contributor element sometimes stores the name of the advisor or of a reviewer, the second author of an article or even the name of a main-funding organization 1 . Therefore, efforts are required along the lines of unifying uses and meanings. Ontologies are knowledge representation models defined in [8] as formal specifications of shared conceptualizations; they define relevant concepts for particular applications [10].

This paper presents Onto4AIR2, an ontology to manage theses from open repositories, the goal is supporting the construction of machine-readable datasets that are semantically labeled for further consultations in educational organizations that use repositories. Onto4AIR2 is an acronym of Ontologies for All/Any Institutional Repositories, this is the newer version of the ontology described in [9], where the number 2 denotes a second version as well as two languages, English and Spanish. At present, the level of the ontology is proof of concept.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains related work. Section 3 presents the proposed ontology. Section 4 explains advantages derived from Onto4AIR. Section 5 describes the results of an assessment technique. Finally, we conclude in Section 6 with a summary of the present work along with further research perspectives.

2 Related work

The impact of repositories is reported in databases such as OpenDOAR [17]. Technological platforms such as Eprints [11], Digital commons [12], existDB [13], Greenstone [14], Fedora Commons [15] or DSpace [16] support a lot of open repositories. Usually, these platforms use tables to store resource metadata. This section presents related works that use semantic technologies for knowledge acquisition, data integration, and metadata management.

On one hand, for organizations that use the DSpace platform, authors of [31] propose exporting data and semantically enriched by using the OAI-PMH protocol, the OAICat library, and the Current Research Information System (CRIS). The exported data form datasets that link departments, faculties, and researchers, these links are useful to discover research leaders and common research areas. [32] describes a system that converts the DSpace database into an ontology using a normalized schema, the aim is to share information with other systems to discover common interests; the ontology obtained is integrated to other ontologies through semantic correspondence between entities. On the other hand, [33] propose an ontology-facilitated sharing to integrate repositories data, their method consists of transforming data into ontologies accessible from a unique web page.

SpecINT is a hybrid framework for scenarios where integration is not possible because there are no mapping schemes between bioinformatics repositories, this uses graph eigenvectors, vertices ranking, and existing pattern SPARQL queries to identify data sources [18].

ORDI [20] is an open-source ontology middleware that implements the Resource Description Framework (RDF) data model [19] to integrate structured data sources; this ontology processes and storages metadata and context information regardless of another specific ontologies. Authors of [21] use ontologies to integrate data resources and workflows that support online science activities (semantic e-science); ontologies represent theories, models, online tools, and means of innovation.

Semantic repositories are DataBase Management Systems (DBMSs) or other software components that store RDF data, they have inference mechanisms and provide users of real-time query-answering mechanisms. For example, OWLIM [22] is a set of semantic repositories used in the life sciences, telecoms, and publishing sectors developed as part of the Semantic Knowledge Technologies (SEKT) and Triple Space Communication (TRIPCOM) European Research Projects. OWLIM is packaged as a storage and inference layer for the Sesame open RDF framework, this has two variants: 1) SwiftOWLIM, the free version that uses an in-memory RDF database, an inference-engine, and a query-answering engine and 2) BigOWLIM, the commercial version that handles huge volumes of RDF data.

In [24], an ontology serves as a reference model for a historical organizational memory (HOM) in the business domain, this indexes the resources and use equivalent relationships to support multiple names for terms in different languages. The ontology represents document types, collections, subjects, the audience, and the dissemination channel, their main terms were gathered by interviewing experts.

In academic contexts like the Monterrey Technological Institute (ITESM), an information system, a multi-agent system, a knowledge management system, and a knowledge information interpreter that coordinates repositories, domain ontologies, and databases, compose an intelligent platform for knowledge acquisition; the repositories store theses, journal articles, research-based books, patents, technology licensing, trademarks, and documents of technology-based start-up companies [25]. Authors of [26] present an analysis of ontology-based methodologies for integrating and reconciling information and propose an agile method that minimizes the need for ontological expertise for semi-structured data; ontology instances correspond to university ranking data. In [27], ontologies represent students, teachers, monographs, theses, and the graduation process; the main terms are obtained by interviewing staff of different universities.

The Leigh University Benchmark uses ontologies to describe departments, individuals, and their relationships, LUMB(8000) stores data from 8000 universities and 1.1 billion explicit statements, while LUMB(90000) has over 12 billion explicit statements [28], both ontologies are available in the OWL language [29]. Something similar is true for the Bowlogna ontology, this contributes to the gradual adoption of the overall description of the Bologna reform across European universities, this models academic settings and administrative procedures, a graphical user interface (GUI) enables faceted search and browsing for course information [30].

Finally, the ontological design patterns that are used during the creation, verification, and validation in industrial scenarios is reported in [23].

3 Description of the Onto4AIR2 ontology

The construction of the Onto4AIR2 ontology implements the steps originally proposed in [35] in the Protégé editor [36], they are summarized as follows:

Determine domain and scope. The Onto4AIR2 ontology is designed to establish a common vocabulary that reduces ambiguity and enables knowledge acquisition, its potential users in educational organizations are document managers, members of evaluation committees of theses, students, teachers, directors, institutional authorities and web users. Table 1 shows the Competency Questions (CQs) that determine its scope; more information about CQs can be found in [37] and [38].

Reuse of existent vocabularies. Table 2 shows some of the vocabularies integrated into the Onto4AIR2 ontology, they are addressed to improve reusability and minimize ambiguity.

Enumerate main concepts. The terms are related to the following main concepts: repositories, educational resources such as theses, persons, educational organizations, and knowledge areas.

Define classes and construct their hierarchy. Once the main concepts are enumerated, they are defined as classes, then remaining concepts are obtained by generalization, and specialization. rdfs:isDefinedby properties include class definitions as quick guidelines for users, clarity and completeness are supported by CONACYT documents [1] and [5]; rdfs:comment and rdfs:seeAlso properties also include fruitful comments and notes. Figure 1 shows an excerpt of the class hierarchy.

Assign properties for classes. Classes have properties, for example, see Table 4; according to the NR specifications [5], properties for a repository are mandatory (M) or recommended (R).

Define properties between instances. Table 3 shows the domain and range of properties that link ontology instances; an asterisk means that a property accomplishes a facet. The notation is as follows: functional (F), inverse functional (IF), asymmetric (A), and irreflexive (I). Some of these properties are also used in [39] to describe a collection of posters. Note that: 1) the facets from the knows property are also reflexive, symmetric and transitive, and 2) the contribution of authors in a thesis is represented in the sub-properties of isAuthorOf called isFirstAuthorOf for the student, and isCoauthorOf for evaluation committee members. These relationships enable to manage theses as academic partnership products.

Create instances. The instances allow users to have datasets. As a way of illustration, Fig. 2 shows two theses modeled as instances of Onto4AIR2 ontology.

Table 1
Competency questions for the Onto4AIR2 ontology

Identifier Description

CQ1 What is a repository?

CQ2 What types of resources does a repository store?

CQ3 How to describe a thesis?

CQ4 How are the theses organized?

CA5 What information does a person have in the repositories?

CQ6 Which people have reviewed a thesis?

CQ7 Which is the affiliation of the students and the teachers?

CQ8 Which are the knowledge areas for the theses?

CQ9 Which theses are the product of academic partnerships?

Identifier	Description
CQ1	What is a repository?
CQ2	What types of resources does a repository store?
CQ3	How to describe a thesis?
CQ4	How are the theses organized?
CA5	What information does a person have in the repositories?
CQ6	Which people have reviewed a thesis?
CQ7	Which is the affiliation of the students and the teachers?
CQ8	Which are the knowledge areas for the theses?
CQ9	Which theses are the product of academic partnerships?

Table 2

Vocabularies integrated into Onto4AIR2 ontology

Prefix	Value
dc	http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
foaf	http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1
owl	http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
rdf	http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
rdfs	http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
schema	http://schema.org

Table 3

Object properties of the Onto4AIR2 ontology

Object property	Domain	Range	F	IF	A	I
hasAdvisorOfMasterThesis	Student	Teacher	*	*	*
hasKnowledgeArea	CreativeWork, Document	ConceptGroup	*	*	*
hasKnowledgeField	CreativeWork, Document	Concept	*	*
isAuthorOf	Person	CreativeWork, Document	*	*
isCoauthorOf	Person	CreativeWork, Document
isFirstAuthorOf	Person	CreativeWork, Document	*	*	*
isManagedBy	InstitutionalRepository	IR-manager	*	*	*	*
isMemberOfEvaluationCommittee	Teacher	Student	*	*
knows	Person	Person
manages	IR-manager	InstitutionalRepository	*	*	*	*
worksIn	Teacher	EducationalOrganization

Table 4

Data properties for the InstitutionalRepository class

Property	Type	Property	Type
identifier	M	numberOfDocs	R
irName	M	typeOfDocs	R
languageOfDocs	R	updateDate	M
manager	M	website	M

4 Advantages derived from the formalisms of the Onto4AIR2 ontology

Some advantages derived from the formalisms of Onto4AIR2 ontology useful for the staff of educational organizations, for example, see Fig. 3, are the following:

Capacity to insert incomplete information. Examples of use:

Insertion of theses or students without any scholar identifier

Insertion of theses without subject

Modeling persons as instances. An instance can belong to one or more subclasses of the Person class, some subclasses are disjoint while others have common elements. Examples of use:

Insertion of information about university applicants

An undergraduate teacher can also be a graduate student

A person directs a thesis and reviews another

Working with disjoint classes. The type of educational resource is unique because its subclasses are disjoint. Examples of use:

An educational resource is a thesis or an article but this can not be of both types simultaneously

A thesis associated with two or more types of educational resources will produce an inconsistence, that enables managers to identify automatically incorrect information

Fig. 1

An excerpt of the class hierarchy of the Onto4AIR2 ontology.

Fig. 2

Two theses modeled as ontology instances.

Fig. 3

Description of the MasterThesis class.

Management of cardinality restrictions. Unlike relational database schema, cardinality restrictions can have a minimum, maximum, or exact value. Examples of use:

A thesis has only a first author that belongs to the Student class

An evaluation committee has exactly a fixed number of members

An advisor directs a thesis

An advisor collaborates or works in one or more educational organizations

A thesis has exactly one title, although there can be alternative titles

Data properties management. Properties between instances and data types have domain and range restrictions. Examples of use:

The theses have a title and a publication date

The first author of a thesis is an instance of the Student class

The members of evaluation committees are instances of the Teacher class

A thesis is associated with states such as registered, in process, or finished

Inference mechanisms. The reasoners use universal and existential restrictions to infer new knowledge. Examples of use:

A person is an advisor if there is a thesis that has been directed by him or her

The members of an evaluation committee are related to at least one thesis, this activity is considered academic partnership

Any thesis has an evaluation committee

Functional facets. Examples of use:

A student belongs to an educational organization

A thesis is associated with a unique academic program

Equivalence relationships between classes support English and Spanish languages, different names for the same instance can also be used.

5 Results and discussion

This section describes an assessment technique to explore the quality and relevance of the Onto4AIR2 ontology. Participants were organized in two groups: 1) managers - developers and 2) potential users.

5.1 Assessment by managers and developers

Three managers and developers experts in semantic web applications and repositories used the CQ-based approach described in [38] to verify the satisfiability of CQs, (see Table 1). As a way of illustration, Fig. 4 answers CQ1 while Fig. 5 answers CQ4, this shows the labels of a SKOS for the knowledge areas in Spanish and English languages of CONACYT, the SKOS is available at http://www.mauxmedina.com/re3/re3.html.

Fig. 4

Definition of a repository.

Fig. 5

Knowledge areas proposed by CONACYT.

Fig. 6

Metrics for the Onto4AIR2 ontology.

In summary, managers and developers determine that Onto4AIR2 ontology represents CQs and their answers using its terminology, they also correct all the inconsistencies detected by the reasoners Fact++ 1.6.5, Hermit 1.4.3.456, and Pellet. Figure 6 shows the main metrics for the Onto4AIR2 ontology.

5.2 Assessment by potential users

A group of students and teachers selected for convenience between the potential users of our universities participated in an exploratory and self-management survey designed to gather their perceptions about the Onto4AIR2 ontology, (see Table 5). The values high, medium, and low represent the experience.

Table 5
Profiles of potential users

Number of teachers: 12 (6 female, 6 male)

Number of students: 18 (10 female, 8 male)

The average age of teachers: 47 years

The average age of students: 25 years

The average daily use of the internet: 8.5 hours

Experience with repositories: 26 high, 4 medium

Experience with ontologies: 24 high, 2 medium, 2 low

A questionnaire gathered information about correctness and language expressiveness, this consists of 1) by five closed questions that are showed in Table 5, with a possible answer between 1 and 5 that describes the level of user agreement, the minimum level is 1, the maximum level is 5, 2) three dichotomy questions with true or false answers depending on whether or not the user completed the task of Table 8, 3) a multiple-choice question with the options that shows Table 9, and 4) a section for suggestions.

Table 6

Closed-questions of the questionnaire

Question
1. Are the class names or concept names clear?
2. Is the organization of the classes adequate?
3. Are the definitions of the main classes understandable?
4. Is the description of a repository precise?
5. Are the terms of the relationships understandable?

Table 7

Perception of users

Element	Average
Class names:	4.8
Class hierarchy, (see Fig. 1):	3.8
Definitions of classes:	4.3
Description of an IR:	5.0
Object properties, (see Table 3):	4.1
Overall average:	4.4

Table 8

Results for dichotomy questions

Task	Number of answers
Complete the description of a	28 true,
thesis	2 false
Find the types of	30 true,
educational resources	0 false
Check if a person is a co-author	26 true,
of a specific thesis	4 false
Percentage:	93.33% true,
	6.67% false

Unlike the last section, the others were mandatory. There were three days to answer the questionnaires sent by mail. Then, a manager integrated the results of closed and dichotomy questions, while the answers to open questions were analyzed by the managers and developers group during online sessions. The suggestions and comments produced newer versions of the ontology; users received the latest version and the questionnaires for a second time.

Table 7 shows the elements referred to in closed questions and the average results, (a Likert scale of five values varying from 1 = total disagree to 5 = total agree was used for this purpose). The overall average suggests the positive perception of users.

Table 8 shows the tasks referred to dichotomy questions, the answers were true or false according to task accomplishment. The incorrect answers in row 2 come from two users who only wrote the title of the thesis; for the third row, four users did not distinguish between author and co-author. The overall percentage of correct answers was 93.33%.

Table 9 shows the possible choices for the Onto4AIR2 ontology and the number of users that identified each one, additional uses were democratization and visualization of information.

Table 9

Possible choices for the Onto4AIR2 ontology identified by number of potential users

Use	Number of users
Construct machine readable datasets	26
Develop semantic web services	24
Enrich data from repositories	23
Add new information retrieval mechanisms	23
Knowledge acquisition	21
Share knowledge	19
Reuse knowledge	17
Total of potential users:	30

In addition to the results of Table 9, the following suggestions were gathered:

Include other types of persons such as designers and librarians

Add Play and Work as other types of educational resources

Change the label of updateDate data property to modificationDate or last-Update of the Institutional Repository class

Represent other types of academic partnerships

Finally, the Net Promoter Score (NPS) was also introduced into the questionnaires that were sent for the second time to users, this is a standard question widely used to estimate users’ attitude about a tested object [40]. Users were asked for a numerical answer between 0 and 10, (minimum and maximum value); the answers between [0,6], [7,8] and [9,10] intervals are associated with a detractor, indifferent or promoter attitude, respectively. The average of the answers is considered as the final value for the tested object. The final value of the NPS for Onto4AIR2 ontology was 8.9; this value indicates a positive users’ perception.

6 Conclusions

This paper described the Onto4AIR2 ontology to represent theses from repositories. The ontology uses established vocabularies such as foaf, schema.org, and skos, this formally represents persons, theses and their properties in English and Spanish languages. Persons are modeled by using the foaf vocabulary, educational organizations and educational resources are represented by using schema.org while a SKOS was proposed to include knowledge areas to classify thesis according to CONACYT. The vocabulary of this ontology can be shared between web users. The scope of Onto4AIR2 ontology was determined by a set of competency questions that can be expressed as SPARQL queries, the answers to some of these questions were illustrated with figures that showed the use of the ProtÃrgÃr ontology editor.

Relevant related works have showed the successful use of ontologies for knowledge acquisition, integration and reconciling information in different contexts; however, information about assessment is limited.

In this paper, managers, developers and potential users participated in an ontological assessment method. On one hand, the managers and developers used reasoners for validation of logical consistency and followed a CQ-based approach, the experimental results allowed them to establish that the ontology was able to represent CQs and their answers using its terminology. On the other hand, an exploratory and self-management survey was done to gather the opinion of potential users; the results indicated a positive perception to promote the ontology.

Onto4AIR ontology represents an alternative to increase quality, reliability and reusability of data from repositories. The ontology is of utility as this gives institutional visibility, this can be adopted by other educational organizations with little adjustments such as the incorporation of new terms, object properties, rules or restrictions.

At present, we are working with the implementation of software modules to transform IR data into ontologies instances directly. We expect that our process foster the benefits of open access policies. As future work, we plan to work in the implementation of new extensions that explore potential power of automated reasoning and support data integration for later analysis.

Footnotes

More information about the usage of DC contributor element is available at:

References

Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT), Lineamientos generales para el repositorio nacional y los repositorios institucionales, 2014. https://www.repositorionacionalcti.mx/docs/Lineamientos_generales.pdf

Gayatri

, Capturing intellectual capital with an institutional repository at a business school in India. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Library Hi Tech26(1) (2008), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830810857843.

Red Mexicana de Repositorios Institucionales (REMERI), Corporación Universitaria para el Desarrollo de Internet A. C. Internet 2 México (CUDI). Red Mexicana de Repositorios Institucionales, 2019. http://www.remeri.org.mx/portal/index.html

National Repository (NR), Repositorio Nacional. 2021. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT). Gobierno de México, (2021). https://www.repositorionacionalcti.mx

Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT), Lineamientos técnicospara el repositorio nacional y los repositorios institucionales, (2019). https://www.siicyt.gob.mx/index.php/normatividad/conacyt-normatividad/conacyt/1499-lineamientos-tecnicos-para-el-repostitorio-nacional-y-los-reporsitorios-institucionales/file

Lagoze

and Van de Sompel

, The open archives initiative: building a low-barrier interoperability framework, Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL ’01), Roanoke, Virginia, USA, pp. 54–52, (2001). ISBN:1-58113-345-6, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/379437.379449

Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI), DCMI metadata terms, (2001). https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/

Gruber

T.R.

, Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies43(5–6) (1995), pp. 907–928. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1995.1081

Medina

M.A.

, Sánchez

, Cervantes

, Medina

R.C.

, De la Calleja

and Benitez

, Representación semántica de conocimiento operativo y de dominio para repositorios institucionales. Registro público del derecho de autor, (2017). Number 03-2017-042511235500-01.

10.

Van Heijst

, Schreiber

A.T.

and Wielinga

B.J.

, Using explicit ontologies in KBS development, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies46(2–3) (1997), 183–292. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1006/ijhc.1996.0090

11.

Eprints services, University of Southampton. Electronics & Computer Science, (2019). http://www.eprints.org/uk/

12.

Digital Commons, Digital Commons bepress, (2016). https://www.bepress.com/products/digital-commons/

13.

eXist Solutions, Exist db: the open source native xml database, (2018). http://exist-db.org/exist/apps/homepage/index.html

14.

Greenstone, Greenstone Digital Library Software. University ofWaikato, New Zealand. New Zealand Digital Library Project, (2019). http://www.greenstone.org

15.

Wilcox

, Supporting digital preservation and access with Fedora, IFLA World Library and Information Congress (WLIC 2017), (2017). http://library.ifla.org/1758/1/150-wilcox-en.pdf

16.

Mackenzie

, Barton

, Bass

, Branschofsky

, McClellan,

, Stuve

and Walker

, Dspace: an open source dynamic digital repository, D-Lib magazine9(1) (2003). doi://10.1045/january2003-smith

17.

Jisc open access services, OpenDOAR: Directory of open access repositories (2019). http://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/opendoar/

18.

Arsić

, Dokić-Petrović

, Spalević

, Milentijević

, Rančić

and Živanović

, SpecINT: a framework for data integration over cheminformatics and bioinformatics RDF repositories, Semantic web - interoperability, usability, applicability, IOS Press Journal10 (2018), 1–19. doi: 10.3233/SW-180327

19.

Schreiber

and Gandon

, RDF 1.1 XML Syntax. W3C Recommendation, (2014). http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20140225/

20.

Kiryakov

, Ognyanov

and Kirov

, An ontology representation and data integration (ORDI) framework, (2004).

21.

Brodaric

and Gahegan

, Ontology use for semantic e-science, Semantic web – interoperability, usability, applicability, IOS Press Journal1 (2010), 149–153. doi://10.3233/SW-2010-0021

22.

Bishop

, Kiryakov

, Ognyanoff

, Peikov

, Tashev

and Velkov

, OWLIM: a family of scalable semantic repositories,interoperability, usability, applicability, IOS Press Journal, Semantic web –2 (2011), 33–42. doi://10.3233/SW-2011-0026

23.

Guizzardi

, Theoretical foundations and engineering tools for building ontologies as reference conceptual models.interoperability, usability, applicability. IOS Press Journal, Semantic web –1 (2010), 3–10. doi://10.3233/SW-2010-0015

24.

Estevão

and Strauhs

, Information retrieval in institutional repositories: proposal of an ontology for historical organizational memory, Qualitative and quantitative methods in libraries4(4) (2017), 983–992. http://78.46.229.148/ojs/index.php/qqml/article/view/297

25.

Cantú

F.J.

and CeballosMultiagent

H.G.

, knowledge and information network approach for managing research assets, Expert Systems with Applications37(7) (2010), 5272–5284. doi://10.1016/j.eswa.2010.01.012

26.

Casas-Bayona

and Ceballos

H.G.

, Integrating semi-structured information using semantic technologies – an evaluation of tools and a case study on university rankings data, Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Data Management Technologies and Applications – Volume 1: DATA, Science and Technology Publications, (2014), pp. 357–364. doi:10.5220/0005004203570364

27.

Pinilla

G.G.

, Aplicación de la lógica de predicados para la realización de inferencias en documentos de pasantía descritos a nivel ontológico, Ingenierías USBMed7(1) (2016), 11–19. doi://10.21500/20275846.1802

28.

Guo

, Pan

and Heflin

, LUBM: a benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems, Journal of Web Semantics First Look, Elsevier3 (2005), 158–182. doi://10.1016/j.websem.2005.06.005

29.

McGuinness

and Harmelen

, OWL web ontology language overview, W3C Recommendation, (2004). http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/

30.

Demartini

, Enchev

, Gapany

and Cudré-Mauroux

, The Bowlogna ontology: fostering open curricula and agile knowledge bases for Europe’s higher education landscape, Semantic web - interoperability, usability, applicability, IOS Press Journal4 (2013), 53–63. doi://10.3233/SW-2012-0064

31.

Ivanovic

, Ivanovic

and Dimic

S.B.

, Improving dissemination of human knowledge by exporting data from research information systems, Proceedings of the Management, Knowledge and Learning International Conference, pp. 711–718, (2014). https://ideas.repec.org/h/tkp/mklp14/711-718.html

32.

Farid

, Khan

and Younus

J.M.

, DSont: DSpace to ontology transformation, 42(2) (2016), 179–199. doi://10.1177/0165551515591406

33.

Fari

and Khan

, Exchanging data from institutional repositories to the semantic web, Lap Lambert Academic Publishing, (2015).

34.

Fernández

L.M.

, Overview of methodologies for building ontologies, Proceedings of the IJCAI-99 workshop on ontologies and problem-solving methods (KRR5), (1999). http://www.lsi.upc.es/bejar/aia/aia-web/4-fernandez.pdf

35.

Noy

N.F.

and McGuinness

L.D.

, Ontology development 101: a guide to creating your first ontology, Stanford knowledge systems laboratory technical report KSL-01-05 and Stanford medical informatics technical report SMI-2001-0880, (2001). http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/ontology-tutorial-noy-mcguinness-abstract.html

36.

Musen

M.A.

, The Protégé project: a look back and a look forward, AI Matters1(4) (2015), 4–12. doi://10.1145/2757001.2757003

37.

Noy

N.F.

and Hafner

C.D.

, The state of the art in ontology design: a survey and comparative review, AI Magazine18(3) (1997), 53–74. http://www.aaai.org/Library/Magazine/vol18.php#Fall

38.

Bezerra

, Freitas

and Santana

, Evaluating ontologies with competency questions, Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT)3 (2013), Series WI-IAT ’13, pp. 284–285. doi://10.1109/WI-IAT.2013.199

39.

Medina

N.M.A.

, Arrieta

D.D.

, De la Calleja

M.J.

, H.L. Zacatzontetl

M.J.

and Zacatelco

P.M.

, An ontology-based approach to describe collaborative work by reusing and enriching data from an institutional repository, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science354 (2020), 129–139. doi://10.1016/j.entcs.2020.10.010

40.

Bradner

and Sauro

, User experience and likelihood to recommend: linking UX and net promoter score, User Experience Professionals’ Association International Conference, (2012). https://damassets.autodesk.net/content/dam/autodesk/research/publications-assets/pdf/user-experience-and-likelihood.pdf

Number of teachers:	12 (6 female, 6 male)
Number of students:	18 (10 female, 8 male)
The average age of teachers:	47 years
The average age of students:	25 years
The average daily use of the internet:	8.5 hours
Experience with repositories:	26 high, 4 medium
Experience with ontologies:	24 high, 2 medium, 2 low