Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 132 – 138

5th World Conference Educational Sciences -WCES 2013

Emerging of Academic Information Search System with Ontology-

Based Approach
Norasykin Mohd Zaid a 1, Sim Kim Lau b
a
Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai 81310, Malaysia
b
School of Information Systems and Technology, Faculty of Informatics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong 2500, Australia

Abstract

This paper describes the comparison of ontology development tools for development of academic information search system that
assists inexperienced research students at a local university in Malaysia to search for academic resources in the local language
context (Bahasa Malaysia). The cohort of inexperienced research students faces two main problems when using current system
comprises of keyword search. Firstly the language barrier-limiting students’ capabilities to conduct keyword search in foreign
language (such as English). Secondly limited research experience in querying often results in obtaining irrelevant search results.
The proposed semantic search system aims to apply ontology-based search to overcome the above two problems. The paper
presents the first phase of system development; ontology design and ontology development tool.
© 2013
© 2013 The
TheAuthors.
Authors.Published byElsevier
Published by ElsevierLtd.
Ltd.Open
All access
rights under
reserved.
CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selectionand/or
Selection and peer reviewunder
peer-review under the responsibility
responsibility of Prof.
of Academic Dr.
World Servet Bayram
Education and Research Center.
Keywords: First keywords, second keywords, third keywords, forth keywords

1. Introduction

Information and knowledge are increasingly becoming shareable and searchable resources, particularly in the
current digitized world. Since 1996, the World Wide Web (WWW) has become a primary source for information
offering online resources that are available 24/7. Traditionally library is an important source of information,
particularly as academic resources and has become important source of reference for academic researchers. Library
classification system has migrated from Dewey Decimal Classification System (DDC) to a new digitized format
such as Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) system that can be accessed through the web. The OPAC system is
based on known-item search (Antelman et al., 2006).
Furthermore, keyword search and Boolean operators can also be used to facilitate the search process.
Undoubtedly digital library provides an improved source of information access that include digital document
creation and storage, documents classification and data indexing, documents searching and retrieving, distribution,
administration and access control (Garza-Salazar et al., 2003). However human interpretation is still required when
records matching the search criteria (such as keywords) are returned to determine its relevance and usefulness. For
example, in searching for a programming textbook, which we do not know the exact title, we tend to type the word
programming in the search box. When search results are returned, we scroll down the list of titles to look for the one
that we search for. This is commonly encountered by students who are inexperienced in literature search. The
motivation of this paper is to propose the development of an ontology-based information retrieval system to assist

1
Corresponding Author: Norasykin Mohd Zaid. Tel.: +60-10-406-1060
E-mail address: norasykin@utm.my

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.180
 Norasykin Mohd Zaid and Sim Kim Lau / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 132 – 138 133

inexperienced research students at a local university in Malaysia to search for academic resources in the local
language context (Bahasa Malaysia). The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses ontology
design and development of ontology. Section 3 discusses ontology development tools and follows by conclusion in
Section 4.

2. Ontology

Ontologies have been known as a database of terms that justified a domain to be used and shared in a global area
(Borst, 1997). Ontology becomes a model of real word to represent a domain of knowledge. This new technology
has been used in the Semantic Web although the original word of ontology is being borrowed from the philosophy
discipline, which defines the concepts of things. Thomas (1993) explains the real definition of ontology is a
systematic account of existence, however in computer science, ontology is a representation of precise specification
to form a concept. Thus, ontology is described as formal specification of terms in the define domain and identifying
any relations existing in between the terms. Ontology enables people or machines to retrieve the desired information
with an understanding of the meaning of terms used in the domain and share common vocabularies used in the same
domain (Wang et al., 2008a). Therefore, the use of ontology is about using, reusing and sharing domain knowledge
of terms concept. Many ontology classes have been developed recently and are kept in a database to be used or
referred to by others as knowledge/resource sources. Ontologies are not only used in the field of Semantic Web but
also in many others fields such as artificial intelligence, software engineering, biomedical informatics, library
science, and information architecture.
There are two types of ontologies according to two dimensions of perception: the amount and type of structure of
the conceptualisation and the subject of the conceptualisation. The first dimension, according to Heijst et al. (1995),
includes: (i) terminological ontologies, (ii) information ontologies, and (iii) knowledge modelling ontologies;
whereas the second dimension includes: (i) domain ontologies, (ii) generic ontologies, (iii) representation
ontologies, and (iv) application ontologies. The first dimension with terminological ontologies is referred to as
ontology that defines the terms to represent knowledge in the domain of discourse, such as medical or biological
domains. Information ontologies are defined as records structure of a database, which is a flat structure, unlike the
knowledge modeling ontologies, which have a richer structure of database, such as involving distinction and
decision-making processes. To refer to the second dimension of ontologies, domain ontologies refer to specific
particular area while generic ontologies refer to domain ontologies across many areas. Representation ontologies are
supposed to be naturally present in general contrast to application ontologies, which are specifically designed to the
particular application such as the Marine Metadata Interoperability Project (MMI) (https://marinemetadata.org/).

2.1. Ontology design

Holsapple and Joshi (2002) present five approaches to ontological design: (1) inspiration, (2) induction, (3)
deduction, (4) synthesis, and (5) collaboration. Inspirational approach starts the design idea by collecting individual
personal views and creativity to construct the domain context. Inductive approach is based on the observation and
analysing of current or specific domains to apply to particular domains. Deductive approach adopts some general
principles to construct a new domain while the synthetic approach applies some potential characterisation from the
existing ontologies. With the collaborative approach, the approach relies on human participation, which involves
individual reflection and viewpoints to get along with the collaborative process.

2.2. Ontology development

How these ontologies can be developed depends on how or what method is being used. Uschold and Gruninger
(1996) conclude that there are five steps in the process of ontologies development: (i) identify purpose and scope,
(ii) building the ontology, (iii) evaluation, (iv) documentation, and (v) guidelines for each phase. In the second step
of building ontology, it includes: (a) ontology capture, (b) ontology coding, and (c) integrating existing ontologies
(Uschold and Gruninger, 1996). The first step in building the ontology is by considering when there is a clear idea
134 Norasykin Mohd Zaid and Sim Kim Lau / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 132 – 138

on what ontology is going to build, and then the domain of the ontology can be set with purpose and scope of the
domain identified earlier. This idea can then be extended to the second step of developing domain ontology by
providing information of ontology capture, coding and with attention to consider using an existing ontology. The
third step is important to identify whether the ontology is in a good form of classification and relationship in its
domain to bring effectiveness of knowledge sharing. In the forth step, the idea of having documentation is to allow
knowledge sharing by preparing the problems faced in existing ontology with the important assumption together
with the concepts definition based on type and ontology purpose. In the last step, the initial guidelines are provided
which consists of clarity, coherence and extensibility.
Some other methodologies for building ontology have also been discussed by Fernandez-Lopez et al. (1997); and
Corcho et al. (2003a). Corcho et al. (2003a) have review and compare the main methodologies for building ontology
such as METHONTOLOGY (Fernandez-Lopez et al., 1997) and On-To-Knowledge methodology (Steffen et al.,
2001). Fernandez-Lopez et al. (1997) propose the ontology development process to start with planning, specifying,
knowledge acquisition, conceptualising, formalising, integrating, implementing, evaluating, documenting and
maintaining the process. This methodology is used in most ontology development processes (Lopez et al., 1999; and
Brusa et al., 2008) and has also been extended to allow collaborative edition of ontologies at the knowledge level
(Arpírez et al., 2001). On-To-Knowledge methodology takes into consideration the process of ontology
development from the early stage of setting up the project until the final level of the application which consists of:
feasibility study, ontology kickoff, refinement, evaluation and maintenance (Steffen et al., 2001).
Other than ontology methodology, there are currently many tools available to develop ontology. Some of them
are: OilEd (Bechhofer et al., 2001), OntoEdit (Sure et al., 2002), WebODE (Corcho et al., 2003b), WebOnto
(Domingue, 1998), Protégé (Rubin et al., 2007; Tudorache et al., 2008; Corcho et al., 2003b; and Corcho and
Gómez-Pérez, 2004), OntoSaurus (Swartout et al., 1997), Ontolingua (Thomas, 1993; and Farquhar et al., 1997b),
KAON (Bozsak et al., 2002) and SymOntoX (Missikoff and Taglino, 2003). For example, OntoSaurus (Swartout et
al., 1997) presents ontology browsers and editors to support a collaborative vision of ontology development.
Farquhar et al. (1997a) develop tools to allow ontology sharing and at the same time provide services to publish,
browse, create and ontologies editing stored on their Ontolingua server.

Table 1 Ontology Development Tools

Ontology Main Features Ontology Strength Weakness

Development Development Process
Tools
1. OilEd Ontology editor for IOilEd knowledge Allow users to exploit No support for
building ontologies model is based on the full power of an versioning or for
using Ontology description logics. expressive web ontology working with multiple
Interchange language ontologies.
Language (OIL). (OIL/DAML+OIL).
The reasoning support
Reasoning is used to provided (FaCT) is
support the design and incomplete for OIL
maintenance of extended with concrete
ontologies. data-types and
individuals, and does
not include additional
services such as
explanation.
2. OntoEdit Ontology editor Methodology-guided Ontology development No support on built-in
development of with the help of inference engine,
ontologies. inferencing. DBMS, collaborative
working and ontology
Extensibility through library.
plug-in structure.
3. WebODE Integrated Provides a default Extensibility via plug-in. No support on
technological form-based web user ontology library.
support for many interface to create Graph view.
activities of the ontologies according
ontology lifecycle, to the knowledge Multi-user.
technological model
support for ontology aforementioned. Merging.
 Norasykin Mohd Zaid and Sim Kim Lau / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 132 – 138 135

development
methodologies,
ontology
interoperability.

4. WebOnto A tool for Provides direct Incorporates the No support on

collaboratively manipulation interface sketching and extensibility and
browsing and editing using graphical synchronous merging.
ontologies, which representations to communication tools.
uses a Java client to present ontology
alleviate the constructs. Provides a direct
interface problems manipulation interface
generated by HTML. using graphical
representations to
present ontology
constructs.
5. Protégé An open-source tool Protégé knowledge Protégé 2000 provides Does not provide real
that allows model is frame-based. ontology editing support for multiple
developers to create functionality on different users. There is no
and to manage levels. It is possible to support for multiple
terminologies and query the ontology. changes on the same
ontologies. Plug-ins are provided for component. Users are
querying based on F- not notified about
Logic, merging and changes made by
annotation of the others.
ontologies with
WordNet. The tool does not
allow two classes or
attributes with the
same name.
6. OntoSaurus Ontology browser. Linking domain Share knowledge across Use HTML for the
specific terms to an systems; use object- client interface that
existing ontology and oriented Common-Lisp- generates interface
extending it. based as a web server design problems.
and data knowledge can It does not support
be browsed and edited ontology development
on any platform. from scratch.
7. Ontolingua Provides a suite of Enables renaming of No support for graph
ontology authoring non-logical symbols view and extensibility.
tools and a library of from multiple
modular re-useable component ontologies
ontologies. and that disambiguate
symbol references during
input and output.
8. KOAN Builds on available Includes a multi- Provides objects No support on graph
resources and lingual Ontology representing various view and merging.
provides tools for the Engineering and pieces of ontology, such
engineering, Evolution as Concept, Relation,
discovery, Environment Instance, Objects for
management, and (OntoMatSOEP) that creating and applying
presentation of allows the manual changes to ontology
ontologies and development and entities as well as objects
metadata. maintenance of providing query
ontologies. facilities.
9. SymOntoX Ontology Support collaborative
management system and distributed ontology
that is capable of authoring activities.
developing and
managing several
ontologies (business
and enterprise).
10. Retrievalware 8.0 Is an enterprise Combines Convera's Uses a semantic network
search engine proven enterprise to expand queries for
emphasising natural search and more complete recall.
language processing categorisation
and semantic capabilities with a Profiling feature filters
networks. new dynamic content to enable real-
136 Norasykin Mohd Zaid and Sim Kim Lau / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 132 – 138

classification time monitoring of

methodology to help information in live data
organisations sources.
automate knowledge
management and
discovery processes.

3. Ontology design and development tool

The ontology-based search system is developed based on an ontology-based mind-map. The mind-map is
developed from the academic programme profile of the faculty in this case study. The Education Faculty aims to
produce future teachers with knowledge and experiences related to the teaching profession. Thus, research topics are
often conducted on issues related to teaching and learning based on specialised and professional subjects offered at
the faculty. The mind-map is developed by considering the relationship between major components of teaching and
learning as specialised subject offering, for example mathematics, physics, chemistry, living skills, sports science,
Islamic studies, computer science and Teaching Language as a Second Language (TESL).
The mind-map is organised in a hierarchical structure to be translated to an ontology structure. The mind-map is
developed using the inductive approach of ontology design (Holsapple and Joshi, 2002). With an inductive
approach, the researcher observes, examines and analyses the sample domain of interest to develop the required
ontology.
To prepare for mind-map development, the author examines the research and teaching areas in the faculty. Five
main categories of teaching and learning that match the faculty profile are identified: teaching, learning, field of
study, education level and others. For each main category, subcategories are prepared to show relevant topic areas in
each category. For example, the teaching main category consists of the following subcategories: pedagogy, educator,
skill, style, course or subject, theory and tool. To illustrate the subcategory of pedagogy relates to research
conducted on a thesis, which investigates how the teaching pedagogy is applied. The same rationale applies for the
learning category. In the case of field of study category, it reflects the course or subject offered in the faculty. These
include mathematics, physics, chemistry, living skills, sports science, Islamic studies, computer science and TESL.
The same category is also included as subcategories of teaching and learning. These examples of cross-categories
options enable users to select the same keyword, but under a different structure of category-subcategory, to give a
variety of combinations to enable users to choose from different perspectives.
As explained, the proposed ontology development is based on inductive approach, which is based on the
observation and analysing of current or specific domains to apply to particular domains. The prototype development
is based on existing library records in the database system of Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
The thesis records obtained for the prototype development was derived from the database system in 2008. Thus
using the inductive approach the subcategories created in the prototype system are based on existing structure of the
database system. It is worth noting that the subcategories structure can be changed whenever a new structure of
categories and subcategories is needed or requires modification.
Another unique characteristic found in this university is that the thesis can be written in the native language of
Bahasa Malaysia or the English language. As a non-English speaking country, this university conducts most of the
courses in the Bahasa Malaysia language. However, courses can be taught in the English language, particularly for
students who are enrolled in English teaching courses such as TESL or international student. These students write
their thesis in English; therefore it is desirable for the search system to be able to conduct searches for thesis records
regardless of language.
Protégé 3.4.4 is used to develop the ontology classes and subclasses. Protégé is a tool to help users in the
construction of a small to large knowledge repository. Protégé represents the concepts and relationships as mind-
map or concept map features, using an easy to use graphical representation and it allows users to have direct
manipulation such as content controlling and editing. This way, the knowledge browsing and editing process can
become simple and flexible.
 Norasykin Mohd Zaid and Sim Kim Lau / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 132 – 138 137

4. Conclusion

Ontology enables relationships between keywords and terms to be defined. Ontology allows desired information
to be retrieved by sharing common vocabularies with an understanding of meaning of terms in the domain. The
ontology design is based on an ontology-based mind-map, which reflect to the real database system of selected
domain. Protégé 3.4.4 is used as the ontology development tool to develop the ontology classes and subclasses based
on the designed mind-map.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Universiti Teknologi Malaysia and University of Wollongong for their support in
making this research possible. This research was supported by Malaysian government (Ministry of Higher
Education) and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM).

References

Antelman, K., Lynema, E. and Pace, A. K. (2006). Toward a Twenty-First Century Library Catalog Information Technology & Libraries 25 (3),
128-139.
Arpírez, J. C., Corcho, O., Fernández-López, M. and Gómez-Pérez, A. (2001). Webode: A Scalable Workbench for Ontological Engineering.
Proceeding of the 1st International Conference on Knowledge Capture, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 6-13.
Bechhofer, S., Horrocks, I., Goble, C. and Stevens, R. (2001). Oiled: A Reason-Able Ontology Editor for the Semantic Web. Ki 2001: Advances
in Artificial Intelligence. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg.
Borst, W. N. (1997). Construction of Engineeering Ontologies for Knowledge Sharing and Reuse. University of Twente.
Bozsak, E., Ehrig, M., Handschuh, S., Hotho, A., Maedche, A., Motik, B., Oberle, D., Schmitz, C., Staab, S., Stojanovic, L., Stojanovic, N.,
Studer, R., Stumme, G., Sure, Y., Tane, J., Volz, R. and Zacharias, V. (2002). Kaon - Towards a Large Scale Semantic Web. Third
International Conference on E-Commerce and Web Technologies, London, UK, 304 - 313.
Brusa, G., Laura Caliusco, M. and Chiotti, O. (2008). Towards Ontological Engineering: A Process for Building a Domain Ontology from
Scratch in Public Administration. Expert Systems, 25 (5), 484-503. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-0394.2008.00471.x.
Corcho, O., Fernandez-Lopez, M. and Gomez-Perez, A. (2003a). Methodologies, Tools and Languages for Building Ontologies: Where Is Their
Meeting Point? Data & Knowledge Engineering, 46(1), 41-64.
Corcho, O. and Gómez-Pérez, A. (2004). Ontology Translation Approaches for Interoperability: A Case Study with Protégé-2000 and Webode.
The 14th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management - EKAW'04, Northamptonshire, UK, 16.
Corcho, Ó., Gómez-Pérez, A., Guerrero-Rodríguez, D. J., Pérez-Rey, D., Ruiz-Cristina, A., Sastre-Toral, T. and Suárez-Figueroa, M. C. (2003b).
Evaluation Experiment of Ontology Tools’ Interoperability with the Webode Ontology Engineering Workbench. The 2nd International
Semantic Web Conference (ISWC'03), Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, 87.
Domingue, J. (1998). Tadzebao and Webonto: Discussing, Browsing, and Editing Ontologies on the Web. 11th Knowledge Acquisition for
Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop.
Farquhar, A., Fikes, R. and Rice, J. (1997a). The Ontolingua Server: A Tool for Collaborative Ontology Construction. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 46 (6), 20.
Farquhar, A., Fikes, R. and Rice, J. (1997b). Tools for Assembling Modular Ontologies in Ontolingua. The Fourteenth National Conference on
Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'97), Providence, Rhode Island.
Fernandez-Lopez, M., Gomez-Perez, A. and Juristo, N. (1997). Methontology: From Ontological Art Towards Ontological Engineering.
Proceedings of the AAAI97 Spring Symposium Stanford, USA.
Garza-Salazar, D. A., Lavariega, J. C. and Sordia-Salinas, M. (2003). Information Retrieval and Administration of Distributed Documents in
Internet. IN Abramowicz, W. (Ed.) Knowledge-Based Information Retrieval and Filtering from the Web. USA, Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Heijst, G. V., Falasconi, S., Abu-Hanna, A., Schreiber, G. and Stefanelli, M. (1995). A Case Study in Ontology Library Construction. Artificial
Intelligence in Medicine, 7 39.
Holsapple, C. W. and Joshi, K. D. (2002). A Collaborative Approach to Ontology Design. Commun. ACM, 45 (2), 42-47.
DOI:10.1145/503124.503147.
138 Norasykin Mohd Zaid and Sim Kim Lau / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 132 – 138

Lopez, M. F., Gomez-Perez, A., Sierra, J. P. and Sierra, A. P. (1999). Building a Chemical Ontology Using Methontology and the Ontology
Design Environment. Intelligent Systems and their Applications, IEEE, 14 (1), 37-46.
Missikoff, M. and Taglino, F. (2003). Symontox: A Web-Ontology Tool for Ebusiness Domain. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference
on Web Information Systems Engineering (WISE2003), Roma, Italy.
Rubin, D. L., Noy, N. F. and Musen, M. A. (2007). Protégé: A Tool for Managing and Using Terminology in Radiology Applications. Journal of
Digital Imaging, 20, 12.
Steffen, S., Rudi, S., Hans-Peter, S. and York, S. (2001). Knowledge Processes and Ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16 (1), 26-34.
DOI:10.1109/5254.912382.
Sure, Y., Erdmann, M., Angele, J., Staab, S., Studer, R. and Wenke, D. (2002). Ontoedit: Collaborative Ontology Development for the Semantic
Web. International Semantic Web Conference - ISWC'02, Sardinia, Italy, 221–235.
Swartout, B., Patil, R., Knight, K. and Russ, T. (1997). Toward Distributed Use of Large-Scale Ontologies. Symposium on Ontological
Engineering. USA, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence - AAAI.
Thomas, R. G. (1993). A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5 (2), 199-220.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/knac.1993.1008.
Tudorache, T., Noy, N. F. and Musen, M. A. (2008). Collaborative Protégé: Enabling Community-Based Authoring of Ontologies. 7th
International Semantic Web Conference - ISWC'08, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Uschold, M. and Gruninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications. Knowledge Engineering Review.
Wang, X., Fang, F. and Fan, L. (2008). Ontology-Based Description of Learning Object. The 7th International Conference on Web-based
Learning (ICWL 2008), Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China, 468 - 476.