• Asia pacific journal of information systems
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.125-155
• /
• 2010

Ontologies have been adopted in various business and scientific communities as a key component of the Semantic Web. Despite the increasing importance of ontologies, ontology developers still perceive construction tasks as a challenge. A clearly defined and well-structured methodology can reduce the time required to develop an ontology and increase the probability of success of a project. However, no reliable knowledge-engineering methodology for ontology development currently exists; every methodology has been tailored toward the development of a particular ontology. In this study, we developed a Graduation Screen Ontology (GSO). The graduation screen domain was chosen for the several reasons. First, the graduation screen process is a complicated task requiring a complex reasoning process. Second, GSO may be reused for other universities because the graduation screen process is similar for most universities. Finally, GSO can be built within a given period because the size of the selected domain is reasonable. No standard ontology development methodology exists; thus, one of the existing ontology development methodologies had to be chosen. The most important considerations for selecting the ontology development methodology of GSO included whether it can be applied to a new domain; whether it covers a broader set of development tasks; and whether it gives sufficient explanation of each development task. We evaluated various ontology development methodologies based on the evaluation framework proposed by G$\acute{o}$mez-P$\acute{e}$rez et al. We concluded that METHONTOLOGY was the most applicable to the building of GSO for this study. METHONTOLOGY was derived from the experience of developing Chemical Ontology at the Polytechnic University of Madrid by Fern$\acute{a}$ndez-L$\acute{o}$pez et al. and is regarded as the most mature ontology development methodology. METHONTOLOGY describes a very detailed approach for building an ontology under a centralized development environment at the conceptual level. This methodology consists of three broad processes, with each process containing specific sub-processes: management (scheduling, control, and quality assurance); development (specification, conceptualization, formalization, implementation, and maintenance); and support process (knowledge acquisition, evaluation, documentation, configuration management, and integration). An ontology development language and ontology development tool for GSO construction also had to be selected. We adopted OWL-DL as the ontology development language. OWL was selected because of its computational quality of consistency in checking and classification, which is crucial in developing coherent and useful ontological models for very complex domains. In addition, Protege-OWL was chosen for an ontology development tool because it is supported by METHONTOLOGY and is widely used because of its platform-independent characteristics. Based on the GSO development experience of the researchers, some issues relating to the METHONTOLOGY, OWL-DL, and Prot$\acute{e}$g$\acute{e}$-OWL were identified. We focused on presenting drawbacks of METHONTOLOGY and discussing how each weakness could be addressed. First, METHONTOLOGY insists that domain experts who do not have ontology construction experience can easily build ontologies. However, it is still difficult for these domain experts to develop a sophisticated ontology, especially if they have insufficient background knowledge related to the ontology. Second, METHONTOLOGY does not include a development stage called the "feasibility study." This pre-development stage helps developers ensure not only that a planned ontology is necessary and sufficiently valuable to begin an ontology building project, but also to determine whether the project will be successful. Third, METHONTOLOGY excludes an explanation on the use and integration of existing ontologies. If an additional stage for considering reuse is introduced, developers might share benefits of reuse. Fourth, METHONTOLOGY fails to address the importance of collaboration. This methodology needs to explain the allocation of specific tasks to different developer groups, and how to combine these tasks once specific given jobs are completed. Fifth, METHONTOLOGY fails to suggest the methods and techniques applied in the conceptualization stage sufficiently. Introducing methods of concept extraction from multiple informal sources or methods of identifying relations may enhance the quality of ontologies. Sixth, METHONTOLOGY does not provide an evaluation process to confirm whether WebODE perfectly transforms a conceptual ontology into a formal ontology. It also does not guarantee whether the outcomes of the conceptualization stage are completely reflected in the implementation stage. Seventh, METHONTOLOGY needs to add criteria for user evaluation of the actual use of the constructed ontology under user environments. Eighth, although METHONTOLOGY allows continual knowledge acquisition while working on the ontology development process, consistent updates can be difficult for developers. Ninth, METHONTOLOGY demands that developers complete various documents during the conceptualization stage; thus, it can be considered a heavy methodology. Adopting an agile methodology will result in reinforcing active communication among developers and reducing the burden of documentation completion. Finally, this study concludes with contributions and practical implications. No previous research has addressed issues related to METHONTOLOGY from empirical experiences; this study is an initial attempt. In addition, several lessons learned from the development experience are discussed. This study also affords some insights for ontology methodology researchers who want to design a more advanced ontology development methodology.

• Korean Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.127-134
• /
• 2012

Objectives : Perceived stress scale is a self-report inventory to estimate the degree of individual perceived stress in daily life. The aim of this study was to introduce this scale and test the reliability and validity of the Korean version of PSS. Methods : The total of 154 female hospital workers were included in this study. The survey questionnaires were conducted for demographic information. All participants were required to complete PSS, Hamilton Anxiety scale and Beck Depression Inventory. Reliability and validity studies were conducted and internal consistency was examined. Results : The mean score of the PSS reported in this sample was $20.69{\pm}4.56$. The overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.819, and the test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.66. PSS had a significant positive correlation with the HAM-A(r=0.49, p<0.01), and the BDI(r=0.55, p<0.01). Factor analysis yielded 2 factors with eigenvalues of 3.924 and 2.608, accounting for 65 percent of variance. Factor 1 represented "stress" and factor 2 represented "control of stress". Conclusions : This study indicates that the PSS is appropriate for estimating the perceived stress levels. These results support the use of PSS in large sections of the population in Korea.

• The Journal of the Petrological Society of Korea
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.335-365
• /
• 2012

Fission-track (FT) thermochronological records from SE Korean Cretaceous-Paleogene granitic plutons in different fault-bounded blocks reveal contrasting cooling and later thermal histories. Overall cooling patterns are represented by a monotonous (J-shaped) curve in most plutons except some Cretaceous granites retaining a complicated (N-shaped) path due to post-reset re-cooling. Discriminative cooling rates over different temperature ranges can be explained for individual plutons with respect to relative pluton sizes, differences in initial heat loss depending on country rocks, and the presence and proximity of later igneous activity. Even within a single batholith, cooling times for different isotherms were roughly contemporaneous with respect to positions. Insignificant deviations in cooling ages from two different plutons in succession across the Yangsan fault may suggest their contemporaneity before major horizontal fault movement. The extent of later thermal rise recorded locally along the Yangsan and Dongnae fault zones were reached the Apatite Partial Stability Zone ($70-125^{\circ}C$), but did not exceed $200^{\circ}C$. Thermal alteration from fractured zones in the Yangsan-Ulsan fault junction may suggest a thermal reset above $290^{\circ}C$ resulting a complete reset in FT sphene age (31 Ma), caused by a tectonic subsidence in Early Oligocene. A consistency in FT zircon/apatite ages (24 Ma) may imply a sudden rapid cooling over $200-105^{\circ}C$, plausibly related to the abrupt tectonic uplift of the Pohang-Gampo Block including the fault junction in Late Oligocene. A remarkable trend of lower cooling ages for $300-200-100^{\circ}C$ isotherms (i.e., 19% for FT sphene and K-Ar biotite; 20% for FT zircon; 27% for FT apatite) from the east of the Ulsan fault (Pohang-Gampo Block) comparing to the west of the fault may be attributed to retarded cooling times from the Paleogene granites and also reflected by their partially-reduced apatite ages due to later thermal effects.

• Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.383-397
• /
• 1999

For sites to be investigated, the results of such an investigation can be used in determining foals for cleanup, quantifying risks, determining acceptable and unacceptable risk, and developing cleanup plans t hat do not cause unnecessary delays in the redevelopment and reuse of the property. To do this, it is essential that an appropriately detailed study of the site be performed to identify the cause, nature, and extent of contamination and the possible threats to the environment or to any people living or working nearby through the analysis of samples of soil and soil gas, groundwater, surface water, and sediment. The migration pathways of contaminants also are examined during this phase. Key aspects of cost-effective site assessment to help standardize and accelerate the evaluation of contaminated soils at sites are to provide a simple step-by-step methodology for environmental science/engineering professionals to calculate risk-based, site-specific soil levels for contaminants in soil. Its use may significantly reduce the time it takes to complete soil investigations and cleanup actions at some sites, as well as improve the consistency of these actions across the nation. To achieve the effective site assessment, it requires the criteria for choosing the type of standard and setting the magnitude of the standard come from different sources, depending on many factors including the nature of the contamination. A general scheme for site-specific assessment consists of sequential Phase I, II, and III, which is defined by workplan and soil screening levels. Phase I are conducted to identify and confirm a site's recognized environmental conditions resulting from past actions. If a Phase 1 identifies potential hazardous substances, a Phase II is usually conducted to confirm the absence, or presence and extent, of contamination. Phase II involve the collection and analysis of samples. And Phase III is to remediate the contaminated soils determined by Phase I and Phase II. However, important factors in determining whether a assessment standard is site-specific and suitable are (1) the spatial extent of the sampling and the size of the sample area; (2) the number of samples taken: (3) the strategy of taking samples: and (4) the way the data are analyzed. Although selected methods are recommended, application of quantitative methods is directed by users having prior training or experience for the dynamic site investigation process.