Emma Norris1,2, Janna Hastings3, Marta M Marques3,4, Ailbhe N Finnerty Mutlu3, Silje Zink3,5, Susan Michie3. 1. Health Behaviour Change Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK. Emma.Norris@brunel.ac.uk. 2. Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK. Emma.Norris@brunel.ac.uk. 3. Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK. 4. ADAPT SFI Research Centre & Trinity Centre for Practice and Healthcare Innovation, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. 5. Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabiliation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incorporating the feedback of expert stakeholders in ontology development is important to ensure content is appropriate, comprehensive, meets community needs and is interoperable with other ontologies and classification systems. However, domain experts are often not formally engaged in ontology development, and there is little available guidance on how this involvement should best be conducted and managed. Social and behavioural science studies often involve expert feedback in the development of tools and classification systems but have had little engagement with ontology development. This paper aims to (i) demonstrate how expert feedback can enhance ontology development, and (ii) provide practical recommendations on how to conduct expert feedback in ontology development using methodologies from the social and behavioural sciences. MAIN BODY: Considerations for selecting methods for engaging stakeholders are presented. Mailing lists and issue trackers as existing methods used frequently in ontology development are discussed. Advisory boards and working groups, feedback tasks, consensus exercises, discussions and workshops are presented as potential methods from social and behavioural sciences to incorporate in ontology development. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of methods from the social and behavioural sciences exist to enable feedback from expert stakeholders in ontology development. Engaging domain experts in ontology development enables depth and clarity in ontology development, whilst also establishing advocates for an ontology upon its completion.
BACKGROUND: Incorporating the feedback of expert stakeholders in ontology development is important to ensure content is appropriate, comprehensive, meets community needs and is interoperable with other ontologies and classification systems. However, domain experts are often not formally engaged in ontology development, and there is little available guidance on how this involvement should best be conducted and managed. Social and behavioural science studies often involve expert feedback in the development of tools and classification systems but have had little engagement with ontology development. This paper aims to (i) demonstrate how expert feedback can enhance ontology development, and (ii) provide practical recommendations on how to conduct expert feedback in ontology development using methodologies from the social and behavioural sciences. MAIN BODY: Considerations for selecting methods for engaging stakeholders are presented. Mailing lists and issue trackers as existing methods used frequently in ontology development are discussed. Advisory boards and working groups, feedback tasks, consensus exercises, discussions and workshops are presented as potential methods from social and behavioural sciences to incorporate in ontology development. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of methods from the social and behavioural sciences exist to enable feedback from expert stakeholders in ontology development. Engaging domain experts in ontology development enables depth and clarity in ontology development, whilst also establishing advocates for an ontology upon its completion.
Entities:
Keywords:
Feedback; Ontology development; Social sciences; Stakeholders
Authors: Robert West; Cristina A Godinho; Lauren Connell Bohlen; Rachel N Carey; Janna Hastings; Carmen E Lefevre; Susan Michie Journal: Nat Hum Behav Date: 2019-04-08
Authors: Will M Aklin; Luke E Stoeckel; Paige A Green; Chandra Keller; Jonathan W King; Lisbeth Nielsen; Christine Hunter Journal: Health Psychol Rev Date: 2020-01-27
Authors: Paul Glasziou; Douglas G Altman; Patrick Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Mike Clarke; Steven Julious; Susan Michie; David Moher; Elizabeth Wager Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Russell A Poldrack; Aniket Kittur; Donald Kalar; Eric Miller; Christian Seppa; Yolanda Gil; D Stott Parker; Fred W Sabb; Robert M Bilder Journal: Front Neuroinform Date: 2011-09-06 Impact factor: 4.081
Authors: Mélanie Courtot; Nick Juty; Christian Knüpfer; Dagmar Waltemath; Anna Zhukova; Andreas Dräger; Michel Dumontier; Andrew Finney; Martin Golebiewski; Janna Hastings; Stefan Hoops; Sarah Keating; Douglas B Kell; Samuel Kerrien; James Lawson; Allyson Lister; James Lu; Rainer Machne; Pedro Mendes; Matthew Pocock; Nicolas Rodriguez; Alice Villeger; Darren J Wilkinson; Sarala Wimalaratne; Camille Laibe; Michael Hucka; Nicolas Le Novère Journal: Mol Syst Biol Date: 2011-10-25 Impact factor: 11.429
Authors: Sebastian Köhler; Michael Gargano; Nicolas Matentzoglu; Leigh C Carmody; David Lewis-Smith; Nicole A Vasilevsky; Daniel Danis; Ganna Balagura; Gareth Baynam; Amy M Brower; Tiffany J Callahan; Christopher G Chute; Johanna L Est; Peter D Galer; Shiva Ganesan; Matthias Griese; Matthias Haimel; Julia Pazmandi; Marc Hanauer; Nomi L Harris; Michael J Hartnett; Maximilian Hastreiter; Fabian Hauck; Yongqun He; Tim Jeske; Hugh Kearney; Gerhard Kindle; Christoph Klein; Katrin Knoflach; Roland Krause; David Lagorce; Julie A McMurry; Jillian A Miller; Monica C Munoz-Torres; Rebecca L Peters; Christina K Rapp; Ana M Rath; Shahmir A Rind; Avi Z Rosenberg; Michael M Segal; Markus G Seidel; Damian Smedley; Tomer Talmy; Yarlalu Thomas; Samuel A Wiafe; Julie Xian; Zafer Yüksel; Ingo Helbig; Christopher J Mungall; Melissa A Haendel; Peter N Robinson Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Urska Nabergoj Makovec; Catherine Goetzinger; Janette Ribaut; Pilar Barnestein-Fonseca; Frederik Haupenthal; Maria Teresa Herdeiro; Sean Patrick Grant; Cristina Jácome; Fatima Roque; Dins Smits; Ivana Tadic; Alexandra L Dima Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Melvin G McInnis; Ole A Andreassen; Ana C Andreazza; Uri Alon; Michael Berk; Teri Brister; Katherine E Burdick; Donghong Cui; Mark Frye; Marion Leboyer; Philip B Mitchell; Kathleen Merikangas; Andrew A Nierenberg; John I Nurnberger; Daniel Pham; Eduard Vieta; Lakshmi N Yatham; Allan H Young Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 5.345