=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1442/paper_9
|storemode=property
|title=Exploring Ontologies for Semantic Documentation in Project Management
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1442/paper_9.pdf
|volume=Vol-1442
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ontobras/BastosBF15
}}
==Exploring Ontologies for Semantic Documentation in Project Management==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1442/paper_9.pdf
Exploring Ontologies for Semantic Documentation in
Project Management
Erick Casagrande Bastos, Monalessa Perini Barcellos, Ricardo de Almeida Falbo
Ontology and Conceptual Modeling Research Group (NEMO), Department of
Computer Science, Federal University of Espírito Santo– Vitória – ES – Brazil
{erickcasagrande, monalessa, falbo}@inf.ufes.br
Abstract. Although there are several tools devoted to support project
management, documents are widely used as an instrument to record
information regarding projects. However, retrieving information from
documents is usually not trivial and depends on human effort. In this paper we
discuss the use of semantic annotation of desktop documents in the project
management context. The main results of a study that investigated initiatives
involving semantic annotation to support project management aspects are
presented, as well as an ongoing work in which we explore a software project
management domain ontology to annotate desktop documents and extend a
semantic document management platform.
1. Introduction
Documents are an important instrument to record and share information in the project
management domain, since they provide useful information for communication between
people and for an effective understanding about the project [Bruggemann et al. 2000].
There are several tools to support project management, but they are not used by
all organizations. Spreadsheets are widely used for organizations that have limited
access to sophisticated tools to support some project management activities, such as
schedule and budget planning and control [Villalobos et al. 2011]. Furthermore, project
management supporting tools often do not eliminate the need of using desktop
documents (e.g., text documents and spreadsheets).
One disadvantage of using documents is the difficulty of obtaining consolidated
information from them. The access to their contents typically depends on human
intervention, since they were originally designed to be read by humans, not to be
manipulated by machines. As a consequence, retrieving and analyzing document content
can be unproductive and sometimes inefficient. Besides, gathering relevant information
from different documents can be so wearing that people may tend not to do that [Arantes
and Falbo 2010].
In the Semantic Web community, researchers have defended that ontology-
based metadata can be added into web contents so that these contents become available
for machine interpretation. The act of adding ontology-based metadata into syntactic
information resources making them semantic information resources is named semantic
annotation. Ontologies are an ideal vehicle for describing the vocabulary for metadata
statements, providing a rich formal semantic structure for their interpretation. Therefore
ontology is often used as basis for annotation [Sicilia 2006].
Semantic Web principles can be applied to documents rendered by desktop tools
(e.g., text and spreadsheet editors), giving rise to Semantic Documentation, which aims
at making document content interpretable by computers. In this context, several tools
have been developed to support semantic annotation, such as the Infrastructure for
Managing Semantic Documents (IMSD) [Arantes and Falbo 2010], PDFTab [Eriksson
2007] and KIM [Kiryakov et al. 2004], which use domain ontologies for semantically
annotating documents and provide a set of general features for managing semantic
documents (e.g., documents annotation, storage, indexing and retrieval), being
applicable to several domains. These tools provide only general features and do not
explore the specific conceptualization provided by the domain ontologies. In order to
provide a more effective support to domain-specific tasks, it is useful to explore the
ontology elements (concepts, relations and properties) and use them to develop domain-
specific functionalities [Falbo et al. 2014].
In this paper, we explore the use of domain ontologies for semantic
documentation in Project Management. First, we started by carrying out a systematic
literature review (SLR) to analyze initiatives that support project management aspects
by using semantic annotation. The use of semantic annotation in the Project
Management domain can help project managers to get consolidated information from
data stored in different documents and to make decisions based on it. Taking that into
account, we aim at extending IMSD to explore specific features to support project
management.
This paper is organized as following: Section 2 talks briefly about semantic
documentation and project management. Section 3 addresses the performed SLR.
Section 4 presents a fragment of the Software Project Management Ontology we
developed and discusses its use to extend IMSD. Section 5 concerns related works.
Finally, Section 6 presents our final considerations.
2. Semantic Documentation and Project Management
In organizations there is a considerable amount of work done by using desktop tools.
Semantic Documentation is a key for tackling the lack of semantics in desktop
documents. Semantic documents provide services such as advanced search, reasoning
using document metadata, and knowledge management services, like document
repositories and document management [Eriksson and Bang 2006].
The problems related to accessing and managing document content clearly occur
in the Project Management context, since text documents and spreadsheets are
frequently used as instruments for recording and sharing information among project
members. In this sense, semantic annotation has potential use in this area.
Project management involves the application of knowledge, skills, tools and
techniques to project activities aiming to meet project requirements [PMI 2013].
According to the PMBOK [PMI 2013], there are ten knowledge areas (KAs) related to
project management, i.e., there are ten KAs to be managed, namely: Integration, Scope,
Stakeholder, Human Resource, Time, Cost, Risk, Quality, Communication, and
Procurement.
Project management comprehends three main interactive phases [Pressman
2011]: planning, execution, and monitoring and control. During project planning it is
established a plan to the project, including the project scope, allocated human resources,
schedule, budget and risks, among others. Execution consists of running the plan, i.e.,
execute the project following the established plan. In this phase the project results are
produced and most of budget and efforts are spent. Monitoring and control aims to
compare the plans with the execution, identify problems and present solutions. During
this phase, performance indicators can help the project manager to understand the
project progress and performance based on the project scope, schedule and budget.
During a project, relevant information regarding planning, progress, monitoring
and control is recorded in text documents and spreadsheets (e.g., project management
plan and status reports). If information is structured and annotated, computers can help
to handle it. Besides, semantic annotation could help store and retrieve the knowledge
acquired in a project and reuse it in other projects.
3. Systematic Literature Review [Kitchenham, B. and Charters 2007]
Aiming at identifying and analyzing initiatives involving semantic annotation to support
Project Management, we carried out a systematic literature review. According to
Kitchenham et al. (2011), systematic literature reviews are secondary studies used to
find, critically evaluate and aggregate all relevant research papers on a specific research
question or research topic. The methodology is intended to ensure that the literature
review is unbiased, rigorous and auditable. The study followed the review process
defined by Kitchenham and Charters (2007), which involves three phases: planning,
when the research protocol is defined; conducting, when the protocol is executed and
data are extracted, analyzed and recorded; and reporting, when the results are recorded
and made available. Next, we present the main parts of the protocol used in the study.
3.1 Research Protocol [Kitchenham, B. A. et al. 2011]
Research Questions: The main research question is (RQ1) What are the initiatives
involving semantic annotation that support project management aspects? From this
general question, two more specific were defined: (RQ2) How semantic annotation is
addressed? and (RQ3) Which are the aspects of project management supported?
Search String: The search string has two groups of terms joined by the AND operator.
The first group aims at capturing studies that deal with semantic annotation and
semantic documentation. The second group aims to capture studies related to project
management. Within each group, the OR operator was used to allow for alternative
terms. The following search string was used: ((("semantic documentation") OR
("semantic annotation") OR ("semantic-document") OR ("semantic document")) AND
(("project management") OR ("project planning") OR ("project controlling") OR
("project control") OR ("project monitoring") OR ("project tracking"))).
Sources: Five digital libraries were searched, namely: Scopus (www.scopus.com),
Engineering Village (www.engineeringvillage.com), ACM (dl.acm.org), IEEE Xplore
(ieeexplore.ieee.org) and ScienceDirect (www.sciencedirect.com).
Publications Selection: the object of analysis are articles published in scientific events
or journals. Publications selection was done in four steps: the 1st step (S1), Preliminary
Selection and Cataloging, consisted in applying the search string by using the digital
library search mechanism. Publication language was limited to English, and the search
scope was limited to title, abstract and keywords. At the end of this step, publications
indexed by more than one digital library were identified and duplications were removed.
The 2nd Step (S2), Selection of Relevant Publications – 1st filter, involved reading the
abstracts of the publications selected in S1 and analyzing them considering the inclusion
criterion IC1 - the publication presents some proposal involving semantic annotation
that supports aspects related to project management, and two exclusion criteria: EC1 -
the publication does not have an abstract; and EC2 - the publication is not a primary
study. The 3rd Step (S3), Selection of Relevant Publications – 2nd filter, consisted of
reading the full text of the publications selected in S2 and analyzing them considering
IC1 and other three exclusion criteria: EC3 - the study was published only as an
abstract; EC4 - the publication full text is not available; and EC5 - the publication is a
copy or an older version of an already selected publication. Finally, in the four step (S4)
we performed Backward Snowballing [Webster and Watson 2002], investigating if
among the references cited in the selected papers, there was some useful to the study.
3.2 Data Synthesis
The systematic review was finished at the beginning of 2015 and considered
publications until December 31st 2014. As a result of S1, 39 publications were obtained
(21 in Scopus, 13 in Engineering Village, 5 in IEEE). No publication was returned by
applying the search string to ACM and ScienceDirect. After duplication removal, 24
publications remained. 21 publications were selected in S2 and 4 in S3. None new paper
was selected in S4. The selected papers were published during the last decade, meaning
that the research topic is recent. In fact, we expected to find only recent publications,
because semantic annotation was applied to semantic documents only in the 2000’s. The
small number of publications selected shows that, in addition to be recent, the topic has
not been much explored. Next, a data synthesis to each research question is presented.
RQ1. What are the initiatives involving semantic annotation that support project
management aspects? Four initiatives were found:
Semantic Annotation based on Software Knowledge Sharing Space (SKSS) [Lu
et al. 2008]: SKSS is a system that aims to improve knowledge sharing among software
development team members. It allows annotating documents produced during projects,
creating a network that facilitates accessing and sharing information about the project.
Content Management for Inter-Organization Projects (CMIO) [Nakatsuka and
Ishida 2006] : CMIO is a system to manage content of inter-organizational projects.
Project content is semantically annotated, and when a project member creates, modifies
or manages content in a project, automatic emails are sent to the other project members,
communicating explicitly what has changed in the project.
Collaboration in Public Policy Making, Implementation and Evaluation
(CPPMIE) [Loukis 2007]: CPPMIE consists of a structured electronic forum in which
participants opine about programs, projects, tasks and deliverables related to public
policies. A Public Policy Ontology is used for semantically annotating posts, allowing
organization, indexing, integration and querying of the posts recorded in the forums.
Semex [Talaš et al. 2010]: Semex is a module of a project management system. It is
responsible for semantic annotation of wiki pages. It supports creation, sharing and
publication of collaborative content in projects, providing a common environment that
allows project team members to access information and contribute to discussions.
RQ2. How semantic annotation is addressed in the initiative?
In this question, we analyzed the semantic annotation approach used in each study,
considering aspects such as semantic annotation type, annotated files, ontologies and
technologies involved. Regarding semantic annotation type, it is manual when
annotations are made by the user. It is automatic when automation components are used
to provide suggestions for annotations or make them automatically [Uren et al. 2006].
In SKSS, semantic annotation is used to connect information recorded in
different documents. Word, Eclipse, VS.Net and Adobe Reader documents can be
annotated. Annotation is manual and based on Project, Annotation and Document
domain ontologies. A framework composed of three components is used: the sensor
component is a plug-in embedded into tools (MS Word, Adobe Reader, Eclipse and
Visual Studio) that adds semantic annotations and connects information recorded in
different documents; the service provider component deals with knowledge publishing,
ontology management and query; and the database component stores annotation
instances, ontologies and documents, and supports version control.
In CMIO, semantic annotation is manual and made by using an application
named Project Organizer, which allows for annotating web pages, PDF files and text
documents using a Project domain ontology as a basis. CMIO uses e-mail metaphor, i.e.,
it semantically annotates documents, connects information recorded in different
documents, and when document content is created, modified or managed, automatic
emails are sent to project members communicating the changes. A RDF database is used
to store content, metadata and associations.
CPPMIE annotates web documents and electronic forum pages. The annotation
is manual and based on a Public Policy domain ontology. A structured electronic forum
based on the ontology is used to record posts about public policies projects and
programs. Information semantically annotated in posts is retrieved and an XML file
containing relevant information is produced.
Semex annotates wiki pages, allowing for browsing pages containing project
content and selecting information related to the projects (e.g., projects that share a
certain human resource). Semantic annotation is manual and uses a Project Management
and Presentation domain ontology as a basis. Semex uses RDF triple to annotate wiki
pages and RDFLib library (www.rdflib.net) to work with RDF.
RQ3. Which are the aspects of project management supported by the initiative?
Aspects related to four KA are supported by the initiatives: Scope, Integration,
Communication and Stakeholder Management.
Communication Management KA covers communication planning (definition of
what information should be available; how, when and where it should be recorded; who
is responsible for recording it; and who can access it), management (communication
plan execution) and controlling (comparison between planned and executed, and
corrective actions execution). Three proposals support this KA, mainly in aspects related
to communication management, which occurs during the project execution phase. In
SKSS, semantic annotation helps information recording and sharing. For instance,
documents produced during the project can be annotated and related one to others in a
knowledge network. As a result, when a document is accessed by a project member, she
also gets its related documents. In Semex, a common knowledge base is shared between
projects and supports information sharing. Semantic annotation allows for browsing
pages containing project content and selecting information related to the projects (e.g.,
projects that share a certain human resource). CMIO supports project content creation,
modification and management, and sends automatic emails to project members
communicating the changes made. By doing this, CMIO also supports aspects related to
Integration Management that includes, among others, integrated change control,
consisting of recording the project changes, their reasons, and performing the necessary
actions in an integrated way.
CPPMIE supports Scope and Stakeholder Management aspects. Scope
Management concerns the definition of the work to be done in the project, while
Stakeholder Management involves identifying and managing project stakeholders, their
expectations and involvement. The CPPMIE forum is used to define the public policies
and requirements to be addressed in projects, i.e., the project scope. Moreover, the
forum helps to interact with stakeholders, encouraging the appropriate involvement of
them in project activities.
3.3 Discussions
By analyzing the selected papers, we noticed that, except by Semex, the proposals were
not conceived aiming to support project management. Thus, although the proposals
support aspects related to project management, this is not their main concern.
Regarding the semantic annotation approach adopted, all proposals use domain
ontologies as a basis for annotating documents or web pages. Spreadsheets are not
annotated in any proposal. Also, all proposals adopt manual annotation. According to
Uren et al. (2006), automation is a desirable requirement in semantic annotation
proposals. Manual annotation is an additional burden, because human annotators are
prone to error and non-trivial annotations usually require domain expertise. However,
there are research challenges in this direction, related to the extraction of relations for
semantic annotation.
As for the project management aspects addressed, the proposals support some
ones related to Scope, Integration, Communication and Stakeholder Management. Since
Communication Management is related to information recording and sharing, and
semantic annotation supports them, it was expected that Communication was among the
main supported areas. The other knowledge areas that are supported by the proposals
usually produce documents as results of their activities (e.g., requirements document
produced in Scope Management). Time and Cost Management, which are important
areas in project management, are not supported by any proposal. Semantic annotation
could help relate and sequence the project activities and control the schedule. Besides, it
could support cost and quality control, for example, by establishing relationships
between costs and activities, and between changes and deliverables. However, these
KAs are typically well supported by project management systems (e.g., MSProject).
This can be one of the reasons why these areas have not been target of semantic
annotation initiatives. Besides, the use of semantic annotation in project management is
very recent. Thus, there are still many aspects to be explored.
As limitations of this systematic review, we highlight the small number of
selected publications. Although five digital libraries have been used, only four
publications were identified and only one of them is truly devoted to the project
management domain. This fact shows that the research topic is recent and has not been
much explored. Since documents are still an important instrument to record and share
information regarding projects, we believe that the use of semantic annotation on project
management is a relevant topic, and there are opportunities of research in this area.
4. Using Semantic Annotation to support Project Management
In order to explore the use of semantic annotation in the project management context,
we extended the Infrastructure for Managing Semantic Documents (IMSD) [Arantes and
Falbo 2010]. IMSD provides: (i) a way to semantically annotate document templates;
(ii) a mechanism for controlling versions of semantic content extracted from semantic
document versions, and therefore providing a way for tracking the evolution of the data
embedded inside a semantic document; and (iii) data visibility to end-users allowing
searches and data change notification subscription to aid developers to get an up-to-date
information about something they are interested in.
IMSD supports the use of templates in text format. Since spreadsheets are very
useful for recording data regarding projects (e.g., schedules and budges), we decided to
extend IMSD to work with spreadsheets, expanding the scope of files used as data
sources. Moreover, in order to annotate document and spreadsheet templates with
metadata related to software project management, we developed the Software Project
Management Ontology. Thus, we explored its conceptualization in domain-specific
features to support project management activities.
4.1 The Software Project Management Ontology
The Software Project Management Ontology (SPMOnt) was developed based on the
Software Process Ontology Pattern Language (SP-OPL) proposed in [Falbo et al. 2013].
SPMOnt includes concepts, relations and properties related to scope, time and costs
planning and execution. Regarding costs, currently, only costs associated with human
resources are considered. Figure 1 shows a fragment of SPMOnt with some of the
concepts related to time and cost planning and execution. SPMOnt is represented by
using OntoUML, a UML profile that enables modelers to make finer-grained modeling
distinctions between different types of classes and relations according to ontological
distinctions put forth by the Unified Foundational Ontology [Guizzardi 2005].
There are two types of processes defined to a Project: General Project Process
and Specific Project Process. The first one is the global process defined to the Project.
It is composed by specific process, allowing defining sub-processes. Specific Project
Processes are composed by Project Activities, which can be Simple Project Activities
or Composite Project Activities. Once a general project process is defined to a project,
it is possible to plan duration, start and end dates, and cost of the process, their sub-
processes and activities. The definition of duration, dates and cost to a Project Process
gives rise, respectively, to Process with Planned Duration, Scheduled Process and
Process with Planned Cost. Similarly, the planning of duration, dates and cost of a
Project Activity gives rise to Activity with Planned Duration, Scheduled Activity and
Activity with Planned Cost.
A Human Resource Allocation is the assignment of a Scheduled Activity to a
Human Resource to perform a Human Role. The cost of a Human Resource
Allocation is based on the cost of the allocated Human Resource, which is established in
the Employment of that Human Resource.
A Project Activity can cause Activity Occurrences, which can be Simple
Activity Occurrences or Composite Activity Occurrences. Human Resource
Participation refers to the participation of a Human Resource in an Activity
Occurrence.
Figure 1 – A fragment of the Software Project Management Ontology
4.2 Supporting Project Management with Semantic Annotations in Spreadsheets
In order to explore the use of semantic annotation to support project management
aspects, we first extended IMSD to work with spreadsheets and then we used SPMOnt
as a basis to annotate spreadsheet templates related to the project management domain.
The annotations are added into the templates that, when instantiated, give rise to
semantic spreadsheets. Thus, once annotated the templates, the spreadsheets produced
using them are also annotated and can be used as data sources to IMSD. Spreadsheet
templates were developed using the Open Document Format [Oasis 2015], since it is an
open format, with great span. Specialized annotations for cells were produced using
Open Document Spreadsheet (ODS) in LibreOffice Calc.
For spreadsheets annotation, the syntax and instructions for annotating text
fragments provided by IMSD are used to capture the cell content. Instructions can be
used to create instances, relations and properties based on the ontology. The syntax of
the instance creation instruction is instance (arg ,concept, accessVariable). This instruction
creates the instance arg of the concept of SPMOnt. The SPMOnt was implemented in
OWL and its URL is also informed in the concept field. The instruction result is a
reference to the created instance and it is set on the accessVariable for later use. The
syntax to create a relation is property (arg1, prop, arg2). This instruction establishes a
relation prop between the instances arg1 and arg2. This instruction is also used to create
properties and, in this case, it means that the value arg2 is set as the property prop of the
instance arg1.
For annotating templates and allowing the capture of the spreadsheets content by
IMSD, in the LibreOffice Calc, Custom Properties option is used to annotations
recording and Styles and Formatting option is used to allow for application of
annotations to cells. The first thing to do when creating a semantic template is to create
a custom property named Semantic Document and set its value to True. This way, IMSD
can identify that the spreadsheet is a semantic document and searches for semantic
annotations. Each annotation must be recorded in a new custom property whose value is
the annotation instruction. For each annotation, a formatting style must be created and it
must be related to the custom property in which the annotation is recorded. Thus, when
a formatting style is applied to a cell, the cell is annotated according to the annotation
instruction recorded in the corresponding custom property.
Three templates related to project management were developed and annotated:
WBS, which is a text document that describes the project deliverables and work
packages; Project Status Report (PSR), which is a spreadsheet that contains information
regarding project planning and execution; and Human Resources Costs (HRC), which is
a spreadsheet that provides information regarding the costs of human resources allocated
to the project. Figure 2 shows the template of the Project Status Report, which contains
information about project activities, dependencies, human resources allocated and
participants, WBS items related, and planned and executed dates and duration. As
examples, the annotations related to cells of Human Resource and Duration columns are
shown. The first part of the human resource annotation creates instances of the Human
Resource concept and stores in hr variable. The second part establishes the relationship
allocates between instances of Human Resource and an instance of Activity, like in
SPMOnt, in which the relation allocates connects a human resource to an activity,
meaning that the human resource is allocated to perform the activity. The break tag
means that one or various human resources can be related to one activity and they are
separated by comma. In duration annotation, the tag completeText indicates that the
instruction refers to the complete text stored in the cell. The instruction means that the
cell content will be set as the property Planned Duration of an instance of Activity.
[[completeText]];property($activity, [[break with ',' into 'var']];
http://localhost/ontologies/SE/spmon instance({slice},http://localhost/ontologies/SE/
t.owl#PlannedDuration,{content}); spmont.owl#HumanResource, $hr)
property($activity,http://localhost/ontologies/S
E/spmont.owl#Allocates,$hr)
Figure 2 – Project Status Report template
The spreadsheets produced using the annotated templates are submitted to
IMSD, which extracts data from them and stores in OWL files, allowing searching and
retrieval. IMSD also performs version control of the spreadsheets and notifies users
about changes. Annotation, indexing, storing, retrieval, version control and changes
notification are general functionalities, which can be applied to any domain.
We argue that project management aspects can be better supported by exploring
the conceptualization provided by the domain ontology. In this sense, some domain-
specific functionalities were identified from the SPMOnt concepts, relations and
properties, and have been implemented to extend IMSD: (i) the dependency relation
between activities and between activities and WBS items (not shown in Figure 1) can be
used to extract and relate data recorded in Project Status Reports and WBS document
and represent them in dependency matrices that are useful to analyze the impact of
changes in the project; (ii) the relation between activities and project cost with the
human resource allocations cost can be explored to, based on activity duration, human
resources allocations and human resources costs, define the project budged; (iii)
relationships between activities with planned duration/cost and the real duration/cost of
the activity occurrences caused by them can be explored to track planned and executed
values, determine their adherence, and also calculate Earned Value Analysis indicators
and estimates about the project conclusion, helping project managers to understand the
project progress, monitor it and make adjustments when necessary; and (iv) indicators
calculated to several projects can be represented in graphics allowing project managers
to have a global view of the projects and make comparisons among them.
5. Related Works
As discussed in Section 3, there are some initiatives involving semantic annotation that
support project management aspects. There are some similarities between our work and
the proposals found in the systematic review. However, there are also differences.
As for similarities, like IMSD, all proposals use domain ontologies as a basis to
annotations and provide general features for managing semantic content (annotation,
storage, indexing and retrieving). Based on the semantic content, SKSS [Lu et al. 2008]
creates a knowledge network of documents. Similarly, IMSD uses semantic content and
creates graphs in which information recorded in documents are related one to another.
CMIO [Nakatsuka and Ishida 2006] and IMSD send automatic emails notifying users
about modifications on semantic documents.
The main differences between our proposal and the ones found in the SLR
concern the types of annotated files and the project management knowledge areas
supported. Regarding types of files, the proposals annotate web pages, electronic
forums, pdf and text documents. IMSD also annotates text documents, but it is the only
one to annotate spreadsheets.
As for the knowledge areas supported, as discussed in Section 3, the proposals
support aspects related to Scope, Integration, Communication and Stakeholder
Management. IMSD, in turn, deals with aspects related to Scope, Time and Costs
Management. Thus, IMSD differs from the cited proposals mainly due to the features to
support project management activities, obtained by exploring the SPMOnt
conceptualization in functionalities that help managers to plan, monitor and control
projects. Although the proposals support some project management aspects, the domain
ontologies used do not address aspects that allow for comparing project planning and
execution. Also, none proposal provides indicators or estimates to help project managers
to monitor projects. Summarizing, by exploring the SPMOnt conceptualization, domain-
specific features are provided by IMSD, better supporting project management
activities.
6. Final Considerations
In this paper we discussed the use of semantic annotation in project management. The
results of a systematic literature review that investigated initiatives that support project
management aspects by using semantic annotation were presented. We also discussed an
extension of the IMSD [Arantes and Falbo 2010] that enables it to semantically annotate
spreadsheets with concepts, relations and properties of the Software Project
Management Ontology to provide features supporting project planning and tracking.
At this moment, we are concluding the implementation of the ISMD domain-
specific functionalities. As future work, we plan to conduct experiments to evaluate the
extension of IMSD in the project management domain. Moreover, we intend to integrate
project management tools (such as MS-Project) with documents and spreadsheets
semantically annotated by IMSD. By doing this, organizations that use these tools can
also benefit from IMSD functionalities. Finally, we intend to improve cost management
features by considering costs relate to software, hardware and other cost elements that
have not been currently considered.
Acknowledgment
This research is funded by the Brazilian Research Funding Agency CNPq (Processes
485368/2013-7 and 461777/2014-2).
References
ARANTES, L. O. and FALBO, R. A. (2010) "An infrastructure for managing semantic
documents", In: Joint 5th International Workshop on Vocabularies, Ontologies and
Rules for The Enterprise (VORTE) - International Workshop on Metamodels,
Ontologies and Semantic Technologies (MOST), p. 235-244.
BRUGGEMANN, B. M., HOLZ, K.-P. and MOLKENTHIN, F. (2000) "Semantic
documentation in engineering", Eighth International Conference on Computing in
Civil and Building Engineering, California, USA, p. 828-835.
ERIKSSON, H. (2007) "The semantic-document approach to combining documents and
ontologies", International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v. 65, n. 7.
ERIKSSON, H. and BANG, M. (2006) "Towards document repositories based on
semantic documents", Sixth International Conference on Knowledge Management
and Knowledge Technologies (I-KNOW), Graz, Austria, p. 313-320.
FALBO, R. A. et al. (2013) "Organizing Ontology Design Patterns as Ontology Pattern
Languages", 10th European Semantic Web Conference – ESWC 2013, France, p.
61-75.
FALBO, R. A., BRAGA, C. E. C. and MACHADO, B. N. (2014) "Semantic
Documentation in Requirements Engineering", In: 17th Workshop on Requirements
Engineering (WER 2014), Pucón - Chile,
GUIZZARDI, G. (2005) "Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models",
University of Twente, The Netherlands.
KIRYAKOV, A., POPOV, B. and TERZIEV, I. (2004) "Semantic annotation, indexing,
and retrieval", Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide
Web, v. 2, p. 49-79.
KITCHENHAM, B. and CHARTERS, S. (2007) "Guidelines for performing systematic
literature reviews in software engineering", (EBSE-2007-01)
KITCHENHAM, B. A., BUDGEN, D. and BRERETON, O. P. (2011) "Using Mapping
Studies as the Basis for Further Research - A Participant-Observer Case Study",
Information & Software Technology, v. 53, n. 6, p. 638-651.
LOUKIS, E. N. (2007) "An ontology for G2G collaboration in public policy making,
implementation and evaluation", Artificial Intelligence and Law, v. 15, n. 1, p. 19-48.
LU, Q., CHEN, M. and WANG, Z. (2008) "A semantic annotation based software
knowledge sharing space", In: IFIP International Conference on Network and Parallel
Computing (NPC), China, p. 504 - 509.
NAKATSUKA, K. and ISHIDA, T. (2006) "Content management for inter-
organizational projects using e-mail metaphor", International Symposium on
Applications and the Internet (SAINT), Phoenix, Arizona, USA, p. 202-205.
OASIS. Open Document Format for Office Applications. Visited in: July, 9th 2015,
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office.
PMI (2013), A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK), Project
Management Institute, 5.
PRESSMAN, R. S. (2011), Engenharia de Software, McGraw Hill, 7th edition.
SICILIA, M. (2006) "Metadata, semantics and ontology: providing meaning to
information resources", International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies,
v. 1, n. 1, p. 83-86.
TALAŠ, J., GREGAR, T. and PITNER, T. (2010) "Semantically enriched tools for the
knowledge society: case of project management and presentation", Third World
Summit on the Knowledge Society, Greece, p. 322-328
UREN, V. et al. (2006) "Semantic annotation for knowledge management:
requirements and a survey of the state of the art", Journal of Web Semantics: Science,
Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 4, p. 14-28.
VILLALOBOS, J., SANABRIA, S. and CACERES, R. (2011) "Activity scheduling
through gantt charts in an ms excel spreadsheet", Revista Facultad de Ingenieria, n.
61, p. 132-145.
WEBSTER, J. and WATSON, R. T. (2002) "Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the
Future: Writing a Literature Review", MIS Quarterly, v. 26, n. 2, p. 13-23.