• 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.

• 대한공업교육학회지
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.1-27
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study was to find out the areas and their constitute elements of new apprenticeship through the expert of vocational education to improve the growth potential in the field of industry. Through the three times Delphi research process final composing areas and elements(total 6 areas and 41 sub-elements) of new apprenticeship were extracted. Followings are specific study results of 41 sub-elements for the 6 areas. In area A(Technology Skill aspect) total nine sub-elements were deducted as follows. Technology skill's field appling ability, new technology skill's acquisition, quality assurance ability, research development ability, material management using ability, problem solving ability, core technology skill understanding ability, idea's imagery expressing ability, creative design ability. In area B(Institutional aspect) total five sub-elements were deducted as follows. Flexible human material support, precise division of works, objective result assessment, institutionalization of responsibilities and liabilities between teacher and student, institutionalization of duty invention reward. In area C(Affective aspect) total eight sub-elements were deducted as follows. Manners and cooperation between teacher & student and peer, values for job, basic attitude for technology, job ethic sense, respect of other organization, active action to organization change, attitude of technology successor, service mind. In area D(Self-improvement aspect) total nine sub-elements were deducted as follows. Self evaluation and reflection, cultivate of organization understanding, career planning and developing ability, sound philosophy of life, communication ability, decision making ability, prepare of individual competence enhance system, self-control ability improvement, reaction of unexpected situation. In area E(Knowledge aspect) total four sub-elements were deducted as follows. Basic knowledge of relevant area, knowledge of new technology & preceding technology, fusion and relocation of knowledge, practical knowledge. In area F(Environmental aspect) total six sub-elements were deducted as follows. Awareness of business environment, understanding of education and practice environment, understanding of apprenticeship's business demand, connectivity of region community, adapt ability of labor market's change, awareness of society environment change.

• Journal of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology(JNFCWT)
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.357-368
• /
• 2008

On July 31, 2008, the Government issued the construction and operation permit for the first low and intermediate level radioactive waste disposal facility in the Republic of Korea. In this paper, the fundamental regulatory framework, regulatory requirements and technical standards of the disposal facility are introduced, and the phased review process adopted for evaluation of the safety of the facility is briefly described. The Atomic Energy Act sets forth a stepwise regulatory framework for the whole life-cycle of the disposal facility such as siting, design, construction, operation, closure and institutional control. More detailed regulatory requirements and technical standards are stipulated in the subsequent regulations of the Atomic Energy Act and a series of Notices issued by the Ministry of Eduction, Science and Technology. The Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, as entrusted by the Ministry under the Atomic Energy Act, conducted safety review on the disposal facility, and evaluated the compliance with relevant criteria in all technical elements(i.e. siting and structural safety, radiological environmental impact, operational safety, systems and components, quality assurance, and total systematic performance assessment, etc.). The overall safety review process can be phased into inception phase, initial review phase, main review phase and completion phase. The review results were reported to and deliberated by the five Sub-committees of the Special Committee on Nuclear Safety, and then reported to the Ministry. The Ministry issued the construction and operation permit of the disposal facility through the deliberation of the review results by the Nuclear Safety Commission. Hereafter, the safety of the repository will be reassured by a series of subsequent regulatory inspections and reviews under the Atomic Energy Act. In addition, the licensee's continuous implementation of the "Safety Promotion Plan" may also enhance the long-term safety of the repository and contribute to build-up the confidence of the safety case.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.337-344
• /
• 2000

Purpose :To design and test test CT simulator phantom for geometrical test. Materials and Methods : The PMMA phantom was designed as a cylinder which is 20 cm in diameter and 24 cm in length, along with a 25$\times25\times31cm^{3}$ rectangular parallelepiped. Radio-opaque wires of which diameter is 0.8 mm are attached on the other surface of the phantom as a spiral. The rectangular phantom was made of four 24$\times24\times0.5 cm^{3}$ square plates and each plate had a 24$\times24 cm^{2}$, 12$\times12cm^{2}$, 6$\times6 cm$^{2}$ square line. The squares were placed to face the cylinder at angles 0 $^{\circ}$ , 15 $^{\circ}$ , 30 $^{\circ}$ ,respectively. The rectangular phantom made it possible to measure the field size, couch angle, the collimator angle, the isocenter shift and the SSD, the measurements of the gantry angle from the cylindrical part. A virtual simulation software, AcOSim, offered various conditions to perform virtual simulations and these results were used to perform the geometrical Quality assurance of CT simulator. Results : A 0.3$\~$0.5 mm difference was found on the 24 cm field size which was created with the DRR measurements obtained by scanning of the rectangular phantom. The isocenter shift, the collimator rotation, the couch rotation, and the gantry rotation test showed 0.5$\~$1 mm, 0.5$\~$l$^{\circ}$ 0.5$\~$ 1$^{\circ}$ , and 0.5-1 $^{\circ}$ differences, respectively. We could not find any significant differences between the results from the two scanning methods. Conclusion :The geometrical test phantom developed in the study showed less than 1 mm (or 1 $^{\circ}$ ) differences. The phantom could be used as a routine geometrical QC/QA tools, since the differences are within clinically acceptable ranges.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.137-172
• /
• 2008

The earliest safety data programs, the FDR and CVR, were electronic reporting systems that generate data "automatically." The FDR program, originally instituted in 1958, had no publicly available restrictions for protections against sanctions by the FAA or an airline, although there are agreements and union contracts forbidding the use of FDR data for FAA enforcement actions. This FDR program still has the least formalized protections. With the advent of the CVR program in 1966, the precursor to the current FAR 91.25 was already in place, having been promulgated in 1964. It stated that the FAA would not use CVR data for enforcement actions. In 1982, Congress began restricting the disclosure of the CVR tape and transcripts. Congress added further clarification of the availability of discovery in civil litigation in 1994. Thus, the CVR data have more definitive protections in place than do FDR data. The ASRS was the first non-automatic reporting system; and built into its original design in 1975 was a promise of limited protection from enforcement sanctions. That promise was further codified in an FAR in 1979. As with the CVR, from its inception, the ASRS had some protections built in for the person who might have had a safety problem. However, the program did not (and to this day does not) explicitly deal with issues of use by airlines, litigants, or the public media, although it appears that airlines will either take a non-punitive stance if an ASRS report is filed, or the airline may ignore the fact that it has been filed at all. The FAA worked with several U.S. airlines in the early 1990s on developing ASAP programs, and the FAA issued an Advisory Circular about the program in 1997. From its inception, the ASAP program contained some FAA enforcement protections and company discipline protections, although some protection against litigation disclosure and public disclosure was not added until 2003, when FAA Order 8000.82 was promulgated, placing the program under the protections of FAR 193, which had been added in 2001. The FOQA program, when it was first instituted through a demonstration program in 1995, did not contain protections against sanctions. Now, however, the FAA cannot take enforcement action based on FOQA safety data, and an airline is limited to "corrective action" under the program. Union contracts can exclude FOQA from the realm of disciplinary action, although airline practice may be for airlines to require retraining if there is no contract in place forbidding it. The data is protected against disclosure for litigation and public media purposes by FAA Order 8000.81, issued in 2003, which placed FOQA under the protections of FAR 193. The figure on the next page shows when each program began, and when each statute, regulation, or order became effective for that program.

• Journal of Distribution Research
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.71-110
• /
• 2010

1. Introduction Today Internet is recognized as an important way for the transaction of products and services. According to the data surveyed by the National Statistical Office, the on-line transaction in 2007 for a year, 15.7656 trillion, shows a 17.1%(2.3060 trillion won) increase over last year, of these, the amount of B2C has been increased 12.0%(10.2258 trillion won). Like this, because the entry barrier of on-line market of Korea is low, many retailers could easily enter into the market. So the bigger its scale is, but on the other hand, the tougher its competition is. Particularly due to the Internet and innovation of IT, the existing market has been changed into the perfect competitive market(Srinivasan, Rolph & Kishore, 2002). In the early years of on-line business, they think that the main reason for success is a moderate price, they are awakened to its importance of on-line service quality with tough competition. If it's not sure whether customers can be provided with what they want, they can use the Web sites, perhaps they can trust their products that had been already bought or not, they have a doubt its viability(Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Malhotra, 2005). Customers can directly reserve and issue their air tickets irrespective of place and time at the Web sites of travel agencies or airlines, but its empirical studies about these Web sites for reserving and issuing air tickets are insufficient. Therefore this study goes on for following specific objects. First object is to measure service quality and service recovery of Web sites for reserving and issuing air tickets. Second is to look into whether above on-line service quality and on-line service recovery have an impact on overall service quality. Third is to seek for the relation with overall service quality and customer satisfaction, then this customer satisfaction and loyalty intention. 2. Theoretical Background 2.1 On-line Service Quality Barnes & Vidgen(2000; 2001a; 2001b; 2002) had invented the tool to measure Web sites' quality four times(called WebQual). The WebQual 1.0, Step one invented a measuring item for information quality based on QFD, and this had been verified by students of UK business school. The Web Qual 2.0, Step two invented for interaction quality, and had been judged by customers of on-line bookshop. The WebQual 3.0, Step three invented by consolidating the WebQual 1.0 for information quality and the WebQual2.0 for interactionquality. It includes 3-quality-dimension, information quality, interaction quality, site design, and had been assessed and confirmed by auction sites(e-bay, Amazon, QXL). Furtheron, through the former empirical studies, the authors changed sites quality into usability by judging that usability is a concept how customers interact with or perceive Web sites and It is used widely for accessing Web sites. By this process, WebQual 4.0 was invented, and is consist of 3-quality-dimension; information quality, interaction quality, usability, 22 items. However, because WebQual 4.0 is focusing on technical part, it's usable at the Website's design part, on the other hand, it's not usable at the Web site's pleasant experience part. Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Malhorta(2002; 2005) had invented the measure for measuring on-line service quality in 2002 and 2005. The study in 2002 divided on-line service quality into 5 dimensions. But these were not well-organized, so there needed to be studied again totally. So Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Malhorta(2005) re-worked out the study about on-line service quality measure base on 2002's study and invented E-S-QUAL. After they invented preliminary measure for on-line service quality, they made up a question for customers who had purchased at amazon.com and walmart.com and reassessed this measure. And they perfected an invention of E-S-QUAL consists of 4 dimensions, 22 items of efficiency, system availability, fulfillment, privacy. Efficiency measures assess to sites and usability and others, system availability measures accurate technical function of sites and others, fulfillment measures promptness of delivering products and sufficient goods and others and privacy measures the degree of protection of data about their customers and so on. 2.2 Service Recovery Service industries tend to minimize the losses by coping with service failure promptly. This responses of service providers to service failure mean service recovery(Kelly & Davis, 1994). Bitner(1990) went on his study from customers' view about service providers' behavior for customers to recognize their satisfaction/dissatisfaction at service point. According to them, to manage service failure successfully, exact recognition of service problem, an apology, sufficient description about service failure and some tangible compensation are important. Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Malhorta(2005) approached the service recovery from how to measure, rather than how to manage, and moved to on-line market not to off-line, then invented E-RecS-QUAL which is a measuring tool about on-line service recovery. 2.3 Customer Satisfaction The definition of customer satisfaction can be divided into two points of view. First, they approached customer satisfaction from outcome of comsumer. Howard & Sheth(1969) defined satisfaction as 'a cognitive condition feeling being rewarded properly or improperly for their sacrifice.' and Westbrook & Reilly(1983) also defined customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction as 'a psychological reaction to the behavior pattern of shopping and purchasing, the display condition of retail store, outcome of purchased goods and service as well as whole market.' Second, they approached customer satisfaction from process. Engel & Blackwell(1982) defined satisfaction as 'an assessment of a consistency in chosen alternative proposal and their belief they had with them.' Tse & Wilton(1988) defined customer satisfaction as 'a customers' reaction to discordance between advance expectation and ex post facto outcome.' That is, this point of view that customer satisfaction is process is the important factor that comparing and assessing process what they expect and outcome of consumer. Unlike outcome-oriented approach, process-oriented approach has many advantages. As process-oriented approach deals with customers' whole expenditure experience, it checks up main process by measuring one by one each factor which is essential role at each step. And this approach enables us to check perceptual/psychological process formed customer satisfaction. Because of these advantages, now many studies are adopting this process-oriented approach(Yi, 1995). 2.4 Loyalty Intention Loyalty has been studied by dividing into behavioral approaches, attitudinal approaches and complex approaches(Dekimpe et al., 1997). In the early years of study, they defined loyalty focusing on behavioral concept, behavioral approaches regard customer loyalty as "a tendency to purchase periodically within a certain period of time at specific retail store." But the loyalty of behavioral approaches focuses on only outcome of customer behavior, so there are someone to point the limits that customers' decision-making situation or process were neglected(Enis & Paul, 1970; Raj, 1982; Lee, 2002). So the attitudinal approaches were suggested. The attitudinal approaches consider loyalty contains all the cognitive, emotional, voluntary factors(Oliver, 1997), define the customer loyalty as "friendly behaviors for specific retail stores." However these attitudinal approaches can explain that how the customer loyalty form and change, but cannot say positively whether it is moved to real purchasing in the future or not. This is a kind of shortcoming(Oh, 1995). 3. Research Design 3.1 Research Model Based on the objects of this study, the research model derived is