Paper 11


Three Critical Questions


Group 1:

Member Name:Abilash Amarthaluri, Bharadwaz Somavarapu

 Here we need the knowledge management and the knowledge creation for the knowledge-based systems. But we have to consider where the knowledge is stored and even the thing where it is located and how long should the knowledge be retained.

 First we need to take the data and it must be organized so that it will become information and that information further more organized to form knowledge. But there can be the problem while converting this data to information and that information to knowledge. How can contemplation of best preserving of the knowledge be done and even acquiring, retrieving, using and publishing that knowledge may be another problem

 It was discussed in the paper that sharing of the knowledge and understanding the needs depends on the how the knowledge is made official. But what about the people not aware of the language in which knowledge was written. There can be more generalization such that knowledge can be written many more languages.

Group 2:

Member Name:Sai Ram Kota

1. The authors say “Like markets for goods and services, the knowledge market has buyers, sellers, and brokers, as well as market pricing and exchange mechanisms, even though money is rarely the form of payment “. What do you think are other modes of payment for an ordinary business company..??

2. Authors say “In electronic knowledge trading one cannot simply copy ways of working that are already known from traditional business, but should exploit the strength of multiple synchronous and asynchronous communication..??” what are these synchronous/asynchronous communications. How are they fundamentally different from traditional approaches..?

3. The authors generalize that even services such as manufacturing can benefit by exposing their knowledge assets..?? But for a manufacturing service most of its data is confidential. (Amount procured, quantity manufactured, costing mechanism). We did not understand what and how exactly can they benefit by opening their valuable knowledge assets especially when it is open to competitors..??

4. Authors say that “We can’t replicate e-commerce between participants who share”. But when a user will have to pay for a offered web based knowledge service, you tend to do a commerce on web. So how is it different from traditional e-commerce?

Group 3:

Member Name: Sunil Kumar Garrepally

1. In the paper, a new semantic web infrastructure has been defined that includes several service objects such to support querying, negotiating, contracting and binding the services. Does it also support the advertising process of the service which is more important in launching any product?
2. A new pricing mechanism was discussed in the paper to replace traditional publish-subscribe mechanism. But, in the new mechanism like pricing and negotiating methods are included that would make the process more time consuming. Is it still efficient with the expense of consuming more time in binding the service?
3. The process of semantic web infrastructure has been discussed through an example of requirement of service for information about establishing representative office in china. Here, the methods to show the results i.e. experts list has been shown. Can we believe the results shown by these methods? Are there any methods defined to check reliability of services?
4. To maintain the metadata of the services and service objects, tModels are used. But, the use of tModels has disadvantages of navigating through the external resources to retrieve the information. Doesn’t this process make the system slower?
5. The process of pricing has been discussed. Each service provider may require different pricing methods such as price per number of service requests or price per number of services or price per user. How can this pricing mechanism allows all these pricing methods as per provider?

Group 4:

Member Name:Nikhilesh Katakam

1.The paper did not state how these services are used to retrieve “’necessary knowledge-objects’” from the metadata which has different domains and different ontologies?
2.The paper stated that “one-to-one negotiation mechanisms” are used to publish the data. This restricts the data and the ontologies defined. How the ‘”scalability”’ and “’performance’” be achieved when “one-to-one” mappings are used?
3.The paper stated that the ‘“knowledge market”’ consists of ‘”different languages”’, ‘”models’” etc. How the sharing and reusing be achieved when it contains large amounts of metadata and domains?

Group 5:

Member Name: Ritesh Mengji

1)The author mentioned that this is the time for the organizations to enter into the second phase of Knowledge Management. Can the older knowledge update into the new knowledge?
2)What are the Asynchronous and Synchronous communication means which can be used as communication means in knowledge trading? How these communication means are helpful in knowledge trading?
3)What might be the methods of knowledge management in complex connection of companies? What techniques companies are using for making knowledge products and services?

Group 6:

Member Name: Palla Sangram.

1) The author mentioned that the knowledge codification is important to expertise the humans. But many organizations follow knowledge management rather than knowledge codification. Why author said that knowledge codification is necessary?
2) The author discussed about one example and in that he said that in order to have support many depend on external sources rather than internal sources but is it safe to depend on external sources?
3) The author said that the organization can solve the problems by retrieving knowledge based objects but how can the organization use these services to solve the problems?

Group 7:

Member Name: Mohana Siri Kamineni & Kishore Kumar Mannava

1. It is mentioned that movement of the “knowledge’ within and across the firms is powered by “market forces”. Reviewing the existing “knowledge markets” in depth identifies many critical points for their development. Are all these issues resolved in the “web based knowledge services” ? If not to what extent they are resolved? How is the new “ontology based approach for knowledge services using the semantic technologies” more advantageous over the other approaches? In what way it is more effective?
2. The “author” mentions adopting various models of “exposing internal knowledge” creates a extra burden on the “practitioners”. Then why are we using such techniques which increases the complexity rather than solving the problem??
3. The “author’ specifies that a “knowledge market” that meets “agents” with different languages ,”mental models and world perceptions” increases the complexity to a large extent. Then why don’t they use a shared model to get to common understanding of the needs and the “knowledge’?
4. How could a person use a “knowledge service” to retrieve all the required knowledge objects and help us to resolve any particular problem? In what way the contextual information of the “knowledge” can be expressed?
5. The paper presents that importing the required “knowledge” from the sources that lie outside the “organizational boundaries” and combining the “knowledge” across many networks is very tedious. Then how can this approach represent “knowledge” when there are multiple sources and provide us a effective “knowledge service” for online trading?

Group 8:

Member Name:Hema Snigdha.P, Lakshmi Bhavani.N

1) In the paper it is mentioned that a human expert for codification of the knowledge is necessary. How can this be achieved the author haven’t mentioned the details to achieve this?
2) How can the one-to-one protocol which is introduced in the negotiation ontology fit into the present web, as there is less one-to-one bargain system as lot of bidding is seen in the market.
3) The “knowledge-services” is appropriate for knowledge-centric activities. How far is it feasible that the knowledge services will be helpful for the common people will it be beneficial and how far can those services be available for them?


Group 1:

Member Name:pelluri,voruganti,lattupalli

Should three different ontologies be interoperated in order to establish a single knowledge service, Is such interoperability easy to manage, We know the complexity in integrating a single ontology,is it possible for three ontologies?
Service oriented implementation is used as the outlay for these knowledge services,Knowledge services will have to be divided according to their services,contracts,uddis(kuddi),etc are authsupportive,the discovery is explained in terms of kuddi but how are the communication and interoperability explained by the author?he himself explains the complexities involved in knowledge services,trading cannot be done so easily as semantic services,is it done so easily?
Why is that the author wants to trade knowledge,it isn’t any ordinary service,knowledge means lot more than just data,it includes analyzing,decision taking,etc,then how does the author explain the introduction of interaction,retrieval,discovery and navigation performed over such complex data,Is all this done over static data which is not knowledge or is it that the knowledge is constantly updated?

Group 2:

Member Name: Addagalla Satyanaga Manoj Kumar; Bobbili, Shrinath; Gopinath, Sreejith

1) The discovery of data, retrieval and the negotiation is done in a sequential manner with the validations and approval of contract. Is there any validation for the pricing of the service invoked?

2) The author says that the web enabled knowledge has three ontologies namely service, provision and negotiation. In service ontology the applications are domain dependent. Does this domain dependency discrimination affect the knowledge trading?

3) The knowledge service broker deals with the contracts of the services. Is the broker acceptable among the organizations, since the broker holds the key for negotiations of the service contracts?

4) The paper promulgates the concept of a knowledge market. Since we see that paid services are generally not as popular as free interchanges, does this not mean that we are creating an obstacle in the way of improvised semantic data transfer?

5) The semantic web needs to be flexible to allow extensive interaction between agents and applications. The knowledge market needs many restrictive structures in place for security, pricing, etc. does this not curtail the flexibility of the semantic web framework?

Group 3:

Member Name: Swathi M Shastry

1. When knowledge is shared across organizations, the organizations must be interested in the same kind of knowledge to establish knowledge trading services and finalize negotiations and legal contracts. Is there a mechanism in place to determine if the organizations in question are sharing the same kind of knowledge, as in the same context?

2. When the query is asked by the user in a certain context, he expects a result pertinent to the context of the query, is there a mechanism in place to determine if the context is the same?

3. The authors state a scenario for the solution they propose in which the ontologies register their services through k-UDDI and when a user asks a query, it looks into the registry which proposes a service and if the service is negotiable, then the service is provided to the user. How frequently is the data in the registry updated with reference to the ontology references and the services provided?

Group 4:

Member Name:Shaiv, karuna priya rameshwaram, anusha vunnam

1)To what extent are all the needs of the knowledge that are being reliant on degree of formalization are being met through the sharing of common understanding?
2) Is it possible for an organization to concentrate on the knowledge resources under all circumstances?
The concept of knowledge trading an ontology has been launched in this article for trading the services of knowledge using semantic tools.
3) How far is this concept successful and flexible in addressing the nature of the transactions of the knowledge?

Group 5:

Member Name: Gayathri Devi Bojja

1. Would the developers take the responsibility of money and take legal action if the given information is false and misleading?
2. Will the unified ontology suggested cover all the necessary topics required by the users, what if the ontology does not include any sort of information regarding the way to process a specific data requested by the user? Will the topics covered get updated for accuracy and to remove any ambiguity?
3. Is the information transaction secure by the specific ontology?
4. What if the user requesting data from a company is doing so with false identity, intending to acquire data for the benefit of his company?

Group 6:

Member Name:

Group 7:

Member Name:

Group 8:


1. In the paper the author mentioned that the manager of an organization can be able to retrieve the knowledge based objects through which the problems can be solved. How the manager can be can use the knowledge based service for solving the problem?
2. In the paper the author mentioned that the by knowledge codification is necessary for the expertise of the humans and the author also mentioned that it is very much necessary. But why it is necessary? Because lots of the organizations are not doing the knowledge codification but they are doing knowledge management.
3. In the example that the author had mentioned in the paper he stated that she rely on the external sources for the support instead of the internal organizations. But can it be secure to rely on the external sources?

Group 9:

Member Name: Satish Bhat, Holly Vo

1. In Today’s competitive market, where each company wants to be a world leader, why would a company be willing to share knowledge in the form of service with other competitive companies? Even if they do this what is the guarantee that they will find any success?
2. What is the guarantee that a company will provide reliable knowledge to all is a competitor? So does this mean there needs to be a third party that will validate the authenticity of knowledge?
3. The feasibility of this approach is also a concern, since a lot of man power may be needed to achieve this.

Group 10:

Member Name: Sunae Shin, Hyungbae Park

1) They defined properly about knowledge services which they described in this article. However, since the knowledge services have basis on the knowledge publishing and retrieval process, before the awareness of the knowledge services they should give suitable definition of knowledge producing and storage.
2) One of the critical points of knowledge service is about not suitable commerce mechanism which is conventional. However, they didn’t give the proof for adapting the existing commerce mechanism to knowledge market. So, we can come up with the question that why not we can expand the conventional method to make the mechanism proper for knowledge market.
3) We can intuitively aware that the knowledge market is considerably increasing. However, there is no evidence of explanation of knowledge market that grows world wide situation. They should provide survey for consumer information, price, and satisfaction of agents.
4) They properly point out that the ontology of knowledge object provides high-quality description for retrieval of knowledge. There can be more benefits from the ontology such as evaluation of the services or fine management of the object storages.
5) In their knowledge commerce infrastructure, providers of the communities publish their knowledge objects. This article needs to discuss about the security of the publishing knowledge object into the knowledge service system.
6) In the knowledge service system, they organize the objects in the repository properly for improving retrieval. For this, the knowledge object provider should have the standard style or form to adapt in the system. This has not been discussed.
7) The article introduced the three ontologies that they developed. One of them is provision ontology. In this ontology, they provide the framework, pricing, and delivery methods. However, the maintenance missed the point of maintenance for delivered service of knowledge.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License