# Ontology Based Governance for Employee Services
## 4 The ADM Ontology
### Validation and Evaluation of the Ontology  
For the validation of the ontology, we first used the Pellet reasoner. Pellet is a complete OWL-DL reasoner. It is open source and it accessible through various interfaces. In our case, we used the Pellet plugin of Protege. As its developers [36] state \"It offers a panoply of features including conjunctive query answering, rule support, e-connection reasoning, and axiom pinpointing, among others\". Using Pellet, we checked the ontology for inconsistencies and errors that may have occurred during the design and implementation.  
We also checked the ontology for inconsistencies and pitfalls with OOPS (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner) [37]. OOPS is a tool for detecting pitfalls in ontologies. It checks an ontology and predicts potential problems that may arise, based on a list of bad practices \"pitfalls\". OOPS tries to identify features that often represent a problem or that could lead to ontology errors. For our case OOPS detected minor problems which were corrected and as a result no problems are currently reported by the tool.  
Finally, we evaluated the ontology through its real-world usage in the web portal, and we found it adequate and complete, completely covering the cases for which it has been developed. A survey was conducted in which 42 people used the Web Portal and then completed a questionnaire in which they recorded their experience of using it. The participants in the research were civil servants, administrative employees, and teachers, who serve in decentralized organizations of the Ministry of Education. As the ontology is oriented towards the development of functions in the field of government to employee, the participants had the advantage that they could participate in a dual role. More specifically, they were invited to use the Web Portal both as users who wish to submit their requests, and also as representatives of the administration that needs to process the requests that  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Class** & **Data Properties** \\ \hline Organization & hasOrgId, hasTitle, hasAddress, hasTel, hasFax, hasEmail, hasWebSite \\ Document & hasDate, hasRefNum, hasTheme \\ Application & hasAppStatus \\  & hasSumame, hasFirstName, hasFatherName, hasMotherName, hasIdentityCardNum, hasTaxIDNum, hasBirthDate \\  & hasRegistryNumber, hasEducationLevel, \\ Civil Servant & hasSpeciality \\  & hasServiceTitle, hasServiceStartDate, \\ Previous Service & hasServiceEndDate, hasServiceTotalTime, \\  & hasServiceHeadPosition \\ Leave & hasLeaveStartDate, hasLeaveEndDate, \\  & hasLeaveNumOfDays, hasLeaveStatus \\ Changes & hasChangeDate, hasDecisionRefNum, \\  & hasDecisionDate, hasDecisionAuthority \\ Discharge, Appointment, Pension & hasCovGazzeteNum \\ Grade & hasPenaltyType \\ Disciplinary penalty & hasPenaltyType \\ Moral Rewards & hasRewardType \\ Salary Scale & hasSalaryScale \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Data Properties.  
have been submitted to the organization. For this purpose, they were granted credentials for their connection to different roles.  
In the overall rating of the Web Portal, 81% of the users stated that they were very satisfied, and 16.7% said that they were satisfied, while 2.4% stated that their experience was neutral. There were no negative answers. In terms of ease of use, 76.2% of the users stated that they were very satisfied, and the remaining 23.8% said that they were satisfied. The processing speed was quite satisfactory, with 95.2% of the users stating that they were very satisfied, 2.4% that they were satisfied, and the remaining 2.4% stating that their experience was neutral. Finally, it was very important that all users easily understood the functions of the Web Portal, completed all their requests, and did not encounter any technical difficulties.  
In Section 5, we provide an example scenario which shows how the ontology is used in real practice.