nó difï ¬ sùng bái đối với người điều tiết tới can thiệp, và không có khả năng rõ ràng để bỏ phiếu hoặc đưa ra quyết định. Ngay cả trong settingâ € "mà những người tham gia chia sẻ một nền tảng rất tương tự như knowledgeâ | 184 ONTOLOGY ENGINEERING METHODOLOGIES the discussion proceeded too fast hence not everybody could follow the argumentation it was difficult for the moderator to intervene and there was no explicit possibility to vote or make decisions. Even in this setting where participants shared a very similar background knowledge the creation of a shared conceptualization without any guidance was almost impossible or at least very time consuming. We concluded that a more controlled approach is needed with respect to the process and moderation. In the second experiment participants were asked to extend the ontology built in the first round. In this phase the formalism to represent the ontology was fixed. The most general concepts were also initially proposed to avoid philosophical discussions. For the second round only the arguments elaboration examples counter examples alternatives evaluation justification were allowed. The participants in the second experiment joined two virtual chat rooms. One was used for providing topics for discussion hand raising and voting. The other one served to exchange arguments. When the participants the same as in the first experiment wanted to discuss a certain topic for example the introduction of a new concept they had to introduce it in the first chat room. The topics to discuss were published on a web site and were processed sequentially. Each topic could then be justified with the allowed arguments. Participants could provide arguments only after hand raising and waiting for their turn. The participants decided autonomously when a topic had been sufficiently discussed called for a vote and thus decided how to model a certain aspect of the domain. The evolving ontology was again published on a web site. The moderator had the same tasks as in the first experiment but was stricter in interpreting the rules. Whenever needed the moderator called for an example of an argument to enforce the participants to express their wishes clearly. As expected
