IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence (IJ-AI)

Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2024, pp. 1339~1347

ISSN: 2252-8938, DOI: 10.11591/ijai.v13.i2.pp1339-1347  1339

An enhanced domain ontology model of database course in

computing curricula

Nur W. Rahayu1,2, Ridi Ferdiana2, Sri S. Kusumawardani2

1
Department of Informatics, Faculty of Technology Industrial, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2
Department of Electrical and Information Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: The ACM/IEEE Computing Curricula 2020 includes the study of relational
databases in four of its six disciplines. However, a domain ontology model of
Received Aug 21, 2023 multidisciplinary database course does not exist. Therefore, the current study
Revised Sep 29, 2023 aims to build a domain ontology model for the multidisciplinary database
Accepted Oct 22, 2023 course. The research process comprises three phases: a review of database
course contents based on the ACM/IEEE Computing Curricula 2020, a
literature review of relevant domain ontology models, and a design research
Keywords: phase using the NeOn methodology framework. The ontology building
involves the ontology reuse and reengineering of existing models, along with
Multidisciplinary database the construction of some classes from a non-ontological resource. The
course approach to ontology reuse and reengineering demonstrates ontology
Non-ontological resource reusability. The final domain ontology model is then evaluated using two
Ontology reuse and ontology syntactic metrics: Relationship Richness and Information Richness.
reengineering These metrics reflect the diversity of relationships and the breadth of
Ontology syntactic metrics knowledge in the model, respectively. In conclusion, the current research
Relational database structured contributes to the Computing Curricula by providing an ontology model for a
query language multidisciplinary database course. The model, developed through ontology
reuse and reengineering and the integration of non-ontological resources,
exhibits more diverse relationships and represents a broader range of
knowledge.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Ridi Ferdiana
Department of Electrical and Information Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Being a valuable resource, data requires effective management encompassing tasks like data cleaning,
database storage, and data-based decision-making. Nowadays, the role of the database system as data storage
is becoming increasingly important. It is also supported by more varied database models, e.g., relational data
models, key-value stores, time series databases, graph databases, and spatial databases. Of these various
models, the relational model is the most widely used with 71.9% popularity [1]. Therefore, it is not surprising
that relational database learning is included in the curriculum for students in computing disciplines.
The relational database is a core course in computing disciplines [2]. Computing disciplines have
evolved from five disciplines in 2005 to six disciplines in 2020. Previously, the joint task force ACM/AIS/IEEE
released Computing Curricula 2005 which covered 5 disciplines, i.e., Computer Engineering, Computer
Science, Information Systems, Information Technology, and Software Engineering [3]. Later, the ACM/IEEE
Computing Curricula 2020 has 6 disciplines, i.e., the five existing disciplines plus Cybersecurity [4].

Journal homepage: http://ijai.iaescore.com

1340  ISSN: 2252-8938

Along with the growth of database system technology, the increasing needs of database user
organizations, and the development of international curricula, database learning methods and tools are also
increasing. Moreover, learning databases can be challenging. The difficulty arises from database design and its
programming language, which is abstract [5], [6]. Therefore, teaching and learning database is generally carried
out in theory and practice sessions [7], [8] and enriched with various learning tools [6], [9].
The learning tools for databases vary, ranging from visualization [5], and web-based applications, to
serious games [2]. The coverage of materials across these tools is also diverse, although no single tool
encompasses all materials [6], [10]. With the growing demand for advanced and personalized learning tools,
the range of techniques and methods being utilized is expanding, including the use of ontology. Previous studies
have shown that ontologies are popularly used in e-Learning and are often collaborated with other artificial
intelligence techniques or fields [11], [12]. Despite the potential to enhance tool flexibility, there is currently
no ontology available for Database courses across various computing disciplines. To address this gap, we
propose the following research questions:
RQ1: What are the Database course contents in multiple disciplines?
RQ2: How to develop a domain ontology model for a multidisciplinary database course?
Ontologies are frequently employed as data models in e-learning recommender systems. The findings
of this study are expected to provide a valuable resource for developers of intelligent learning technologies by
offering an established ontology model, thereby minimizing the necessity for constructing one from the ground
up. With reusability capability, the new ontology can be used across various application platforms, including
the learning management system.
The structure of this paper is as follows: Section 1 presents the research background and continues
with section 2 which contains literature on Computing Curricula 2020 and ontology. Next, section 3 presents
the methodology, and the results are covered in section 4. Discussion of research results is presented in section
5 and this paper closes with conclusions in section 6.

2. BACKGROUND
2.1. ACM/IEEE Computing Curricula 2020
The association for computing machinery (ACM) and IEEE computer society started efforts to
develop curricula for computing disciplines in 2017. It was stated that after 2005, "the number and type of
computing degree programs available to students has dramatically increased" [4]. As computing includes "a
family of study areas", the Computing Curricula 2020 document contains curricula for computer engineering
(CE), computer science (CS), cybersecurity (CSEC), information systems (IS), information technology (IT),
software engineering (SE) and data science (DS).
The ACM/IEEE Computing Curricula 2020 (CC2020) emphasizes that learning in the current
computer field leads to competence. It uses competence definition as “the quality or state of having sufficient
knowledge, judgment, skill, or strength”. The CC2020 competency model consists of 4 components, i.e.,
knowledge, skills, and disposition in carrying out tasks. Knowledge focuses on factual information, skills refer
to the capability to utilize this knowledge, and attitude steers individuals toward the proper application of these
competencies [4].

2.2. Ontology
An ontology is defined as “a logical structure of terms used to describe a domain of knowledge,
including both the definitions of applicable terms and their relationships” [13], [14]. Technically, an ontology
contains classes, individuals, and properties [15]. As part of the knowledge base, ontologies are popularly used
in e-Learning environments. For example, previous research [16] states that ontologies are commonly used for
curriculum modeling, describing learning domains, describing learner data, and describing e-Learning services.
In relation to learning contents, ontology is classified into two categories: subject domain ontology, which
stores database learning materials, and learning task ontology, which archives activities and assessment items.
Ontologies can be constructed using various methodologies, one of which is the NeOn methodology.
This approach offers nine different scenarios to build an ontology model. The scenarios are: (1) From
specification to implementation, (2) Reusing and reengineering non-ontological resources, (3) Reusing
ontological resources, (4) Reusing and reengineering ontological resources, (5) Reusing and merging
ontological resources, (6) Reusing, merging, and reengineering ontological resources, (7) Reusing ontology
design patterns, (8) Restructuring ontological resources, and (9) Localizing ontological resources [17].
Furthermore, the quality of the ontology model can be evaluated at three distinct levels, i.e., (i)
syntactical (considering formal structure and language), (ii) semantic (determining meanings); and (iii)
pragmatic (regarding intentions and usefulness) [18], [19]. At the syntax level, there are several metrics to
assess the ontology model, such as Relationship Richness and Information Richness.

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2024: 1339-1347

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938  1341

The Relationship Richness (RR) is useful for assessing the diversity of relationships among classes.
RR is determined by dividing the count of non-inheritance relationships (P) by the total count of both
inheritance (H) and non-inheritance relationships (P), as shown in (1). To elaborate, subclasses represent
inheritance relationships, whereas object properties, equivalent classes, and disjoint classes fall under the
category of non-inheritance relationships [20].

|𝑃|
𝑅𝑅 = |𝐻| (1)
+|𝑃|

The Information Richness (IR) metric evaluates the depth or breadth of an ontology model, calculated as the
average number of subclasses per class. This value distinguishes between two types of ontologies: (1)
horizontal ontologies, where classes have numerous direct subclasses, and (2) vertical ontologies, characterized
by classes with a limited number of direct subclasses [20].

3. METHOD
To address the first research question concerning course content, we conducted a review of database
course materials across various disciplines. The second research question, pertaining to ontology development,
was addressed through a combined approach of literature review and design research. These three phases are
outlined below,
Phase 1: Review the database course content across multiple disciplines [21]. This phase is performed by
referring to the CC2020 document and the curriculum of each computing discipline. Analysis was
conducted on knowledge areas, knowledge units, and learning outcomes. Synthesis was subsequently
performed by searching for common learning outcomes across various disciplines.
Phase 2: Conduct a literature review related to domain ontology models in the Database course. Literature was
searched on Google Scholar using the keyword “ontology design database course” and documented
using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (“the PRISMA 2020
statement”) [22]. Afterward, we analyzed the ontology classes of the existing models.
Phase 3: Design research to build a new domain ontology model. Refers to the NeOn methodology framework,
this study combines Scenario 2 and Scenario 4 [17]. This phase includes four steps:
− Create a mapping from the necessary database contents (Phase 1) to the existing ontologies (Phase 2).
The purpose of this step is to identify the need for adding, reusing, or reengineering classes.
− Add new classes and properties (Scenario 2) based on a Database textbook. The “Database System
Concepts 7th edition” book [23] was selected as a design reference because it is the latest and widely
recognized textbook [2].
− Modify classes and properties according to Scenario 4 based on the required course contents.
− Evaluate the new ontology model using RR and IR measurements. The results are then compared with
the previous ontology model.

4. RESULTS
4.1. Phase 1: Review the database course content
Among the six disciplines accommodated by CC2020, four study databases, i.e., Computer
Engineering (ACM/IEEE-CS Computer Engineering Curricula 2016) [24], Computer Science (ACM/IEEE-
CS Computer Science Curricula 2013) [25], Information Systems (ACM/AIS Information System Curricula
2020) [26] and Information Technology (ACM/IEEE-CS Information Technology Curricula 2017) [27]. The
competency analysis, including detailed knowledge areas, knowledge units, and learning outcomes across the
four disciplines, is presented in Table 1. The analysis process is further advanced by assigning specific topic
keywords to each learning outcome. This step produces 6 topics from 36 learning outcomes, i.e., data models
(n=9), database systems (n=9), normalization (n=2), procedural language (n=2), structured query language
(SQL) of data definition (n=6), and SQL query (n=8). The keyword distribution is depicted in Figure 1. The
figure illustrates that out of the six most discussed topics, four are prominent: data modeling, database systems,
SQL data definition, and SQL queries. The detail for each topic is below.
− Data modeling: the relationship among data models, examples, the context of use, and Entity Relationship
Diagram design from a case study.
− Database systems: history, components, and types.
− SQL data definition: syntax to create and modify schemas or tables, rows, columns, keys, and views.
− SQL query to learn how to:
− translate user stories into SQL statements,

An enhanced domain ontology model of database course in computing curricula (Nur W. Rahayu)
1342  ISSN: 2252-8938

− use SELECT statements using filtering and sorting

− make JOINs,
− utilize calculated fields and aggregate functions, and
− optimize the query.

Table 1. Comparison of database course content among four computing disciplines

No Discipline Knowledge areas* Knowledge unit** No. of learning
outcomes
1. Computer CE-SWD (Software design) CE-SWD-9 (Data modelling) 2
Engineering (CE) CE-SWD-10 (Database systems) 4
2. Computer Science Information Management (IM) IM/Database Systems 7
(CS (Elective) IM/Query Languages 6
3. Information Systems Data / Information Management Query the relational model 2
(IS) Design relational databases 4
4. Information ITE-IMA (Information Management) ITE-IMA-03 (Data modelling) 5
Technology (IT) ITE-IMA-04 (Database query languages) 6
Total 36
* This column header accommodates the terms “Knowledge Area” used in CE and CS, “Competency Area”
in IS, and “IT Domain” in IT.
** The current study limits the maximum of two knowledge units that contain more database-related learning
outcomes.

Figure 1. The intersection of learning outcomes in the multidisciplinary database course

4.2. Phase 2: A literature review of ontology models

Initially, a Google Scholar search using the keyword "ontology design database course" yielded a
result of 230,000 articles. Considering time efficiency, the current research is limited to the first 50 articles.
Subsequently, the process of article selection is carried out through abstract scanning. The process resulted in
seven articles related to domain ontologies for database courses.
After full-text reading, we found 2 articles used general class names (i.e., chapter or topic), 1 article
referred to the same ontology, and 1 article did not detail the ontology. Therefore, at the end of the selection

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2024: 1339-1347

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938  1343

process, three articles were found to be relevant to the current study. Figure 2 shows the selection process using
PRISMA. The details of the three chosen ontology models are,
− The first ontology model [28] includes the database concepts containing a hierarchy of important terms,
and SQL statements cover SELECT, UPDATE, and DELETE statements. Thus, the model has not
discussed SQL query and SQL data definitions.
− The second model [29] focuses on SQL and uses ontology in the learning environment for practicing
SQL. Therefore, the model did not include database concepts.
− The third model [30] simplifies the second and adds SQLPlus result formatting content.

Figure 2. Literature search and selection of ontology models of database course contents

4.3. Phase 3: Design research of a new ontology model

As mentioned in the Method section, ontology design research consists of four sequential steps. The
steps are mapping the necessary contents, using Scenarios 2 and 4 for ontology building, and assessing the new
model. The outcomes are presented below.
Step 1: Mapping the required database contents to the existing ontologies.
Phase 1 results indicate that popular database contents include data models, database systems, SQL
data definitions, and SQL queries. However, the content of existing ontology models varies. The mapping
result is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. The mapping of database contents to existing ontology models

Existing ontology model scope
No. Required contents
Study [28] Study [29] Study [30]
1. Data model Data model types and database design stages — —
2. Database system Data storage — —
3. SQL data definition — Yes Yes
4. SQL query — Yes —

An enhanced domain ontology model of database course in computing curricula (Nur W. Rahayu)
1344  ISSN: 2252-8938

Step 2: Reuse and reengineer the non-ontology resources.

The step is performed as there is no complete model exists. Scenario 2 (“Reusing and reengineering
non-ontological resources”) was conducted for the first two required contents (“Data model” and “Database
system”). We developed a new ontology model utilizing a top-down approach, transitioning from broad to
specific concepts. To address this, the textbook ‘Database System Concepts 7th Edition’ is our primary
reference:
− Chapter 1, ‘Introduction’, constructs the ‘DatabaseComponent’ and ‘DataModel’ classes.
− Chapter 6, ‘Database Design Using the ER Model’ is for the “EntityRelationshipModel” class (a subclass
of “DataModel”).
− Chapter 20, ‘Database System Architectures’, constructs the “DatabaseArchitecture” class.
The "SimpleAttribute" class exemplifies the relationships among classes. It is a subclass of the
"AttributeType" class and is disjoint with the "CompositeAttribute" class. An excerpt of the ontology model for
Scenario 2, generated using the OntoGraph plugin, is presented in Figure 3(a).
Step 3: Reuse and reengineer the ontology model
Scenario 4, as applied to studies [29] and [30] focuses on the last two materials: 'SQL data definition'
and 'SQL query'. In the new model, the 'SQL data definition' is represented by two top-level classes,
'DDLStatement' and 'Data'. Similarly, the 'SQL query' is mapped to the 'Clause' and 'SelectStatement' classes.
These four newly introduced classes are elaborated further through subclass hierarchical relationships, as
depicted in Figure 3(b).

(a) (b)

Figure 3. Excerpt of new domain ontology of database course from (a) Scenario 2 and (b) Scenario 4

Step 4: Evaluation of the newly developed ontology model

The newly developed ontology model has 141 classes. The top-level classes are ‘Clause’, ‘Data’,
‘DatabaseArchitecture’, ‘DatabaseComponent’, ‘DataModel’, ‘DDLStatement’, and ‘SelectStatement’. The
model is openly accessible on Figshare [31], with detailed metrics provided in Table 3.

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2024: 1339-1347

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938  1345

Table 3. New ontology model metrics

No Metrics Count
1. Class count 141
2. subClassOf count 134
3. Object property count 8
4. Equivalent classes count 0
5. Disjoint classes count 13

The existing model is then assessed using Relationship Richness (RR) and Information Richness (IR)
metrics. These values are subsequently compared with the most comprehensive existing ontology model, as
detailed in Table 4. The table reveals that the new ontology model exhibits a greater diversity of relationships,
as indicated by its higher RR value. Furthermore, the new model is more horizontally oriented compared to the
previous one [29]. This is attributed to the broader knowledge representation in the new model, while the
existing model encapsulates more detailed knowledge (vertical ontology).

Table 4. The comparison of ontology evaluation metrics

Evaluation metrics The existing ontology model (Study [29]) The new ontology model
2 21
RR 𝑅𝑅 = = 0.01 𝑅𝑅 = = 0.16
196 + 2 134 + 21
196 134
IR 𝑅𝑅 = = 15.08 𝐼𝑅 = = 19.14
13 7

5. DISCUSSION
The field of databases is rapidly evolving, necessitating the advancement of database education to
keep pace with technological progress. The current research has discovered that the most popular topics in
databases across various disciplines are data modeling, database systems, SQL data definition, and SQL
queries. These findings support previous research stating that data modeling and its implementation are the
core of database learning in many higher education institutions [2]. Furthermore, the four subjects are also
present in the master's level curricula to some extent [32]. Hence, this ontology model is expected to be utilized
and expanded at the undergraduate and master’s levels.
Materials on database design and programming are often abstract, prompting the development of
learning tools. These tools vary not only in the platforms they utilize but also in the scope of their content.
However, no single tool provides comprehensive coverage of all materials [6], [10]. This fact underscores the
need for these tools to adapt to diverse learning requirements. Therefore, the newly developed ontology model
with high information richness is more suitable for reuse across multiple disciplines due to its broader scope.

6. CONCLUSION
The current research was conducted to answer the two research questions mentioned in the
Introduction section. We performed the document analysis of the ACM/IEEE Computing Curricula 2020, a
literature review of existing ontology models, and design research of a new domain ontology model. We found
that the database course is taught in four disciplines: Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Information
Systems, and Information Technology. In addressing our first research question (RQ1: “What are the database
course contents in multiple disciplines?”), we discovered that despite differences in materials and learning
outcomes, there are four popular topics: data modeling, database systems, SQL data definition, and SQL
queries.
Existing ontology models differ in content, with none encompassing all four topics. To address the
second research question (RQ2: “How to develop a domain ontology model for a multidisciplinary database
course?”), we used the NeOn methodology framework in our design research. We utilized Scenario 2
("Reusing and reengineering non-ontological resources") and Scenario 4 ("Reusing and reengineering
ontological resources"). Therefore, the ontology model construction involved two scenarios: (1) reusing
textbook material, and (2) reusing and reengineering existing ontology models. As a result, our newly
developed ontology model comprises 141 classes. Compared to its predecessor, this model exhibits more
diverse relationships (evidenced by a 0.15-point increase in RR value) and represents a broader range of
knowledge (with a higher IR score of 4.06 points).
Ontology models, renowned for their reusability and interoperability, offer a robust framework for
data modeling. Future research could integrate the model into applications such as Learning Management
Systems, Computer-Aided Instruction, or Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Furthermore, exploring database

An enhanced domain ontology model of database course in computing curricula (Nur W. Rahayu)
1346  ISSN: 2252-8938

models beyond relational databases could diversify the learning contents and provide learners with a broader
understanding of various industry-relevant database models.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was funded by RTA Program Universitas Gadjah Mada with Grant Number
5075/UN1.P.II/Dit-Lit/PT.01.01/2023.

REFERENCES
[1] SolidIT, “DB-engines ranking,” 2023, [Online]. Available: https://db-engines.com/en/ranking.
[2] M. Ishaq et al., “Advances in database systems education: Methods, tools, curricula, and way forward,” Education and Information
Technologies, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 2681–2725, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11293-0.
[3] R. Shackelford et al., “Computing curricula 2005: The overview report,” Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh SIGCSE Technical
Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 456–457, 2007, doi: 10.1145/1121341.1121482.
[4] CC2020 Task Force, “Computing curricula 2020,” Computing Curricula 2020, 2020, doi: 10.1145/3467967.
[5] M. Amin, G. W. Romney, P. Dey, and B. Sinha, “Teaching relational database normalization in an innovative way,” J. Comput.
Sci. Coll., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 48–56, 2019, doi: 10.5555/3381555.3381562.
[6] J. Carneiro, “A review on tools for teaching database systems online,” Kriativ.Tech, vol. 8, pp. 1–5, 2020, [Online]. Available:
http://www.kriativ-tech.com.
[7] J. Wang and H. Chen, “Research and practice on the teaching reform of database course,” in Proceedings of the 2014 International
Conference on Education Reform and Modern Management, 2014, vol. 75, doi: 10.2991/ermm-14.2014.63.
[8] R. Thomas Mason, “A database practicum for teaching database administration and software development at regis university,”
Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, vol. 12, pp. 159–168, 2013, doi: 10.28945/1858.
[9] D. E. Douglas and G. Van Der Vyver, “Effectiveness of E-learning course materials for learning database management systems:
An experimental investigation,” Journal of Computer Information Systems, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 41–48, 2004, [Online]. Available:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08874417.2004.11647594.
[10] M. Cvetanović, Z. Radivojević, V. Blagojević, and M. Bojović, “ADVICE-educational system for teaching database courses,” IEEE
Transactions on Education, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 398–409, Aug. 2011, doi: 10.1109/TE.2010.2063431.
[11] N. W. Rahayu, R. Ferdiana, and S. S. Kusumawardani, “A systematic review of ontology use in E-Learning recommender system,”
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3, p. 100047, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100047.
[12] J. Clemente, H. Yago, J. de Pedro-Carracedo, and J. Bueno, “A proposal for an adaptive Recommender System based on
competences and ontologies,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 208, p. 118171, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118171.
[13] IEEE, “ISO/IEC/IEEE international standard - systems and software engineering-vocabulary,” Ieee, vol. 2017, no. IEEE, pp. 1–49,
2017, [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7907158.
[14] S. C. Haw, L. J. Chew, D. S. Kusumo, P. Naveen, and K. W. Ng, “Mapping of extensible markup language-to-ontology
representation for effective data integration,” IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 432–442, Mar.
2023, doi: 10.11591/ijai.v12.i1.pp432-442.
[15] and A. P.-L. J. Hebeler, M. Fisher, R. Blace, “Semantic web programming frameworks,” Ontologies-Based Business Integration,
pp. 139–149, 2008, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-75230-1_7.
[16] M. Al-Yahya, R. George, and A. Alfaries, “Ontologies in E-Learning: Review of the literature,” International Journal of Software
Engineering and its Applications, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 67–84, 2015, doi: 10.14257/ijseia.2015.9.2.07.
[17] M. C. Suárez-Figueroa, A. Gómez-Pérez, E. Motta, and A. Gangemi, “Ontology engineering in a networked world,” Ontology
Engineering in a Networked World, pp. 1–435, 2012, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24794-1.
[18] R. Stamper, K. Liu, M. Hafkamp, and Y. Ades, “Understanding the roles of signs and norms in organizations – a semiotic approach
to information systems design,” Behaviour and Information Technology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 15–27, Jan. 2000, doi:
10.1080/014492900118768.
[19] M. McDaniel, V. C. Storey, and V. Sugumaran, “Assessing the quality of domain ontologies: Metrics and an automated ranking
system,” Data and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 115, pp. 32–47, May 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.datak.2018.02.001.
[20] Adminofwiki, “Schema metrics,” 2023, [Online]. Available: https://ontometrics.informatik.uni-
rostock.de/wiki/index.php/Schema_Metrics.
[21] B. C. K. Choi and A. W. P. Pak, “Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education
and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness,” Clinical and Investigative Medicine, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 351–
364, 2006, [Online]. Available: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17330451/.
[22] M. J. Page et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” The BMJ, vol. 372, p.
n71, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
[23] and S. S. A. Silberschatz, H. F. Korth, “Database system concepts seventh edition,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 40, no. 2,
pp. 139–142, 1997, doi: 10.1145/253671.253760.
[24] Joint Task Group on Computer Engineering Curricula, “Computer engineering curricula 2016,” p. 151, 2016, [Online]. Available:
https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/education/ce2016-final-report.pdf%0Ahttps://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3025098.
[25] Computer science curricula 2013: Curriculum guidelines for undergraduate degree programs in computer science. ACM, Inc,
2013.
[26] P. M. Leidig and H. Salmela, “IS2020 a competency model for undergraduate programs in information systems,” Communications
of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 470–480, 2022, doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.05021.
[27] “Information technology curricula 2017: Curriculum guidelines for baccalaureate degree programs in information technology,”
Information Technology Curricula 2017: Curriculum Guidelines for Baccalaureate Degree Programs in Information Technology,
2017, doi: 10.1145/3173161.
[28] G. H. A. Ahmed and L. Kovács, “Development of ontology-based model to support learning process in LMS,” Indonesian Journal
of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 507–518, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.11591/ijeecs.v24.i1.pp507-518.
[29] P. Brusilovsky, M. V. Yudelson, S. Sosnovsky, V. Zadorozhny, D. H. Lee, and X. Zhou, “An open integrated exploratorium for
database courses,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education, ITiCSE, Jun.

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2024: 1339-1347

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938  1347

2008, pp. 22–26, doi: 10.1145/1384271.1384280.

[30] S. Cvetanović and M. Raspopović, “Design of learning object ontology for the database course,” The Third International Conference
on e-Learning (eLearning-2012), pp. 1–6, 2012.
[31] N. W. Rahayu, “An ontology of database course,” 2023.
[32] K. S. Musti, “An effective approach for teaching database course,” International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 53–63, 2015, [Online]. Available: http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/view/357/162.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Nur W. Rahayu earned her bachelor’s degree in informatics from the Institute
of Technology of Sepuluh November, Indonesia followed by a master’s degree in
computer science from Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia. Her academic contributions
encompass authorship and co-authorship of textbooks, as well as numerous conference
and journal scientific papers. Her research revolves around intelligent information systems
and e-learning, reflecting her focused research interests. She can be contacted at email:
[email protected]

Prof. Dr. Ridi Ferdiana is a Professor of Software Engineering at Universitas

Gadjah Mada's Department of Electrical and Information Engineering in Indonesia. He
holds distinguished roles as a Microsoft MVP, AWS Accredited Educator, and Microsoft
Certified Trainer, reflecting his dedication to education and community collaboration.
Heading the Cloud Experience research group, his work centers on modern enterprise
methods, technology-enhanced learning, optimization, cloud adoption, and cognitive
applications. With over 150 scientific publications and substantial contributions to books,
his influence extends across academia and industry. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Prof. Dr. Sri S. Kusumawardani is a Professor of E-Learning in the

Department of Electrical and Information Engineering at Universitas Gadjah Mada,
Indonesia. With an extensive academic record, she has authored and co-authored over 200
scientific publications. Her research is centered around educational data mining, e-
learning, MOOCs, semantic technology, ontology, learning analytics, and AI/ML.
Presently, she also serves as the Director of Learning and Student Affairs at the Ministry
of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of Indonesia, further accentuating her
impactful role. She can be contacted at email: [email protected].

An enhanced domain ontology model of database course in computing curricula (Nur W. Rahayu)