Difference (from revision 17 to 18)
Changed: 50,51c50,51
|
* Understanding Ontology Quality in Context (AmandaVizedom and JoanneLuciano) Picking up threads from several prior Summits, armed with the progress made in distinguishing families of ontology application use cases (see, e.g., the Application Cases and Usage Framework Syntheses from OntologySummit2011, at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ApplicationCases_Synthesis and http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ApplicationFramework_Synthesis, respectively), we are now in a position to push beyond the agreement to disagree that has characterized discussions of ontology quality to date. Specifically, we can work as a community to identify ontology quality characteristics relevant to (families of) ontology applications. We take this suggestion to be compatible with LeoObrst's suggestion at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions#nid2YXA, FabianNeuhaus's suggestion at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions#nid2YXC, MichaelUschold's suggestion at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions#nid2YXE, the quality and requirements aspects of OntologySummit2010, and other suggestions made at various times in the Ontolog community. We believe that our suggested topic focuses these energies on a circumscribed and yet broadly-applicable step in making progress toward ontology quality across domains and lifecycle stages (e.g. development, evaluation, reuse, and ontologist training). {nid 30E4} |
|
* Towards Objective Metrics for Understanding Ontology Quality in Context (AmandaVizedom and JoanneLuciano) Picking up threads from several prior Summits, armed with the progress made in distinguishing families of ontology application use cases (see, e.g., the Application Cases and Usage Framework Syntheses from OntologySummit2011, at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ApplicationCases_Synthesis and http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ApplicationFramework_Synthesis, respectively), we are now in a position to push beyond the agreement to disagree that has characterized discussions of ontology quality to date. Specifically, we can work as a community to identify ontology quality characteristics relevant to (families of) ontology applications. We take this suggestion to be compatible with LeoObrst's suggestion at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions#nid2YXA, FabianNeuhaus's suggestion at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions#nid2YXC, MichaelUschold's suggestion at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions#nid2YXE, the quality and requirements aspects of OntologySummit2010, and other suggestions made at various times in the Ontolog community. We believe that our suggested topic focuses these energies on a circumscribed and yet broadly-applicable step in making progress toward ontology quality across domains and lifecycle stages (e.g. development, evaluation, reuse, and ontologist training). (See also Slideshare presentation by Joanne Luciano http://www.slideshare.net/joanneluciano/luciano-pr-08849ontologyevaluationmethodsmetrics-8294436 {nid 30E4} |