>Dear Pat,
>
>> >Hi Everyone,
>> >
>> >... I do think, though, that some
>> >measure of correction of logical constructions is probably also
>> necessary,
>>
>> Amen to that. But it is very hard to see how this is to be done. I
>> REALLY wish there were a nontrivial and useful notion of how to
>> measure 'correctness' of an ontology. It is not enough to just say,
>> it is correct if it "fits the facts" in some sense, since ontologies
>> may be based on very different, possibly mutually contradictory,
>> conceptualizations, and yet both fit the facts perfectly well.
>>
>> I have been worrying about this for years but have never managed to
>> get my thinking to a point where it seemed useful to pursue an active
>> research direction. If anyone has any ideas about it, I'd love to
>> engage in a discussion.
>
>MW: Well I know I have views on this, so here goes. (01)
I hoped this would happen :-) (02)
>
>First, there are the basic quality principles:
>
>A quality ontology is "fit for purpose". (03)
Great. Chris Menzel said something like this
also. Now I want to know what a purpose is. Not a
definition, but some entries in a list of 'uses
for ontologies'. (04)
>This means an absence of
>defects, which are what prevents an ontology from being fit for purpose. (05)
Hmmm. That seems circular. What am I missing? (06)
>An ontology that supported more purposes would be better than one that
>supported a subset of those purposes. (07)
OK. Can I translate 'support a purpose' into
'entails a set of sentences'? So that entailing
more is supporting more? Im going to guess the
answer is NO. So, what other kinds of purpose can
it be used for? Or do you want to leave this
open, and just take 'purpose' as a kind of token
word for an open-ended set? (Which is fine, Im
just asking.) (08)
>Clearly at this level, as you point out, two ontologies can fit the facts
>but be wildly different. As the next level of differentiation I would
>look at the empirical/mechanistic degree of the ontologies. This distinction
>comes from mathematical modelling. Nearly any curve can be modelled by a
>polynomial expression, but this does not give you an insight into
>what is going on. On the other hand a mechanistic model is based on
>equations that give insight into how it works. I think the same principle
>applies to ontologies, and would be reflected in the degree and nature of
>the structure and axioms it contained. (09)
That is interesting; so a good ontology provides
insight as well as mere description? I agree that
makes sense. And one might even approach
measuring 'insight' by the number of useful
extensions it has, or elaborations it supports (?) (010)
What bothers me is that one man's insight can be
another man's conceptual mistake :-) Barry thinks
(what he calls) the SNAP/SPAN distinction is
insightful, I think its a philosophical error. We
aren't likely to agree on what counts as
'structure', I'm going to guess :-) (011)
>
>Finally, as a tie breaker I would appeal to elegance and simplicity.
>Admitedly, these are hard to pin down, but, given that, it is surprising
>how often people agree about what is more elegant/simple. (012)
Yes, I have noticed that. And it seems to be
largely independent of whether or not one thinks
it is correct. (013)
Thanks for the input. (014)
Pat (015)
>
>
>Regards
>
>Matthew West
>Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
>Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
>Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
>Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
>Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
>http://www.shell.com
>http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (016)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (017)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (018)
|