|
PD wrote: "We are particularly interested initially in the
software developed with EU funding (FP6 and FP7 )
Paola,
You are doing a great work for the public, seemingly without
any substantial compensation. As i know, you got this assignment from the EC
Commissioner of Information Society&Media. And as i understood, almost
nobody, who got the funds through this department, responded to your good
initiative. But there are at least 35 research groups enlisted there, as
below:
1. FP6 projects (20 projects in
the field of ICT technologies, Knowledge and Content Technologies, Semantic
foundations): ALVIS,..., MESH,..., NeOn,...,TripCom, http://cordis.europa.eu/ist/kct/fp6_projects_semantic.htm
2. FP 7 projects (15 projects
in the field of ICT technologies ): ACTIVE,..., LaRK,..., OKKAM, ONTORULE,...,
WeKnowIt, KnowledgeCollider, http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/content-knowledge/projects_en.html.
Wonder what are you going to
report? But if you need the outlines, i can share the summaries done for an
international conference.
Azamat Abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
Sent:
Monday, August 10, 2009 1:00 PM
Subject: Re:
independent semantic software evaluation frameworks?
Thanks to all for
replies!
see notes below
Adrian:
There are a few that I am
personally trying to run, with varying degrees of success, but any tool that
people want to review from the pool below, for example. Will circulate
evaluation sheet to those who want do run something and contact me offlist
pls. At this stage we prioritize publicly funded ones, rather than
commercial tools.
http://cordis.europa.eu/info-management/.
http://cordis.europa.eu/ist/kct/fp6_projects_semantic.htm.
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/content-knowledge/projects_en.html.
Richard:
I am not adding editors to any list, and again,
prioritizing publicly funded. i dont think your tool
is?
Pieter:
Yes, thanks! will follow up and ....
"In any case
the problem is rather social/cultural/organisational than merely
technical."
so true... for some of us, technology is mainly a
mean to solve real world problems in real world context, so any technical
issue is, at least in part, determined by social/cultural/organisational
issues. This is often forgotten, and technology is done for technology's
sake.
Chris:
Thanks a lot for spreading the word
Even more value
would come from this being a public , open, collaborative
effort......
I am still working on the evaluation sheet, would welcome
thoughts and criticism, so please get in touch if you are
interested
cheers
PDM
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at
6:03 PM, Paola Di Maio<paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
Greetings good people!
>
> I am attempting to systematically
aggregate as many independent
> evaluations of semantic software tools
as possible
>
> (Note: by independent it is intended not carried
out by people who are
> paid to do so, or have other vested interests
- such as the
> devleopers or consultants themselves or
their friends and familieis -
> but by unaffiliated users who are
more suitable to appreciate its
> benefits and
shorcomings)
>
> We are particularly interested initially in the
software developed
> with EU funding (FP6 and FP7 )
>
> The
main frameworks of reference are standard software project
> evaluation
methods, including
>
>
> EVALUATION AND RANKING OF ONTOLOGY
CONSTRUCTION TOOLS (various
> references included there)
> Md.
Ahsan-ul Murshed and Ramanjit Singh
> http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/archive/00000747/01/013.pdf
>
>
> I have already contacted offlist some of the
individuals who have
> offered knowledge and views, and I am now
seeking additional wider
> general input on
>
>
1. developing and customizing the review criteria and
methodology
> (so that we can format the distributed evaluations using a
common template)
>
> 2. any volunteered inputs in terms of
reviews of software and other
> deliverables (priority is to assess
cost/benefit ratio, measured in
> terms of
> functionality
and usefulness)
>
> The final goal of this exercise is to
contribute to improve the
> effectiveness of EU funding process in
semantic web, as well as to
> general
> software output at large,
as well as to come up with recommendations.
>
>
> Your
contribution can be submitted authored or anonymous (subject to
>
verification)
>
>
> Please contact me offlist should you
wish to collaborate on this project,
>
> cheers
>
>
Paola Di Maio
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paola
Di Maio
> **************************************************
>
Strategic Advisor
> Networked Research Lab, UK
>
**************************************************
>
--
Paola Di
Maio
**************************************************
DMEM (Design,
Manufacture, Engineering, Management)
University of
Strathclyde
Room 106, 75 Montrose Street
Glasgow G1 1XJ
UK
|