Re: [ontology-summit-advisors] Need your support - OntologySummit2013 So

[Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx>]

Pat, 

This is helpful, so thank you. In particular, it tells us what we are not communicating clearly. There are a number of things that were discussed concretely in summit sessions, including specific and substantial experiences with evaluation and SWE techniques in ontology and semantic technology projects. I think that some of this discussion that went into formulating this communique also became unnoticed assumptions, so that the basis from some claims is not at all clear if one is not familiar with that content. That is especially true in the current draft, which lacks references, and given that the existing references are not well-gathered in the synthesis pages or correspondingly organized in the group library. It is very important for us to understand how it comes off to you, as it will come off no clearer to the non-participant reader who is very likely less informed than you are in most areas.

Also, your example nit-pick is really important. You are absolutely right that the claim about transparency is nonsense. And it isn't what was meant; the summit conversations were about intelligibility, in various forms, and about the ability of a domain expert to review the accuracy of an ontology. That doesn't reviewing the ontology itself or reviewing ontological design decisions. In fact, some of what we discussed was about the fact that sometimes the closest we can get to this is an application of the ontology that can be expert-reviewed, such that results provide some insight into ontology accuracy. But much of this subtlety is gone, and "transparency" is what it says right now.

I will say that virtually nothing in this document was ready-made. We did attempt to incorporate synthesis material from the track champions, and I cannot speak to the degree to which they may or may not have used existing frameworks. The software and systems engineers among us certainly contributed some vocabulary. But the overall recommendation are based on experiences that have been shared and discussed and analyzed over the past 3 months. We have had some calls from summit participants to directly import other life cycle or related models directly, with only changes in words, and we have resisted this, working hard to include only activities that we have good reason to include from a specifically ontology-centric perspective. Obviously, we have not made this clear. I hope that we can.

I do wish you had been there for Gavin Matthew's presentation, one of the most grounded in some of the things you take to be fantasy. It was during my 6 years working on Cyc that Gavin came on there and brought SWE sensibility into the works in a very real way. I had the pleasure of being an ontologist and project manager during the transition from old ways (which even then involved more testing and quality assurance than I see in many ontology projects now) to new, in which existing quality management techniques were adapted to virtually all aspects of work on Cyc, including the ontology. That experience, along with a later position elsewhere in which I worked as an ontologist in an engineering department led by Gavin, in many ways set the bar for me in terms of things that can be done now, and with existing technology, that make an immediate and enormous difference in ontology quality (in the requirements-satisfaction sense) and project success. But I digress; this is not part of the communique, but it is part of the reason for my confidence in certain aspects of what we describe and/or advocate. To the extent that this confidence is not backed up in the document, it is a flaw in the document and I  thank you for pointing it out in way I can understand. 

The diagram is just a 2nd iteration place-holder; the live, shared draft on which people have been commenting has had notes to this effect, and a call for a graphics-competent volunteer to step forward and take a swing. We now have 2 such volunteers, and we hope for better results (else, I think, we'll need to go without). So, we have been asking for comments and suggestions -- or better, expertise  -- beyond the acknowledge "this diagram is not working."

I agree with you about "best practices." It keeps sneaking in, in various places, but it is never clear to me what it means there. We need to make sure that we are consistent and clear in discussing areas where there *has* been progress and understanding *vs* areas where all is still unknowns and opinions. And we currently have areas in which we state such things, intending them to hold for the whole document, and then we slip and use language elsewhere that muddies this picture.

We will take your criticisms seriously, and see what we can do with them. I only wish they had come much sooner in the process.

Best,

Amanda

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 21, 2013, at 5:11 AM, Amanda Vizedom wrote:

Pat,

Will you share with us the reasons for your non-support of this communique?

Hi Amanda

Sure. (I didn't want to pester you unless you asked :-) Several reasons. First, it is way too long and detailed, more of an essay than a communique. It is hard, I would suggest, for anyone to agree with all of it unequivocally. I feel like I want to nit-pick with the text all over the place. For example, this claim that ontologies must be "transparent to all intended users" (who might not be ontologists) seems to me to be ridiculously optimistic (or perhaps ridiculously restrictive, if it is interpreted as a design constraint)  and to be rooted in a naive idea that correctness of an ontology should be obvious to a domain expert.  But this is simply false. Just as one would not expect users of a program to find the code source obvious, one cannot expect users of an ontology to find the details of the ontology obvious. There may well be decisions taken in the design, the reasons for which are only apparent to professional ontologists (such as whether to use continuants in talking about time and change.)

I could go through the document nitpicking like this, but it seems pointless, because the entire enterprise is flawed. The fact is, this whole document is a mangerial fantasy. We do not have enough experience with ontology design and deployment to know what the objective standards of "quality" are, still less how to manage teams to achieve this nonexistent standard. We don't know what are the "activities that need to occur during the phases of a life cycle of an ontology", so to go on record with a detailed, confidently stated account which claims to be normative, is both inappropriate and harmful. As I say, this is pure fantasy, but it will be read by some as having an authority and will be used by managers (most of whom know absolutely nothing about ontologies) to impose work habits on other people for no good reason. For example, "Does the ontology follow best practices; in particular does it implement the upper ontology...." Whoa. Is it "best practice" to even HAVE an upper ontology? That is not clear. Most Web ontologies, for example, are not subsumed under any particular upper ontology. If out communique starts being used to justify managers asking ontologists to conform to an upper ontology, we will have done far more harm than good.

I found it very telling that after pages of vacuous managerial-theory babble about life cycles and "phases", most of it content-free (such as "The requirements development and analysis phase involves extending and clarifying initial information until the intended usage is sufficiently captured and understood to effectively guide technical decisions. This process involves an interplay of technical, business, and project-sponsor understanding. Adequate requirements development and analysis is critical to the success of any ontology development or usage."), and an absurd schematic diagram showing tangles of arrows connecting meaningless boxes, we read the almost plaintive remark "Generally, appreciation of the full life cycle of an ontology is not well established within the ontology community." Damn right. In other words, none of this is based in actual reality. It is written as though it comprised observations about the right way to work, but in fact, it is not based on observations about how the work is ACTUALLY done.

Another nit-pick, to end. Your second final observation begins: "Ontology development shares strong similarities with information systems development..." Does it, in fact? Is this based on actual observations? (Of which projects?) Or is this just an idea which the authors of this document feel *should* be true?

Again: "Although there is much research on ontology evaluation and many organizations use sophisticated ontology evaluation and quality management practices, awareness of this research, these practices, and their importance to successful use of ontologies is neither widespread nor sufficiently pooled to constituted an accessible body of knowledge." The claim that there is "much research" seems to me to be overly optimistic, to put it mildly; but the main point is, there is NOT widespread adoption of these practices. There may be very good reasons for this lack of uptake: the practices may be of limited utility, or of no real utility at all. In my experience, that is the most likely explanation.

My advice would be to completely toss this document aside, and start over not with some ready-made management-science theory about phases and work cycles, but try observing, if possible with a somewhat more humble attitude, how some large-scale ontologies were actually built. You might start with CYC, the granddaddy of all large-scale ontologies. You will find that the process bears almost no relationship to the fantasy you describe here.

Sorry, but you did ask.

Pat

I'm asking not to try to argue, but because we haven't had any input or feedback from you, and I value your insights generally.  We are still working to follow through on many of the suggestion and critiques offered so far. This follow-through may happen by substantal change to the communique or by clarification of its scope and, if possible and with summit community support, links to better and detailed references on issues that are out of scope, including other summit products. So, the request is not empty; if you will let us know the reason(s) for your discontent, we may be able to improve the communique by understanding them.

Best,
Amanda
On Apr 20, 2013 11:25 PM, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter and Mike, greetings.

On Apr 19, 2013, at 7:31 PM, Peter Yim wrote:

> Dear Ontology Summit Advisors,
>
> ...
> p.s. additionally, two very important reminders: *** Please Note ***
> ...
> 2. We are expecting to have the Communique ready by the time of the
> Symposium (no more wordsmithing of that document at the face-to-face
> this time) and, as advised earlier, we are expecting all Advisors to
> endorse the Communique (on an opt-out basis.)

Please opt me out of endorsing this Communique. If you would prefer, you may remove me from the Advisory Committee, in order to maintain an appearance of solidarity.

Best wishes

Pat Hayes


------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes






_________________________________________________________________
Committee Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit-advisors/
Subscriber Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit-advisors/
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
Community Discussion: : http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/

_________________________________________________________________
Committee Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit-advisors/ 
Subscriber Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit-advisors/  
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/ 
Community Discussion: : http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ 
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013 
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

_________________________________________________________________
Committee Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit-advisors/ 
Subscriber Config: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit-advisors/  
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/ 
Community Discussion: : http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ 
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013 
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (01)