|
There is a definite lack of empirical studies, as its not easy to do, also I think people drawn to ontologies tend away from empirical studies. But Here's one: https://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2004/AAAI04-050.pdf
Chris On Thursday, April 25, 2013, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Apr 23, 2013, at 1:44 PM, Fabian Neuhaus wrote:
> All,
> I received an off-list reply from somebody who read my last email as a dismissal of ongoing work in ontology and existing practices. I exaggerated the current situation for humorous effects, that obviously backfired.
>
> So, just to make it clear: I don't believe that ontologies are pieces of art. Although many ontologies are developed in an ad hoc fashion, there are, of course, people who are applying sound methodologies in ontology development.
Are there, indeed? Have these 'sound' methodologies been tested in practice, with comparatives between them? What empirical results are available to show that these methodologies have any value?
Any methodology has its limitations and problems: what can be said about the limits of applicability of any of these methodologies, or the conditions under which they might be expected to fail?
> The communique is based on their experiences
Based on how many of them, used under what circumstances, on what projects? Were they all of a similar scale, or varied? Were any of them Web-based? What purposes did they serve? How large is the sample size represented here?
It would be better to read about the actual experiences. Why not have the communique cite them in support of its claims, so that readers can make up their own minds about how "sound" all this really is?
Pat
> , we try to merge them into a big picture on how to develop ontologies.
>
> Best
> Fabian
>
> On 4/23/13 11:42 AM, Fabian Neuhaus wrote:
>> Pat,
>> It is always a joy to read your emails. Even if one is the target of your scathing remarks. :-)
>>
>> Since I came up with the initial outline of the communique, I guess I am mainly to blame for the development of the "managerial fantasy". So, let me try to defend it. You call the document a phantasy, because it "is not based on observations about how the work is ACTUALLY done." And you are right.
>>
>> Here is my draft for a communique that is based on how the work is actually done:
>> "In spite of a lot of literature on the subject, ontology evaluation plays no important role in the development of ontologies today (except for checking for logical consistency). The main reason for this situation is that the development of ontologies is currently not practiced as engineering activity, but as a form of art, where design decisions are more driven by schools of taste than by empirically validated methodologies. Since ontologies seem to be pieces of art, we suggest a metric that has been proven successful in the movie industry for a very long time: so give 2 thumps up for your favorite ontology!"
>>
>> I am not sure whether you would have endorsed this version of the communique, but at least it would be short. :- )
>>
>> Instead of describing the current situation of ontology evaluation, we are trying to do something more productive. Namely, to produce a consensus on how ontology development should be done, and which forms of evaluation should happen during the life cycle. So its a fantasy, all right. But some peoples fantasies are other peoples visions, and this vision is an attempt to merge the recommendations by the participants in the Ontology Summit on how to organize the development of an ontology. Hence, the document might not be an empirical description of what is happening currently, but it is grounded in the experience of many people who have developed ontologies.
>>
>> You argue that developing such a document can cause harm, because it might be used by managers to impose work habits on other people for no good reason. I agree that this is a problem. Any well-intentioned recommendation might be turned into a dogma that is imposed blindly. However, you ignore the potential benefits of the document. It is intended to provide help to people who are trying to build (or use) ontologies and are looking for recommendations on how to organize themselves by more experienced ontologists.
>>
>> So, I guess, it boils down to the question: Do we know enough about the ontology life cycle to make recommendations about development and evaluation that are of any value? You seem to believe that we don't, and, thus, that "to go on record with a detailed, confidently stated account which claims to be normative, is both inappropriate and harmful." I agree that there are many, many open questions
>> However, this does not mean that we have no idea about how to develop ontologies. Thus, the open questions should not prevent us from synthesizing the collective experience that is available right now. We will not get everything right, but it will enable other people to avoid some mistakes.
>>
>> That's said, I see you point about the potential drawbacks. To minimize the risk of turning the Communique into management dogma, we should put some language into the executive summary and/or the introduction that state the limits of our existing experience explicitly.
>>
>> Best
>> Fabian
>>
>>
>> On 4/21/13 12:32 PM, Pat Hayes 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 on
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|