|
Hi Everyone,
I regret that I have been unable to attend the summit as I had
planned. However, I had some waterline work going on right outside
my home office that made it impossible for me to listen, so I will
be happy to endorse the communique as it was settled.
There was no way to anticipate this last week.
Regrets,
Rex
First, On 4/21/2013 10:43 AM, David Price wrote:
I must admit that I'd not read the draft communique
until I saw Pat's comments. I agree with Pat that nothing would
be lost if half the text was removed.
That which remained should be clarified as being nothing more
than an example process, for the sole purpose of providing a
framework in which to say something about ontology evaluation
possibilities or approaches. Words like "should" need to be
removed entirely, as would any suggestion of agreed best
practices.
The focus should be moved back to the stated topic -
evaluation.
Hope that's helpful,
David
UK +44 7788 561308
US +1 336 283 0606
On 21 Apr 2013, at 17:32, 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 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/
_________________________________________________________________
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/
--
Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
Email: rexb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
GeoAddress:
1361 Addison St. Apt. A
Berkeley, CA 94702
Phone: 510-898-0670
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|