Dear Bill and others, (01)
Maybe this is the time to get one of my soap boxes out. We have been
talking around the edges of quality, but I have not seen this put
in the language of quality management, which is a significant
discipline in its own right that is relevant to ours. The good news
is that the basics are very simple: (02)
Quality is about being fit for purpose.
Defects are what prevent an artifact from being fit for purpose. (03)
One of the key words here is "purpose" which Bill mentions below,
and which I wanted to pick up on here. The same ontology can be
good for one purpose and bad for another against some dimension. (04)
Regards (05)
Matthew (06)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 29 January 2007 16:06
> To: patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx; Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
> Cc: West, Matthew R SIPC-DFC/D21; Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] ontology as logical theory?
>
>
> I second Patrick Durusau's comment.
>
> Any *dimensions* we pick are only useful with respect to some selected
> purposes to which we may want to put ontologies. Abstract discussions
> about the properties of ontologies qua logical theory don't inform the
> issue of their intended applications.
>
> .bill
>
>
>
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (08)
|