ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] Gatekeeping proposal

To: Ontology Summit 2008 <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Fabian Neuhaus <fabian.neuhaus@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:18:41 -0400
Message-id: <47DACF91.3020801@xxxxxxxx>
Dear Matthew,    (01)

my comments are in line below
Best
Fabian    (02)

matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Dear Fabian,
>  
> Well most of this looks OK, but see my comments below.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> Registered in England and Wales
> Registered number: 621148
> Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> http://www.shell.com <http://www.shell.com/>
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
>     Dear All
>     I would like to kick off the discussion about Quality and
>     Gatekeeping. The Ontology Summit 2008 is only a few weeks away and
>     there is much to do! As the title of the discussion thread
>     suggests, we have two tasks: We need to develop a set of minimal
>     requirements that any ontology needs to fulfill in order to be
>     accepted as part of the Open Ontology Repository (= Gatekeeping).
>     Further, we need to discuss the different ways the quality of an
>     ontology within the OOR can be evaluated and what kind of services
>     the OOR needs to provide to support these kinds of evaluation.
>
>     I suggest that we start with the gate keeping discussion: What are
>     the minimal criteria that an ontology needs to meet in order to be
>     accepted as part of the OOR? I would suggest to set the bar rather
>     low and only focus on criteria that ensure that it will be easy
>     for the community to use the ontology as resource.
>
>     Here is a list of requirements that would do that (some of these
>     principles are adopted from the OBO Foundry):  <!--[endif]-->**  
>
> MW: Well you could consider me as the "custodian" of ISO 15926 for 
> these purposes, so let us see how these apply here. Actually the first 
> one is easily the toughest.
>
>     *1. The ontology is open and available to be used under the
>     Creative Commons Attribution license without any constraint other
>     than (a) its origin must be acknowledged and (b) it is not to be
>     altered and subsequently redistributed under the original name.*
>     <!--[endif]-->
>
>     This criterion is a specification of what "open" in "Open Ontology
>     Repository" means.  
>
> MW: Not really, at least  if it is, all we know is that an open 
> ontology is an ontology that is open and ....
>
> MW:  What being open means in standardisation circles is that there is 
> an open process for its development and the resolution of issues 
> raised against it, which, in principle at least, anyone can take part 
> in. It is this anyone being able to take part which makes it open. ISO 
> 15925 meets this definition of open.
>
> MW: Now ISO 15926 is of course ISO copyright and certainly does not 
> have a Creative Commons Attribution license, but you can access the 
> computer interpretable form from the internet for free, and indeed the 
> basic documentation, though you have to pay for the full 
> documentation. It might also be a problem if you made a copy available 
> (republishing) without authority, rather than pointing to the 
> original. Is it your intention to exclude material of this kind? Or do 
> you intend to modify the requirement?    (03)

I think this topic is large enough for an own discussion thread. I'll 
send a separate email to the list.    (04)

>     2. *The ontology is expressed in a formal language with a
>     well-defined syntax. *
>
>     Obviously, an ontology is going to be more valuable to a large
>     audience if it is expressed in a widely used formal language, but
>     the repository is not restricted to those.  The authors are
>     required to provide a reference to a document that specifies a
>     grammar of the formal language.   <!--[endif]--> 
>
> MW: Well ISO 15926 is available in EXPRESS and OWL both of which have 
> appropriate documentation. 
>
>     3. *The authors of the ontology provide the required metadata.*
>
>     Pat Hayes and Michael Gruninger are championing a discussion about
>     the ontology of ontologies and metadata. This requirement will
>     enforce the use of the result of this discussion since it ensures
>     that no ontology can be submitted without providing the necessary
>     metadata. The goal is to enable users to quickly survey the
>     available ontologies and find the right ones for them.  
>
> MW: You need to say what that is, and it needs to be reasonable, but 
> this should  be a problem.
>
This clause is a only a place holder until we know the results the 
discussion about ontology of ontologies and metadata. Why do you expect 
this requirement to be a problem? Or is a "not" missing above?    (05)

>     4.* The ontology has a clearly specified and clearly delineated
>     scope.*
>
>     The specification of the scope is strictly speaking part of the
>     metadata but important enough to mention it explicitly. It enables
>     potential users to get an idea what a given ontology is about
>     without browsing the ontology.
>     <!--[endif]--> 
>
> MW: And if it is an upper ontology, so it does not really have a 
> limited scope? Is it enough to say it is an upper ontology?
>    (06)

Yes. If it is an upper ontology, then it's scope is to provide the top 
level classification of all entities. That is a decent  description of 
the scope of the ontology and it allows the user what to expect and what 
not to expect  within the ontology.    (07)

>     5. *The ontology provider has procedures for identifying distinct
>     successive versions.*
>
>     <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->
>     I'll post this list also on the QualityAndGatekeeping wiki page:
>     
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008_QualityAndGatekeeping
>     This page will be updated with summaries of our discussion.  
>
> MW: ISO does this, but there can be idiosynchasies I won't go into here. 
>
>     Best
>     Fabian
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologySummit2008/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008 
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
>       (08)



_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008 
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/    (09)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>