Fabian and Holger, (01)
That is a good summary, but there is no conflict between
those two approaches: (02)
FN> There is no agreement on how to evaluate ontologies; the
> main strategies suggested are:
>
> (i) A market driven approach where ontologies are reviewed
> by users and ranked like items on Amazon.com; and
>
> (ii) an editorial process where ontologies are reviewed
> by experts in a similar way as papers which are submitted
> to scientific journals. (03)
Both approaches are excellent and *both* should be adopted. (04)
HL> I have a feeling that some people think of the solutions as
> "one XOR the other". I see most value in an approach where the
> experts review the ontologies alongside regular users. Depending
> on each user's use case the ranking can then be configured to
> put more emphasis on the experts or simply reviews deemed helpful. (05)
I strongly agree. My only qualification is to note that many
"regular users" may be more expert than many so-called "experts". (06)
The old economic reason for excluding items from publication is no
longer justified because publication is nearly free. Furthermore,
a single linear ranking is undesirable, since different groups of
users with different needs will rank ontologies differently. (07)
John (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)
|