ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] ReFocusing: adequately labeled

To: Ontology Summit 2008 <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Fabian Neuhaus <fabian.neuhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 12:30:06 -0500
Message-id: <p06230907c4181f751caa@[10.100.0.20]>
At 11:15 AM -0400 4/1/08, Barry Smith wrote:
>6./ did not come from me, but was a result of an earlier discussion
>on this list.
>It means, e.g., that if the ontology is in OWL, then it should
>support OWL reasoners.    (01)

? What does that mean? That it should not produce 
errors when tested using OWL reasoners? That 
would seem to be reasonable. Maybe the OOR should 
offer 'validation' tools to check at least 
syntactic correctness, or require ontologies to 
have evidence of external validation.    (02)

>(I think it means further that if the ontology
>authors make claims on its behalf of a dynamic sort, then these
>claims should be tested.)
>
>7. /The ontology has unique IDs for its terms.
>This resolved yesterday I think. (I think it is trivial)
>
>8. /The ontology is adequately labeled.    /
>Not my favorite wording, but it means things like:
>An Ontology for Proteins should be called "Protein Ontology" and not,
>e.g., the "Hubert Humphrey Memorial Reference Information Model for
>Dynamic Proteomic Data Management Using Whizz Conceptual Technology Plug-Ins"    (03)

Both of these seem trivial to me.    (04)

>9. /The ontology has a plurality of users.
>The old DAML repository    (05)

That isn't a repository, simply a list of known 
ontologies. Similarly for OntoWeb and other 
web-search engines. These are more like SWeb 
Googles than repositories.    (06)

>has some 39 agent ontologies. I would suggest
>that we need practically motivated strategies for avoiding similar
>outcomes in OOR. One such strategy, adopted by the OBO Foundry, is to
>admit ontologies only when they have a plurality of (independent)
>users. This means that they have already passed certain practical tests.    (07)

But this seems unduly restrictive for the OOR. 
Perhaps we could simply say that each new 
ontology explain its relationship to existing 
ontologies in the OOR with a similar or related 
title/topic. It would be fine to be a genuine 
alternative, especially with a motivation. One 
motivation could be that a community is using it 
already. Another might be that it is very similar 
to X, but written in Y instead of X's language. 
Another might be that it is based on a different 
philosophical position, or is more complete, or 
more compatible with some other framework, or 
overcomes some known limitation, etc. But it 
shouldn't just be a random, small, unmotivated 
variation on a known theme that is already 
represented adequately in the OOR. I know this is 
vague, but Im sure we can come up with a wording 
that allows for variation while allowing the 
curators to exclude mere noise.    (08)

Pat H    (09)

>BS
>
>At 10:16 PM 3/31/2008, you wrote:
>>Natasha,
>>I agree that this is unclear. Barry proposed (6-9) in his email from
>>March 19th without going into the specifics. Barry, could you clarify
>>what you mean?
>>Thanks
>>Fabian
>>
>>On Mar 31, 2008, at 6:58 PM, Natasha Noy wrote:
>>
>>>One more question
>>>
>>>>== Summary: Gatekeeping/ Minimal Requirements ==
>>>>
>>>>1. Openness    (see below)
>>>>2. /The ontology is expressed in a formal language with a well- defined
>>>>syntax./
>>>>3. /The authors of the ontology provide the required metadata. /
>>>>4. /The ontology has a clearly specified and clearly delineated
>>>>scope.
>>>>/5. /Successive versions of  an ontology are clearly identified.
>>>>/6. /The ontology has passed certain dynamic tests.    /
>>>>7. /The ontology has unique IDs for its terms.    /
>>>>8. /The ontology is adequately labeled.    /
>>>>9. /The ontology has a plurality of users.
>>>>/
>>>
>>>On #8: What does "adequately labeled" mean here? I couldn't find a
>>>discussion of this item. Can you clarify, please?
>>>
>>>Thanks a lot!
>>>
>>>Natasha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>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/
>>
>>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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/    (010)


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC            (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.    (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                       (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                        (850)291 0667    cell
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes      phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections    (011)



_________________________________________________________________
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/    (012)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>