[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] [ont-of-ont] evaluated 40 large ontologies using t

To: bateman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ontology Summit 2008 <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ken Baclawski <kenb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:39:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804271732040.29376@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, bateman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:    (01)

> Thanks for update Ken,
> even if it is not quite clear what all of these diagrams
> mean, I must say I like it! It has a certain appeal as
> going someway towards making very global statements
> about ontologies.
> I hope that we can fix on some ways to assign both
> the dimensions and the values more cleanly, though.    (02)

Absolutely.    (03)

> I did not understand, for example, how 'intended use'
> was being used.
> WordNet has a low 'intended use' and GeospatialML
> (to take some at random) a very high one. Is this
> 'good' or 'bad'? Since WordNet is aimed at many
> different kinds of uses (i.e., any natural language
> processing where similarities or difference between
> words are at issue), this would seem to me to be
> a much broader 'intended use' than GeospatialML....
> so why are the numbers as they are? (This is not
> a criticism of course, just a way into discussing
> some of these things....)    (04)

Making this dimension linear is rather artificial.    (05)

> Similarly, how can WordNet have a low granularity,
> when it contains extremely detailed (if not ontologically
> very interesting) divisions?    (06)

But isn't the intention to measure how ontologically interesting the 
divisions are?    (07)

> And for almost all the dimensions I'd suggest a devaluation. That
> several ontologies are already scoring 5/5 on
> structure (despite no or little formalised notion
> of modules and inter-module links) suggests (wrongly)
> that there's little more to do! So I'd suggest going
> up to 10 on many scales but leaving the current scores
> as they are. That at least would give a visual impression
> that the job is just starting rather than (in the
> case of SUMO and COSMO !) almost finished.    (08)

Published descriptions of ontologies may be responsible for this.  The 
creators of the ontologies like to make them sound like they offer more 
than they actually do.    (09)

It would be good to start a discussion on assessments, but I would suggest 
that we do so in the context of the new Ontology of Ontologies that is now 
being introduced.    (010)

> Looking forward to more on this over the next
> couple of days,    (011)

Indeed,    (012)

-- Ken    (013)

> John B.
>    (014)

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/    (015)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>