ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Fwd: Ontologist Aptitude Test?

To: Ontology Summit 2010 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pierre Grenon <pierregrenon@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:05:46 +0000
Message-id: <c1a7d8fd0912180605j79969eacv2082ab045989d2f2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hiya,    (01)

surely every ontologist should have created an ontology, be able to
explain their modelling choices, compare to what they found out there
and so on as well as to have a vague idea of how it might be used.
That could be a short-thesis. This should allow demonstrating
familiarity with relevant tools, but tools are varied and what matters
is the ability to learn them as need arises.    (02)

I hope, at any rate, there will never be any multiple choice tests in
serious ontology teaching...    (03)

cheers
p    (04)

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Joel Bender <jjb5@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> I originally posted this to the ontolog-forum and Peter suggested that I post 
>it here as well.  I thought of these questions after yesterday's 
>presentations, but wasn't sure if it should have been in this list or that 
>list.  Problem solved, they're in both!
>
>> We are regularly confronted with tests at the end of an academic period 
>(year, semester, or course).  In New York State we have a subject specific 
>"Regents Exams" and "Scholastic Aptitude Tests" or a "Scholastic Assessment 
>Tests" (they keep changing the name), at the end of 4-year degree programs we 
>have "Graduate Record Exams".
>>
>> - What questions would you put on an OAT?
>> - Would a "systems architect" be able to sufficiently answer the question?
>> - Could a "programmer"?
>> - Could an "analyst"?
>>
>> Less specifically, is there a base line set of knowledge (vocabulary, 
>history, symbol/graph interpretation, compositional/decompositional 
>techniques) that you would expect every ontologist to know?
>
> As (memberOf @me (union (programmerClass analystClass systemsArchitect))) I 
>could easily think of questions pertaining to set theory, graph theory, 
>unification (Prolog) and syntax (RDF, N3, OWL).  But that wouldn't be 
>treating it any differently than gallimaufry of Mathematics and Computer 
>Science.  What about nomenclature, taxonomy, etymology, hermeneutics (or 
>anything else in linguistics)?
>
>
> Joel
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologySummit2009/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
>    (05)

_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2009/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010 
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/    (06)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>