Dear Jack, (01)
> Regarding Nicola's quite relevant concern (below) it may be useful to note
> that
> a) quality is binary, not a scalar (Crosby, Deming, Juran, etc.) Quality
> signifies conformance to requirements, Yes or No, therefore 'high
quality' is
> meaningless. (02)
MW: So presumably you would argue that if an ontology has 5 defects, and 4
of them are fixed, there is not improvement in quality as a result.... (03)
Regards (04)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (05)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (06)
> b) note carefully that from the usage viewpoint the requirements amount to
> 'fit for purpose' (Checkland) or 'satisficing' (Simon).
> c) both proof of correctness and exhaustive test are futile, therefore not
> included.
> d) the goal becomes warranty that the ontology of interest is devoid of
> internal faults and external incompatibilities wherein warranty means zero
> false positives and false negatives.
> e) an appropriate theme may be "Making the case for adequate, accurate and
> timely ontologies" which embraces both the result and the development
> activity.
> f) whether any ontology is viable or not depends on both the ontology and
the
> intended usage.
> g) this means that any cadre of ontology developers must include members
who
> are dedicated to independent and objective assessment of the viability of
any
> ontology or patch thereof or ordered set of patches.
> h) fortunately, technologies, tools and methods exist (or are imminent)
for
> viability assessment of algorithms of all classes and types with respect
to
> intended usage. This includes ontologies. Even the spaghetti code in most
OWL-
> based examples can be assessed, even simplified, and potentially made more
> "lean" without inducing 'brittle.'
> i) this is one reason why I suggested to Steve Ray that one corner of the
> Summit allow open-mind dialogue regarding new technologies.
>
> Onward,
> Jack Ring
>
>
> On Dec 14, 2010, at 5:00 AM, Nicola Guarino wrote:
>
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > I also agree very much with John and Matthew concerning the
importance
> of high quality ontologies, and on their observation that the quest for
high
> quality data models in software engineering definitely reflects a
sensitivity
> to important ontological aspects much higher than what we find in people
just
> focusing on ontology languages.
> >
> > In the light of this, I suggest to specify a bit more the overall
theme
> of our Summit, which in my opinion could be "Making the case for
ontological
> analysis" instead of "Making the case for ontology". An alternative could
be
> "Making the case for high-quality ontologies".
> >
> > The reason for this proposal should be self-evident, I believe.
Deciding
> how much effort to put in developing a particular ontology is a crucial
> choice, and it is very important to distinguish the cases where a proper
> ontological analysis pays off, and is indeed a crucial aspect of success,
from
> those where a "lightweight" approach is sufficient.
> >
> > Just brainstorming...
> >
> > Talk to you soon,
> >
> > Nicola
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9 Dec 2010, at 16:03, John F. Sowa wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Matthew and Peter,
> >>
> >> MW:
> >>> ... my forthcoming book "Developing High Quality Data Models".
Substitute
> >>> ontology for data model and the same argument applies. The benefits
come
> >>> from improving and automating decision making through fit-for-purpose
> >>> information to support those decisions.
> >>
> >> I very strongly agree. Software engineers have been doing ontology
> >> (avant la lettre, as they say) for a very long time. And much of that
> >> work has been very good -- sometimes much better than what people are
> >> doing with so-called ontology languages.
> >>
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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/OntologySummit2011/
> > Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> > Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologySummit2011/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (08)
|