MW,
Standing on the shoulders of Deming, Crosby, Juran, etc. I would first ask the
owner a) Is the fifth one guaranteed irrelevant and b) what is your level of
confidence there are not 6 errors?
Jack (01)
On Dec 14, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Matthew West wrote: (02)
> Dear Jack,
>
>> 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.
>
> 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....
>
> Regards
>
> 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/
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>> 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/
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/ (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (04)
|