Dear Jack, (01)
> MW,
> Standing on the shoulders of Deming, Crosby, Juran, etc. I would first ask
the
> owner a) Is the fifth one guaranteed irrelevant (02)
MW: I am assuming it is relevant. (03)
> and b) what is your level of
> confidence there are not 6 errors?
> Jack (04)
MW: Indeed, but then by the same token how can you be certain anything is
defect free, even if no defects are apparent? (05)
MW: I think it is more useful to think of quality as the degree to which
requirements are met. Then when you fix some bugs you have improved the
quality, though you may not have met all the requirements. (06)
Regards (07)
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/ (08)
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. (09)
>
> On Dec 14, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Matthew West wrote:
>
> > 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/
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/ (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (011)
|