ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Invitation to a brainstorming call for the 2011 On

To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Tim Wilson <twilson92@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:59:22 -0500
Message-id: <4D3AD4AA.3030205@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jack,    (01)

Here, here!  Spoken like a true Systems Engineer ;-)  However, I'm sure 
that the philosophical linguists among us will argue.    (02)

Tim    (03)

On 12/14/2010 5:28 PM, Jack Ring wrote:
> 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.
> 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/
>    (04)

-- 
Timothy C. Wilson
Graduate Student in Knowledge Management
Kent State University
Expected Completion: August 2011    (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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (06)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [ontology-summit] Invitation to a brainstorming call for the 2011 Ontology Summit, Tim Wilson <=