Gentlemen, (01)
If I may jump in here. This discussion makes me think of the 85/15 rule
where finding and fixing 85% of all software bugs is relatively easy,
the last 15% is much more difficult in terms of time and effort. There
comes a point where developers have to say that the ontology is 'good
enough'. Jack is arguing that this does not constitute 'high quality'
and therefore the comment on quality being binary. Some person or
persons must make a decision that the product is good enough (until the
next serious bug is uncovered). You may think that there are no more
blue balls in the bin, but yet one is found. Quality instantly goes
from "1" to "0" until the issue is analyzed and a choice is made to
either ignore it or fix it. (02)
Tim Wilson (03)
On 12/15/2010 3:22 AM, Matthew West wrote:
> Dear Jack,
>
>> MW,
>> Standing on the shoulders of Deming, Crosby, Juran, etc. I would first ask
> the
>> owner a) Is the fifth one guaranteed irrelevant
> MW: I am assuming it is relevant.
>
>> and b) what is your level of
>> confidence there are not 6 errors?
>> Jack
> MW: Indeed, but then by the same token how can you be certain anything is
> defect free, even if no defects are apparent?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>> 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/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
|