Dear All, (01)
A terminology to do with accuracy, precision and uncertainty is
defined in the VIM (International Vocabulary of Metrology)
http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/vim.html . The OASIS
QUOMOS work seems to have stalled, but the need for an ontology
covering this area remains. (02)
Best regards,
David (03)
At 12:41 23/01/2011, you wrote:
>The definition of "quality" is pretty simple "meets requirements"
>the issue is how to define requirements. ISO 22745-30 does a pretty good job.
>
>Data and Information are two different concepts, their
>characteristics are different. Timeliness and relevance
>are characteristics of information, the data is what it is. Finally
>there is no such thing as accuracy only assertions of accuracy. A
>lot of this ground is covered in ISO 8000
>
>Peter
>Cell: +1 610 462 5923
>
>On Jan 22, 2011, at 9:18 AM, "Brian K Lucas" <lucasb@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Greetings all,
> >
> > I like this discussion, and have a few thoughts of my own (as you come to
> > know me more, you'll discover that to be the norm ;=)
> >
> > A) @Jack : I agree that "adequate, accurate and timely" is a worthy goal.
> > I'd like to hear more about your definition of "adequate" and "accurate".
> >
> > B) @Jack : Regarding quality: In my experience, "fitness for purpose" is
> > trinary, when taken from a single consumer's point of view: not fit, fit,
> > overly fit. In the real world, however, very few offerings are consumed by
> > a single entity. Therefore, I believe that, when taken in the context of
> > the offering, and including all consumers, fitness for purpose/quality is
> > indeed scalar, if the measurement is being taken from the
> perspective of the
> > producer. If you complete a histogram/pie chart of these three values for
> > all consumers, you get three counts of valuable metrics, which
> should not be
> > combined: % fit for purpose, % not fit for purpose, and %overly fit for
> > purpose. The requirements not met for the "not fit" group represent
> > offering "defects"; the requirements met for the "overly fit" group
> > represent waste of effort for that consumer group. If requirements have
> > been implemented that NOBODY in the "fit" group needs, then that is wasted
> > producer effort - unless, of course, they serve a future consumer. My
> > conclusion? There is value in measuring "quality" across the existing and
> > intended user base, and improving the offering to move more consumers into
> > the "fit for purpose" count, without removing anyone who is already there.
> > And, because consumer requirements usually change over time, continuous
> > improvement of "quality" is desirable. Then, add in that even for a single
> > consumer, they may present KANO-like ranking of requirements (must have,
> > should have, could have, etc.), and binary gets even a little
> more fuzzy for
> > me.
> >
> > C) Producer cost is also key here. If the value exchange received by the
> > consumer does not support the cost to meet their requirements, then a "not
> > fit" offering may still be of value to the consumer, as they may augment it
> > with other offerings. An example of this is Microsoft Word. It does NOT
> > meet all of my requirements - and yet I find it "fit for purpose" because I
> > can work around the "defects".
> >
> > D) @Nicola : I agree with the case for varying levels of
> "quality"; however,
> > I also think that case studies are notoriously hard to quantify. In my
> > experience, it is usually an opinion that one work method over another
> > produced "better" results, because most people don't try it both ways and
> > actually measure fitness for purpose afterwards.
> >
> > E) I have been working on an ontology of organizations and human value
> > exchange. I have tried traditional ERD-style modeling, object-oriented
> > class modeling, and now OWL ontology modeling. Each has strengths as a
> > modeling method; each has "defects", or "fitness of purpose" for my work.
> > It may be an understanding defect on my part, but one of the primary issues
> > that I have been facing is polymorphism of modeled objects. As soon as you
> > "declare" something to be of a "type" of some modeling
> class/entity/etc, you
> > constrain it from taking on characteristics of other classes that it may
> > also play a role in. An example is a human - most people would model
> > "human" as a class; but in my domain, a "human" is also the offering of an
> > educational process (with an improved knowledge metric). My
> solution so far
> > has been to only use inferred classes to discover a thing's class by its
> > relationships. So, from my perspective, I am finding ontologies "not fit
> > for purpose" in their current description language and
> implementation. I am
> > interested in thoughts that the other summit participants may have to help
> > me remove this obstacle - even if it is more training for me on building
> > ontologies. :=)
> >
> > Brian K. Lucas
> > Sponsor, Worldwide Institute for Organization Ontologics
> > Lucasb-at-wio2-dot-org
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Wilson
> > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:11 AM
> > To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Invitation to a brainstorming call for the
> > 2011 Ontology Summit
> >
> > Gentlemen,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Tim Wilson
> >
> > 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/
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Timothy C. Wilson
> > Graduate Student in Knowledge Management Kent State University Expected
> > Completion: August 2011
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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)
============================================================
David Leal
CAESAR Systems Limited
registered office: 29 Somertrees Avenue, Lee, London SE12 0BS
registered in England no. 2422371
tel: +44 (0)20 8857 1095
mob: +44 (0)77 0702 6926
e-mail: david.leal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web site: http://www.caesarsystems.co.uk
============================================================ (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)
|