>From Matthew West's study on the high quality data models, http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/documents/princ03.pdf, there is a listing of key properties, as pictured below. One could also add relativity, utility, worth, correctness, originality, credibility, certainty, truth, etc. As i know, there is a new book coming. (01) ----- Original Message ----- From: "MacPherson, Deborah" <dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Ontology Summit 2011 discussion" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 4:22 PM Subject: [ontology-summit] Data Quality - Was: Invitation to a brainstorming call for the 2011 Ontology Summit (02) > From the US Dept of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Policy > Information > > "...Accuracy is only one characteristic of quality, just as validity or > conformance to business rules is one characteristic of quality. These > characteristics are some of the information quality characteristics > categorized as inherent characteristics. > > Fitness for purpose is the characteristic of usefulness of data for a > specific requirement..." > > http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/dataquality.cfm > > > > DEBORAH MACPHERSON, CSI CCS, AIA > Specifications and Research > > Cannon Design > 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2900 > Arlington, Virginia 22209 > > Direct Line 703 907 2353 > 4 Digit Dial 6353 > > dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > cannondesign.com > > Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter R. > Benson > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:42 AM > To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion > Cc: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion > Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Invitation to a brainstorming call for the > 2011 Ontology Summit > > 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/ > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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/ (01) |
