Amanda, Mike, Bob, and Peter, (01)
AV
> ... ontology increasingly attracts many
> more with a pragmatic, one might dare say engineering-like, focus.
> Increasingly many ontologists are interested in working on actual
> solutions to actual problems. You will even find that there is rising
> activity in practical solutions toward understanding, measuring, and
> managing ontology quality. (02)
You're preaching to the choir. I've been publishing books and articles
about ontology and its applications since I used the word in my CS book
(finished in 1983 and copyright in 1984). I am still giving lectures
about ontology, using ontology in our VivoMind company, and now writing
another book, _Principles of Logic and Ontology_. (03)
One of the places where I have been lecturing for several years is
the Semantic Technology conference, which had been held in San Jose
in June and moved to San Francisco for the past few years. I also
attend other lectures, and I know the kinds of applications. (04)
AV
> However, having so acknowledged things that have been amiss, we simply
> drag the summit back into debating-society territory if we linger too
> much on those points. (05)
I most definitely do not want to focus on failures. As I keep saying,
the most important thing to do is to focus on the success stories and
to understand *why* they have been successful. (06)
But you can't understand the reasons why unless you look at what was
done, what is different about the new approach, and analyze how that
difference made a difference. (07)
AV
> we could make some progress on this topic because the focus of the
> summit on big systems contexts obligates us "to confine ourselves
> to discussing ontology quality *as it makes a difference to*
> large-scale systems systems engineering... (08)
That's fine. But instead of trying to define quality a priori, let's
look at cases where somebody changed the ontology, or the tools, or
the methodology -- and then the systems succeeded. Then analyze and
generalize those cases to determine what changes made them succeed. (09)
AV
> The second group is more in keeping with regarding formal ontologies
> as computational artifacts and potential components of (artificial
> and/or mixed) systems. This group approaches ontology quality from a
> more pragmatic view. Most models of ontology quality within this group
> treat quality as consisting of both some formal and universal
> characteristics and also many use-oriented characteristics. (010)
That's the basic assumption of most subscribers to Ontolog Forum. (011)
AV
> Rather, acknowledging that we are within a usage-oriented context,
> asking what characteristics of ontologies, usage-dependent or not,
> have (most) significance for the ability of an ontology to work
> successfully in a large systems or large-systems-engineering context. (012)
Fine. But you can't understand how any factor Q affects the success
or failure unless you control the other factors. Just looking at a
bunch of success stories doesn't tell you anything about what led
to the success. You need comparisons. That's why I suggested that
we look at cases where people tried to do something with System X,
changed something, and got better results with the revised version. (013)
MB
> Like I said, the resolution of the deep questions does not interest me
> so much, as how these questions may be framed and adequately addressed
> for those of us who do have to produce working ontologies for
> application in commercial environments. (014)
I strongly agree. (015)
MB
> The basic definitions and parameters of QA are defined in QA
> standards such as ISO 9000. They are also described in national
> standards such as BS5750 or the German SUV system. (016)
Yes. But the way you use QA standards depends entirely on the
application -- for example, quality in baking bread, playing the
violin, or building a car. (017)
Bob
> Thanks [to MB] for the distinctions and especially for expressing
> - "Business Value" (018)
MB
> without a stated requirement there can be no assertion of quality. (019)
PRB
> Quality can be measured by comparison to the stated requirement. (020)
I strongly agree with those points. And that is why I hope we can get
down to the details. What evidence is there for the way any ontology
or any way of using an ontology has affected business value and enabled
a system to meet requirements? (021)
John (022)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (023)
|