On 12/6/2012 11:47 PM, Michael Gruninger wrote:
> "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle" (01)
That's an important topic. But the lifecycle of an ontology is
co-extensive with the lifecycle of any application or system that
uses or is based on that ontology. (02)
This morning, I sent replies to two email lists that most people
on this list subscribe to. (03)
1. To Nancy W. on IAOA, I made the point that you can't separate
the ontology of a system from its architecture or design. (04)
2. To Rich C. on Ontolog Forum: "Imagine an IT department that had
one group doing the architecture, a second group doing the design,
a third group doing the ontology, and a fourth group doing the
implementation." (05)
Amanda responded,
> Sadly, John, some of us don't have to imagine this; we can remember it! (06)
I would relate that point to evaluation: a critical issue in a good
ontology is its accuracy in reflecting the design and/or architecture
of the system. (07)
There are aspects and modules that could be distinguished. For
example, the complete ontology of a system might combine multiple
modules or microtheories. But the complete ontology of a system
and its complete architecture must be closely coordinated. (08)
Any evaluation of an ontology must address these issues. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (011)
|