I agree with the need to include the architecture and system design (and the methodologies for defining such, such as TOGAF) in the development of an ontology. However:
1. That’s one reason that ontology *evaluation* is a more focused topic, while ontology *development and evaluation* will grow beyond the time constraints of the summit
2. We don’t need to include everything in the *title* of the summit. We can describe the scope etc. in the introduction and track descriptions.
- Steve
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Todd J Schneider
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 12:05 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
Cc: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit 2013
John, Amanda, Michael,
Should consideration be given to injecting TOGAF
into the summit structure?
Todd
John F Sowa ---12/07/2012 11:29:06 AM---On 12/6/2012 11:47 PM, Michael Gruninger wrote: > "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 12/07/2012 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit 2013
Sent by: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 12/6/2012 11:47 PM, Michael Gruninger wrote:
> "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"
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.
This morning, I sent replies to two email lists that most people
on this list subscribe to.
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.
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."
Amanda responded,
> Sadly, John, some of us don't have to imagine this; we can remember it!
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.
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.
Any evaluation of an ontology must address these issues.
John
_________________________________________________________________
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/
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2634/5942 - Release Date: 12/06/12