Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit 2013

[Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes.  Also, for the "ontology quality and large-scale systems" X-track, Mike Bennet and I worked to incorporate these issues as well, as we explicitly took a SWE interpretation of "quality" and assurance thereof.

See the Cross-Track-A1 synthesis at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012_Quality_Synthesis, or Summit Session 07 http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_02_23, which focused on it. The related survey we worked on did not, in the end, get to where we wanted it; however, it was explicitly intended to explore correlations between relevant use case features, including architecture and lifecycle ones, and ontology quality issues. 

Speaking of products of last year, I should also note that along the way, we started a shared library of related resources -- for the conference in general, but the ontology quality and evaluation directory is perhaps the most populated: https://www.zotero.org/groups/ontologysummit2012/items/collectionKey/TV2QAN4H  

That might serve as a seed for this year, if collection of related resources seems valuable to folks (it does to me).  

Amanda

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Gary Berg-Cross <gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I would note in passing that I believe that this relation of ontology ifecycle lto architectures and their lifecycle was touched on at times as part of last year's discussion of Ontology for Big Systems."  Some of the early discussion on systems seems relevant:

The areas from the session included:    (337S)

• working with and integrating the results of models using multiple modeling languages,    (337T)
• the systems lifecycle and the issues of sharing data within and between lifecycle stages,    (337U)
• the difference between requirements and the delivered system,    (337V)
• systems of systems vs systems,    (337W)
• the nature of system components and the difference between these and the parts installed,    (337X)
• the connections between system components and what they carry,    (337Y)
• the specific role of social, legal, and value-related aspects in systems architecture, modeling and design    (339G)
• systems behaviour,    (337Z)
• federated systems both as a big system, and as a solution to some of the challenges,    (3380)
• principles of how to construct good quality reusable models (ontologies),    (3381)
• the management of ontologies of and for large systems and the challenges in developing and maintaining them.    (3382)

see also: OntologySummit2012_BigSystemsEngineering_CommunityInput

  (Cross-Track-A2) Ontology for Federation and Integration of Systems    (36KC)OntologySummit2012_SystemsFederationIntegration_Synthesis ( CoryCasanave & AnatolyLevenchuk) might be relevant.

Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.  

gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx     

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross

NSF INTEROP Project  

http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0955816

SOCoP Executive Secretary

Knowledge Strategies    

Potomac, MD

240-426-0770

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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/

--



_________________________________________________________________
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/

_________________________________________________________________
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/     (01)