On Saturday, December 08, 2012 7:12 AM, John F Sowa wrote: (01)
> On 12/7/2012 3:12 PM, Steve Ray Consulting wrote:
> > That's one reason that ontology **evaluation** is a more focused
topic...
>
> But focused on what? Any kind of comparison, including evaluation,
implies
> a criterion of some kind: "X is better than Y according to some criterion
Z."
>
> What criterion Z makes one ontology better than another?
> What is the purpose of an ontology? Since this forum is devoted to
> computer systems, I assume that we won't be evaluating ontologies as pure
> philosophical theories. (02)
Yes, "evaluating ontologies as pure philosophical theories", because in
systems engineering we mostly use another wording. (03)
I we try to stay in ontology engineering frame, there is no "evaluation"
process but "verification" (comparing of engineering artifact with its
specification) and "validation" (how engineering artifact fit to serve its
function in client's system). If we buy something, this is regarded the same
way as in engineering (verification to compliance and validation to fit the
purpose). (04)
If we speaks about "better" that can be clue to what engineers regarded as
trade-off studies. So "ontology evaluation" (what ontology is better) should
mean "ontology trade-off studies". That require first of all knowledge about
overall system-of-interest architecture to determine what one from several
competing ontologies should be implemented as system-of-interest component
as a result of trade-off studies. (05)
Best regards,
Anatoly (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (07)
|