Minyaoui, My earlier post to this forum on this topic regarding “assessment context” and the dimensions thereof was intended to address your point. However, rather than fixating on a single definition of what we mean by “evaluation” of an ontology, the assessment context approach recognizes that there are many possible purposes for assessing an ontology, such as the list you provide. It also points out that there are other dimensions of assessment context, such as life-cycle phase at which the assessment is performed, and enterprise or domain context. All of these potentially affect what assessment criteria might be appropriate to use. Of course, we can further narrow the assessment context ranges we are willing to consider for our focus. But we can then point out that the criteria and methods we develop/document have limited scope and advertise explicitly that these assessment criteria might not apply to assessment context ranges that are outside our selected assessment context scope. This approach also helps to move the suggestion of specifying the requirements for an ontology from one of a “point” source towards an approach that involves specifying a range of requirements. Point sources of requirements generally make is unlikely that an ontology will find wide usage, especially in a multi-enterprise, multi-national, multi-domain networked environment. It’s certainly OK to develop ontologies for single customer contexts, but it’s generally difficult to justify the expense of doing so (unless the single customer context involves an investment that dwarfs the cost of ontology development and the benefits of having such an ontology reduces the investment required by more than the cost of ontology development). The challenge then becomes deciding how much (and along what domain dimensions) to broaden the scope of the ontology and its related application contexts and still make it economical to develop. This is fundamentally a business model problem, and I include individual volunteer and community development approaches as special cases of business model (such as this forum). Hans From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of miniaoui asma
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 5:28 PM
To: steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit 2013 I think that the first thing to do to is determine what we mean by “Evaluation”. In Literature, many terms are used; sometimes have the same, different or overlapping meanings. Our start point should be explaining each one in order to have a narrow focus and to use the same “terms” during discussions to avoid ambiguity - Ontology Evaluation
- Ontology Validation
- Ontology Verification
- Ontology Selection
- Ontology Ranking
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minyaoui Asma 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.
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
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|
