Re: [ontology-summit] Potential Tracks for Ontology Summit 2013

[Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed.

I do, in fact, understand use case to include the broader requirements like those you mention. That is, what some might call business requirements, and/or human systems requirements.  IME, failure to consider the ontology requirements that derive from such broader factors usually leads to selection or development of ontologies that fail to be what's needed. Result: failure to meet project goals, sometimes followed by course correction, sometimes by project or program abandonment.

Point taken that this is not necessarily a widely accepted view.  I think I will have to pony up a rough use case outline or two of the sort I mean. 

Best,
Amanda

On Dec 12, 2012 6:06 PM, "Fabian Neuhaus" <fneuhaus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

I am not sure whether I agree with the second paragraph. It depends how wide you understand "use case" and on our scope of "ontology evaluation". If "ontology evaluation" is supposed to cover the evaluation of every aspect of an ontology that is important to decide which of a given set of candidate ontologies one should choose for an IT system, then there are considerations that are not directly linked to the functioning of the ontology within the IT system. For example, you might choose an ontology that is still maintained by a large community over an ontology that has not been updated since 1995. Or you might choose an ontology that has an "open" license over an ontology which comes with an expensive commercial license. 

Of course, if you understand "use case" to cover evaluation criteria like "The ontology needs to be maintained by somebody else" and "The ontology needs to be free, because our project has no money for licenses", then I agree with you. :-)     

Fabian   

On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:30 PM, Amanda Vizedom wrote:

Indeed, we need to keep in mind this point, well-made during last year's summit: even applied, formal ontologies are not always used as part of an IT system. They maybe used as part of a primarily human system, e.g., as a method of building a model of something complex in order to understand it better. And even those that are part of an IT system don't get all -- perhaps not even most -- of their requirements from the IT; many requirements derive from the intended use and its human, business process, and other characteristics. 

That said, it is still fair to say that essential requirements -- those from which evaluation dimension relevance is derived -- are themselves derived from the use cases. We just need to avoid artificial closure of the types of use cases.  If it is a real ontology (whether or however embedded in IT) use case, it matters to understanding what, and when, ontology evaluation dimensions are important.

Amanda

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Fabian Neuhaus <fneuhaus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Todd, 

The step from "what are the system requirements?" to "what are the derived requirements specific to the needed ontologies" assumes that ontologies are only evaluated as part of a larger IT systems.  However, there are many ontologies that are build without a specific system in mind and are used by different communities for different purposes; e.g., the Gene Ontology, the Foundational Model of Anatomy. The requirements for these reference ontologies cannot be derived from the requirements of some bigger IT system. 

Best

Fabian 

On Dec 11, 2012, at 6:42 PM, Todd J Schneider wrote:

Fabian,

I understand the fuzziness problem with defining or distinguishing
tracks for the ontology summit. However, I'd like to keep the focus
(or implicit relationships) of all the tracks on the use of the ontologies,
why they're being created.

Regarding the requirements track, I would suggest it goes from 'here are
the system requirements', 'what are the derived requirements specific to
the needed ontologies' (assuming the system is not primarily focused on
delivering just ontologies), then 'what evaluation criteria, techniques,
or tools are needed to meet (all) the requirements'.

Todd

<graycol.gif>Fabian Neuhaus ---12/11/2012 06:31:34 PM---Todd,  This is a recurring issue of the Ontology Summit: the topic cannot be broken down into neatly

From: Fabian Neuhaus <fneuhaus@xxxxxxxx>
To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 12/11/2012 06:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Potential Tracks for Ontology Summit 2013
Sent by: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

---

Todd,
This is a recurring issue of the Ontology Summit: the topic cannot be broken down into neatly disjoint subproblems. However, in the past that has not turned out not to be a problem as long as the people who run the different tracks work together. The main purpose of these tracks is to give some structure to the discussions and focus the attention on a given aspect of the topic of the Summit. As long as they address identifiably different questions, it does not matter whether the boundaries are fuzzy. And I think this is the case here -- at least in my interpretation of Michael's email -- because the tracks address different questions:  

The Dimension-track answers: What kind of activities are performed under the label "Ontology Evaluation"?
The Application Framework-track answers: Giving that my ontology performs function X in my application, which kind of ontology evaluation techniques are relevant to me?
The Requirements-track answers: Now that I know what kinds of evaluation techniques are relevant to me, how do I capture the specific requirements of my application in a way that supports these evaluation techniques?

Best
Fabian
 


On Dec 11, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Todd J Schneider wrote:

Michael,

Items 1,2, and 4 of your suggested tracks are, or should be,
intimately related. In the context of systems development the
requirements (hence uses) are the driver.

Todd

<graycol.gif>Michael Gruninger ---12/11/2012 12:59:52 PM---Hello everyone, in preparation for Thursday's Pre-launch of Ontology Summit 2013,

From: Michael Gruninger <gruninger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Ontology Summit 2013 <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 12/11/2012 12:59 PM
Subject: [ontology-summit] Potential Tracks for Ontology Summit 2013
Sent by: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



---



Hello everyone,
in preparation for Thursday's Pre-launch of Ontology Summit 2013,
here are some proposals for potential tracks.
One objective of the session will be to decide on the tracks and
specific topics that will be addressed within the tracks.
Please note that this list of potential tracks is meant to start the
discussion -- if you have other ideas for tracks, please join us
on Thursday's call!


1. Dimensions of Ontology Evaluation
- addresses notions of verification, validation, quality, ranking, ...

2. Evaluation and the Ontology Application Framework
- looks at the problem of ontology evaluation from the perspective of
the applications that use the ontologies. This Framework was one of the
outcomes of Ontology Summit 2011
(http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ApplicationFramework_Synthesis)

3. Best Practices in Ontological Analysis
- focuses on the ontology evaluation based on the ontology itself, such
as logical criteria (consistency, completeness, modularity) and
ontological analysis techniques (e.g. OntoClean).

4. Requirements for Ontologies
- how do we specify the requirements against which we evaluate ontologies?

5. Environments for Developing and Evaluating Ontologies
- what are best practices for evaluation that we can adapt from software
engineering,
particularly with distributed open-source software development?


----


Michael Gruninger and Matthew West
co-chairs of Ontology Summit 2013

_________________________________________________________________
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/ 

<ATT00001..c>

 
_________________________________________________________________
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/ 

<ATT00001..c>

_________________________________________________________________
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/

<ATT00001..c>

_________________________________________________________________
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)