[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:58:37 -0700
Message-id: <3E0744CE-D2A7-4E53-888D-F6BB564010CB@xxxxxxxxx>
A path that works quite well is a) describe the problematic situation and underlying problem system. This yields the ontic and behavioral map or model of the problem space. b) devise the intervention strategy. c) prescribe the recipe for the intervention system in terms of the ontic and behavioral map of the thing to be engineered. Then mesh the problematic situation model with the envisioned system model to gauge the likely effectiveness of the envisioned system. If you do this without ever mentioning 'requirements' you will be more successful.
This perspective indicates that an ontology, an artifact, contains the minutes of the design decision sessions. 
On Dec 12, 2012, at 6:07 PM, Hans Polzer wrote:

As I mentioned previously, it’s a good idea to keep Model Based Engineering in mind in this discussion of requirements and use cases. Use cases are a form of model and requirements are often best represented in the form of models of operational space in which the system is to be used (whether it is an IT system or some other kind of system – of which few don’t have an IT component these days). It would be great if we could get operational space models represented using a formal ontology of that operational space so that we don’t have to rely on different humans interpreting statements of operational need and converting them into system requirements or requirements for the ontology to be used by the system in some specified fashion. Ideally, we would be able to map directly from an ontology describing the operational space to requirements for specific ontologies to be used in various aspects of the system solution/implementation space – and to maintain that mapping throughout the system implementation lifecycle, including the supporting ontology development/support lifecycle.
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf OfAmanda Vizedom
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:30 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Potential Tracks for Ontology Summit 2013
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.


On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Fabian Neuhaus <fneuhaus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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. 
On Dec 11, 2012, at 6:42 PM, Todd J Schneider wrote:


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'.


<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

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? 


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


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.


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

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

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

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 
particularly with distributed open-source software development?


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

Msg Archives: 
Community Files: 
Community Wiki: 
Community Portal: 


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/ 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>