From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sjir Nijssen
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 7:40 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] {quality-methodology} Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria
Dear Matthew,
Thank you for making a good step away from the “sacred” but fairly useless often quoted definition of ontology.
See further in line below as [[Sjir2: ….]
I welcome your reaction as well as reactions from other colleagues.
Regards
Dear Sjir,
Dear Colleagues,
This is the opening post for Track C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria.
When you make posts on this track please us the {quality-methodology} label in the subject line as I have above.
Background
There are two approaches to assuring the quality of an ontology: [[Sjir: Ontology is currently an homonym; please make first a series of clear definitions (enriched with many examples) such that the homonym problem is solved.]],
MW: Well I’m not sure there is a generally agreed definitions of what an ontology is [[Sjir2: indeed, I agree with you and I believe this forum should admit that clearly, and start work to get to a series of definitions that can be assigned to the widely varying kinds of “ontologies” mentioned in this forum.]], but we are not talking about the philosophical study of what exists. [[Sjir2: I agree.]] My definition for the purposes of this summit is:
A formal (i.e. computer processable) representation of (some of) the things that exists and (some of) the rules that govern them.
[[Sjir2: Another proposal: A complete and truely conceptual (in the sense of ISO TR9007) ontology is a formal (i.e. computer processable) representation of
a. the kinds of things considered within scope of a certain ontology,
b. the kinds of facts about instances of these kinds of kinds and
c. all the associated integrity rules about the fact populations and fact population transitions.
d. There is always a human understandable representation (in a CNL), that is extended with a set of all relevant concept definitions.]]
Examples can be as diverse as Cyc, a database schema, and Master Data.
1. Measure the quality of the result against the requirements that it should meet and fix the defects. [[Sjir: I suggest to take the three principles (Helsinki, 100 % and Conceptual) of ISO TR9007 into account.]]
MW: I’m sorry, I don’t follow you there. Could you elaborate please?
[[Sjir2: ISO TR9007 (TR stands for Technical Report, often a predecessor of a standard) was an effort by ISO that started in 1978 and was finished in 1987. It includes a validatable definition of a conceptual schema (The description of the possible states of affairs of the universe of discourse including the classifications, rules, laws, etc., of the universe of discourse. (Page I-4) ) and the following three principles:
The Helsinki Principle
Any meaningful exchange of utterances depends upon the prior existence of an agreed set of semantic and syntactic rules. The recipients of the utterances must only use these rules to interpret the received utterances, if it is to mean the same as that which was meant by the utterer. ISO TC97/SC5/WG3- Helsinki 1978 (Page 0-2)
Conceptualization Principle
A conceptual schema should only include conceptually relevant aspects, both static and dynamic, of the universe of discourse, thus excluding all aspects of (external and internal) data representation, physical data representation and access as well as all aspects of a particular external user representation such as message format, data structures, etc. (page I-9)
100 Percent Principle
All relevant general static and dynamic aspects, i.e. all rules, laws, etc., of the universe of discourse should be described in the conceptual schema. The information system cannot be held responsible for not meeting those described elsewhere, including in particular those in application programs. (page I-8)
2. Use a process or methodology to ensure the quality of the resultant ontology. [[Sjir: I stongly agree with this.]]
That is, Proactive versus Reactive.
The advantage of using a methodology are that you get it (or at least more of it) right first time, thus avoiding the cost of rework to fix the defects. [[Sjir: I stongly agree with this.]]
- Do such methodologies exist for ontologies? [[Sjir: that depends on what you mean by ontology. Informally yes, but that is outside the “ontology”” community.]]
MW: I believe there are also some within the “ontology” community, as well as the broader data modelling/relational database community. [[Sjir2: please let me know which ones.]]
Regards
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
- How mature are they?
- Do they take account of different ontology roles, lifecycles? [[Sjir: yes, lifecycles have tob a taken into account if you want it become mainstream.]]
- Do they take account of the different usages of ontologies
- As applications
- As integrating ontologies between applications?
We hope to investigate the state of the art in ontology development methodologies in respect of how they contribute to ontology quality, including key achievements and gaps that currently exist.
Achievements: what's there?
Gaps: what's not there?
Our objectives include:
1. Examine the explicit and implicit methodologies that are known to exist.
2. Understand the role that upper ontologies play in ontology development methodologies.
3. Understand the role of ontological patterns in ontology development methodologies.
4. Identify how to apply the intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of ontology evaluation identified by the other tracks, within the applicable development methodologies.
5. Identifying how to frame the applicable ontology development methodologies within the frameworks of established quality assurance regimes (such as ISO 9000 and CMMI) for industrial applications.
Do you think there are some other objectives we should set ourselves? What is your experience in these areas?
As well as the discussion here, we have two virtual sessions on 7 Feb and March where invited speakers will present on some of the above.
Regards
Matthew West and Mike Bennett
Track C Co-Champions
_________________________________________________________________
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/