On 20 Jan 2013, at 08:50, Matthew West wrote: (01)
> 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:
> 1. Measure the quality of the result against the requirements that it should
> meet and fix the defects.
> 2. Use a process or methodology to ensure the quality of the resultant
> ontology.
> That is, Proactive versus Reactive. (02)
Is there really anyone doing ontology development as part of a software
application that does not do both? If so, I'd question their approach. (03)
Doing both is completely normal for software development, why is there an
assumption that ontology development is any different? (04)
> 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. (05)
A good methodology hopefully reduces the number of defects and cost of rework,
but no methodology can completely avoid defects. Also, my experience is that a
good methodology *includes* testing against requirements, so in fact 1 is part
of 2. In fact some methodologies that can be tailored for ontology dev in the
context of a software app, e.g. Test Driven Development, are actually driven by
1. (06)
Cheers,
David (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (08)
|