[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] {quality-methodology} Building Ontologies to Meet

To: "'Ontology Summit 2013 discussion'" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:02:36 -0000
Message-id: <50fd204c.914ab40a.0f59.fffff476@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear David,    (01)

> > 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.
> 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.    (02)

MW: I sincerely hope not.
> Doing both is completely normal for software development, why is there
> an assumption that ontology development is any different?    (03)

MW: Of course. There are other tracks that are looking at measuring the
result. This track is just looking at how you build quality in, that's all.
> > 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.
> A good methodology hopefully reduces the number of defects and cost of
> rework, but no methodology can completely avoid defects.     (04)

MW: I agree. That's even what I said.    (05)

> Also, my
> experience is that a good methodology *includes* testing against
> requirements, so in fact 1 is part of 2.     (06)

MW: Of course, but that aspect is what Track B is looking at.    (07)

> 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.    (08)

MW: Which will be fine as long as that includes something that makes sure
you have the requirements right. Personally, I've had more problems getting
the requirements right (and explicit) than with doing something once I've
got a good set of requirements.    (09)

MW: However, just being requirements driven will do little for consistency
and cohesion of independent developments within a large enterprise or
industry. It is largely these things that I am hoping Track C will address.    (010)

Regards    (011)

Matthew West                            
Information  Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/    (012)

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.    (013)

> Cheers,
> David
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/    (014)

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/     (015)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>