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

[Yuriy Milov <ym@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi All,

Hope my few words may bring some benefit to the discussion by changing a point of view.

An ontology is a text (a string, a set of bites) and (plus) something else.

How could we estimate a quality of a text (a set of bites)?

There are two approaches: 

a) related to people

b) related to the texts itself

All texts related to the people must be related to the natural language. And such sort of "natural semantics" is related to the "natural thinking" semantics - but this is not my focus here.

I want to say that all texts related to texts are related to math. And I suppose that the "quality" of any text from the math point of view should bring into consideration the complexity (chaos) theory. 

Today  an elementary cellular automaton is well known - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_cellular_automaton

Some rules ("texts") can generate primitive "lines", some of them generates "chaos", some of them generates "chaotic regularity", but some rules is considered to be "universal" (the rule 110, for example)

My point is to see ontologies as "texts ruling texts" into the "Steven Wolfram's paradigm" and to split all ontologies for four classes as Steven Wolfram had done for the automatons

I am not sure how to do this and even if it's possible to do but why not to ask? :-)

Thanks

Yuri

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Re: [ontology-summit] {quality-methodology} Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria
Date:	Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:02:22 +0000
From:	Sjir Nijssen <Sjir.Nijssen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To:	Ontology Summit 2013 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:	Ontology Summit 2013 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Matthew and Mike,



Congratulations with the initative described below.



See my suggestions below in line.



Regards





Sjir Nijssen



Chief Technical Officer

PNA Group



Tel:     +31 (0)88-777 0 444

Mob: +31 (0)6-21 510 844

Fax:    +31 (0)88-777 0 499

E-mail: sjir.nijssen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.pna-group.com



-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens Matthew West
Verzonden: zondag 20 januari 2013 9:51
Aan: 'Ontology Summit 2013 discussion'
Onderwerp: [ontology-summit] {quality-methodology} Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria



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.]],

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.]]

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.]]

- 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/

_________________________________________________________________
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)