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/