Dear Alan,
Complete certainly may have more than one meaning here, however, the use of completeness as Fabian describes is well established in its own field, and we can’t claim exclusive use of words with our preferred meaning. A better approach I think would be to use qualifiers when the senses might be inferred. So logically complete vs factually complete or some such.
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.
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Rector
Sent: 22 January 2013 11:07
To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Reasoners and the life cycle
All
Do we need to be careful about the word "completeness" to avoid confusion with the meaning in computational logic in "complete and decidable". Would we be better using a word such as "sufficient" or "comprehensive" or similar?
On 28 Dec 2012, at 17:50, Fabian Neuhaus wrote:
Following Vrandecic "Ontology Evaluation" in "Handbook on Ontologies, Second Edition" (with some modification), I think we need to distinguish (among other things) four questions:
- Accuracy: Is the content of the ontology true?
- Completeness: Is the domain of interest appropriately covered (this includes terminology as well as axioms)?
- Conciseness: Does the ontology irrelevant classes, relations, or axioms?
- Redundancy: Are some axioms redundant because they are already entailed by other axioms?
Professor of Medical Informatics
School of Computer Science
TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6149/6188