Great, thanks much, Samir!
Leo
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Samir Tartir
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:02 AM
To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] {quality-methodology} Ontology Summit Track A: Metric Application (session 3)
Thanks for the interest. I didn't have the chance to go through the recording of that session yet, as I couldn't unfortunately attend. OntoQA is not currently
built to distribute. I built a website sometime ago to enable online access, but after some difficulties, I had to stop it. I will see if I can prepare a downloadable version and release it to the community.
Regards,
______________________
From:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Obrst, Leo J. [lobrst@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:01 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] {quality-methodology} Ontology Summit Track A: Metric Application (session 3)
Thank you, Samir. By the way, the question came up yesterday as to whether OntoQA was available somewhere, possibly for download?
Thanks much,
Leo
Hi Astrid and all,
I have been following the very interesting discussions with very little time to contribute.
Regarding evaluation: I think there needs to be two parts for ontology quality:
- General quality: Any ontology must have such properties (must be agreed on by the community), e.g. a certain minimum level of
inheritance, a certain minimum number of "meaningful" properties (relations), etc.
- Domain-specific quality: as the name indicates, ontologies in certain domains must be of a certain features to be useful in certain
domains, which can be set by each sub-community.
Hello All,
When is a metric or evaluation dimension relevant to ontology quality?. In response to this question, we presented OQuaRE in the ontology summit session on 31 January. OQuaRE includes a set of quality characteristics and subcharacteristics, which are measured
through a set of metrics. Some metrics are relevant for some quality characteristics. You can find more information about OQuaRE at http://miuras.inf.um.es/evaluation/oquare.
However we think it is important that the ontology community reaches an agreement on ontology quality criteria. We invite you to contribute to our wiki about quality criteria, available at http://miuras.inf.um.es/oquarewiki.
Regards,
Astrid
El 16/02/2013 3:50, Hans Polzer escribió:
While I can’t offer specific guidance on which evaluation metrics might be appropriate/useful in any given evaluation context, I did offer up a presentation
on the dimensionality of evaluation context in the ontology summit session on 24 January. This provides a way to characterize different evaluation contexts (or ranges thereof) in an explicit way so that one can define the conditions under which a given evaluation
attribute/metric might be appropriate.
Hans
From:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Amanda Vizedom
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:01 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] {quality-methodology} Ontology Summit Track A: Metric Application (session 3)
Megan, and All,
I took the liberty of editing the subject to note the connection to the Track C session Megan mentions.
There is an enormously important issue here, critical to the connection between evaluation and quality/suitability.
Megan's question is one way of getting at it. A few other ways the issue has appeared within the Ontology Summit context:
- When is a metric or evaluation dimension relevant to ontology quality? For some metrics, the answer might be "always." For most metrics, the answer might be "when any or all of a set of requirements applies,
derived from the intended application type and context."
- What kinds of evaluation have people used, and for what purposes? When did or didn't the evaluation outcomes correlate to successful use of ontologies?
In my experience, we sometimes get data from particular projects, but not enough to begin to form a well-grounded picture of patterns of relevance. I believe that this is partly because a comparatively small portion
of ontology-based projects currently devote substantial, explicit thought to evaluation or to requirements identification, and use case characterization. And there isn't enough communication between projects, or across the broader community, for good cross-pollination
and comparison to occur. Without this, when people do evaluation, they tend to simply do whatever they know how to do and have the resources to do, rather than thinking through alternatives and what evaluation is really meaningful and relevant to their particular
ontology evaluation (development, selection, etc.) problem.
For the quality cross-track of last year's summit, Mike Bennett, Simon Spero and I worked on a survey (on experiences with ontology quality assurance) that was aimed at just this knowledge gap. The complexity of
the question, a late start, and other factors (including, in my case and Mike's, having little experience in the hard problems of survey design) challenged us enough that although we got a survey version out the door by the end of the summit, we did not collect
enough data to be meaningfully analyzed.
There have been suggestions to revise/refactor the survey for this year's summit focus and try again. I can't devote enough time to do this well, especially while also serving as Communique co-editor and working
to get and keep the group library up to date. However, I think such a survey (still) would be very interesting and useful, and take us a step toward addressing this knowledge gap.
However, if there are others (Megan?) who would be interested and willing to pitch in reviving and revising this effort, last year's material is still around. Anyone?
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|