Looks great! Thank you, Mike, MariCarmen, Maria, Jesualdo, Astrid et al.
I've posted your proposal highlights to the wiki.
see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Hackathon_Clinics#nid3OHT (01)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (02)
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Mike Bennett <mbennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Title:
>
> "Ontology Clinic-A: FIBO Ontology Evaluation with OOPS! and other Tools"
>
>
> Abstract
>
> This ontology clinic aims to explore the application of ontology quality
> measures to ontologies produced under the Financial Industry Business
> Ontology (FIBO) umbrella.
>
> In this clinic we will explore the application of the OOPS! and OQuare
> methodologies and tools to two styles of ontology developed under the FIBO
> umbrella: Business Conceptual Ontologies (BCOs) which are the FIBO standards
> themselves; and example “Operational Ontologies” derived from these for
> deployment in semantic technology applications. We would look to establish
> which types of measure should be applied to each type of ontology and apply
> the relevant tools and techniques to these.
>
> From this activity we hope to make the first steps towards defining a formal
> quality process for the future development of formal standards under the
> FIBO umbrella, a set of quality assurance parameters for users who need to
> extend the FIBO BCO locally for their own conceptual semantic modeling, and
> a set of guidance notes, validation and verification techniques etc. for
> developers of semantic technology applications based on the FIBO standards.
>
>
> Collaborators
>
> OOPS!
>
> Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa, María Poveda-Villalón,
> Ontology Engineering Group. Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial.
> Facultad de Informática, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain.
>
> OQuaRE
>
> Jesualdo Tomás Fernández-Breis, Astrid Duque-Ramos
> Departamento de Informática y Sistemas, Universidad de Murcia, Spain.
>
> Others
>
> We are open to working with any and all others who may have tools,
> techniques or methodological material which may be applied either to
> business conceptual ontologies, to operational OWL ontologies or both.
>
>
> Ontologies Involved:
>
> We anticipate bringing at least two kinds of FIBO ontology to the table:
>
> • FIBO Business Conceptual Ontologies (the proposed FIBO standards)
> • FIBO Operational Ontologies
>
> For these, we expect to bring the following to this Clinic:
>
> Conceptual
>
> • FIBO Business Entities
> • FIBO Foundations
>
>
> Operational
>
> We have a number of “Proof of Concept” ontologies under development at
> present. These are highly modular, so any one proof of concept application
> involves a number of ontologies working together within a given application.
>
> Subject to confirmation from the EDM Council “Proof of Concept” team, we
> hope to be able to provide ontologies for:
>
> • Interest rate swaps
>
> • Business Entities
>
> • Business entity ownership and control hierarchies
>
> • Credit Default Swaps (CDS)
>
> Note that these have been developed in parallel with the BCOs as proofs of
> concepts, not as productized ontologies, so the application of the quality
> measures explored in this Clinic will help towards the development and
> derivation of similar ontologies directly from the FIBO BCOs.
>
>
> Objectives / goals:
>
> Background
>
> FIBO is being developed as a series of “Business Conceptual Ontologies”
> (BCO) for concepts in the financial industry, that is ontologies which
> represent industry terms, definitions and relationships at the level of
> conceptual models. Conceptual models, by definition, should not reflect
> application constraints. From these, we anticipate that users would derive
> operational ontologies for specific use cases, which would of course be
> subject to the relevant application constraints.
>
> An open question in the development of the FIBO BCOs is what ontology
> quality measures should be applied to these ontologies, and which of the
> established OWL modeling best practices are applicable to such an ontology.
> That is, which of the things you would expect to see in a semantic
> technology application, can or should be applied to the conceptual
> ontologies without compromising their requirements as conceptual models.
>
> To complicate this question further, the BCOs are intended to be presented
> to business domain subject matter experts for validation, and local
> extensions of the BCO are intended to be understood and maintained as a
> business domain asset not a technical deliverable. To this end, some
> compromises have been made in the way that the OWL language is used – and
> some of those compromises can be undone once there are better ways of
> presenting these ontologies to a business audience.
>
> Meanwhile, we expect potential users of the standards to derive “operational
> ontologies” from the conceptual ontologies, just as a conventional
> application developer would develop logical designs from conceptual models
> or requirements catalogs. These operational ontologies must of course be
> subject to the quality requirements of any application (validation and/or
> verification of the delivered item against the stated business
> requirements), and since they are OWL ontologies, must be subject to the
> quality constraints that are applicable to operational OWL ontologies
> generally.
>
>
> Objectives:
>
> The objectives of this clinic are as follows:
>
> A: Business Conceptual Ontology
>
> • Identify the relevant quality measures for FIBO BCOs
>
> • Apply these measures to FIBO-Business Entities and its imports from
> FIBO-Foundations using the available tools
>
> • Consider how this can inform the formal methodology for FIBO
> development
>
>
> B: Operational Ontologies
>
> • Identify the relevant quality measures for a FIBO-derived Operational
> Ontology
>
> • Apply these to one or more candidate operational ontologies
>
> • Identify how the application use case can be shown to be satisfied by
> the operational ontology
>
> • See whether this can be formalized in such a way that formal
> “Conformance Points” can be defined which are of a suitable level of clarity
> and repeatability to be included in the OMG specification as formal
> Conformance criteria
>
> • Even where these requirements and tests cannot be formalized, consider
> what application guidelines can be created around these tools and
> techniques, to guide users of FIBO in creating robust ontology based
> applications which conform to their stated user requirements
>
>
> Deliverables
>
> • Elements of a formal methodology for development of FIBO Business
> Conceptual Ontologies
>
> • Elements of a formal methodology for local extension of FIBO BCOs by
> end users, to create their own ontologies at the same conceptual level (for
> onward use either in conventional technology model driven development, data
> integration or the development of operational ontologies for semantic
> processing)
>
> • Formal conformance points for operational ontologies (new textual
> material for future versions of the FIBO OMG specifications)
>
> • Notes and “how to” material for developers of semantic technology
> applications that use FIBO
>
>
> Remarks
>
> We see this clinic as a vital first step in our development both of the
> formal methodologies for FIBO standards development and of the conformance
> points and developer guidance necessary for end users to make practical use
> of FIBO in semantic technology-based applications.
>
>
> Resources / References:
>
> OOPS!
>
> Web based OOPS! Resource site:
>
> http://oeg-lia3.dia.fi.upm.es/oops/index-content.jsp
>
> Publications:
>
>
>http://2012.eswc-conferences.org/sites/default/files/eswc2012_submission_322.pdf
>
>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-01-31_OntologySummit2013_OntologyEvaluation-IntrinsicAspects/OntologySummit2013_Ontology-pitfalls-OOPS--PovedaVillalon-SuarezFigueroa-GomezPerez_20130131.pdf
>
>
> OQuaRE
>
> Publications:
>
> http://ws.acs.org.au/jrpit/JRPITVolumes/JRPIT43/JRPIT43.2.159.pdf
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Mike Bennett
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (04)
|