Re: [ontology-summit] HC-05 Ontology of Ontology Evaluation - Ontology U

[Steve Ray <steve.ray@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob,

            Here is the initial report on the automotive sector that got a lot of publicity. NIST commissioned it from RTI.

https://www.rti.org/pubs/US_Automotive.pdf

 

 

- Steve

 

Steven R. Ray, Ph.D.

Distinguished Research Fellow

Carnegie Mellon University

NASA Research Park

Building 23 (MS 23-11)

P.O. Box 1
Moffett Field, CA 94305-0001

Email:    steve.ray@xxxxxxxxxx

Phone: (650) 587-3780

Cell:      (202) 316-6481

Skype: steverayconsulting

 

From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Smith
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 12:49 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] HC-05 Ontology of Ontology Evaluation - Ontology Usage

 

Hi David,

 

Yes, there are formal NIST by Gallaher with a later study by Fallon. A variety of other studies as well as a variety of less formal U of Texas and JBIM articles from NIBS - Here is the primary source.

NIST GCR 04-867 (210 pages)     http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/gcr/2004/NIST.GCR.04-867.pdf 

 

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) study, Cost Analysis of Inadequate 

Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry (referred to as NIST GCR 04-867), is of 

particular interest because it identifies and quantifies the efficiency losses in the U.S. capital facilities 

industry attributable to inadequate interoperability. Interoperability is defined as “the ability to 

manage and communicate electronic product and project data between collaborating firms and within 

individual companies’ design, construction, maintenance, and business process systems” (NIST GCR 

04-867, page ES-1). The researchers very conservatively estimated those losses to be $15.8 billion in 

2002. This figure excludes the losses for residential facilities and transportation infrastructure." 

 

 

I will hunt the others down and send them to you. I am moderating 5 sessions at IFMA this coming week and each makes some claim for lowering "costs of interoperability".

 

---------------/

 

 

 

 

Regards, 

 

Bob

 

Bob Smith, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus,CSU

Vice Chair - Terminology SC, NIBS Version 3

Huntington Beach, CA

 

On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bev, sorry, Pavithra's or my comments could have been construed as soliciting input into those draft documents linked from the hackathon page. In fact, the main live-action hackathon HC-05 activity is over now; we wrapped up at about noon EDT today. We have some distributed follow-up responsibilities and will be delivering a few things, including consolidated versions (graphical and english) of a conceptual model, with notes about what we were and weren't able to cover, hope to do in the future, invite others to do, etc.  We also took various action items to produce formalizations of the conceptual model. So the drawings and documents that capture the collaborative work we did are really frozen now, or should be, as they represent common understandings that the group came to and from which we'll create the shared products. 

 

On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Bev Corwin <bevcorwin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Amanda,

 

I tried to add a comment but wasn't able to on: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1l3nc_lJgNlD1lGDY1kN7DbvzbYBZMfkn12l1_r_RIU4/edit

 

Comment re: tracking contributions in the higher concept levels dynamically, as well as contributor metrics and demographic data, perspectives, domains, etc., so that as things develop a drill down source is created to reference, edit, extend, etc. will help w/ evaluation process:

 

http://cognexus.org/compendium_maps.htm

 

Bev

 

On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

Bev,

 

Without addressing whether Noy's article incorporates such contributor analysis, I'll answer that (again, from an evaluation and requirements perspective) contributor and user characteristics can be quite important. If it is to guide identification of ontology requirements (and hence evaluation criteria, etc.), an intended or actual usage description should include information about the users. And a usage description may include, or may entail, requirements regarding the provenance of the ontology (potentially including the types and levels of expertise of contributors, their relationship to the subject matter, and so on. 

 

All,

 

This came up today within the context of hackathon HC-05 http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Hackathon_Clinics_OntologyOfOntologyEvaluation.  "Ontology Usage" is among the concepts we have in the conceptual model we worked on, covering important concepts related to ontology evaluation, rooted in the materials and discussions we have had over the course of the summit.  In this context, we are treating "Ontology Usage" as a complex thing that is important in determining ontology requirements. We are looking at ontology usage as decomposable in a variety of ways, including the analysis suggested in the Application Framework development done in the 2011 summit (http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ApplicationFramework_Synthesis), and other analysis suggested by different speaker, methods, tools and approaches.  One of our goals for the conceptual model (and formal ontology to follow) is to capture this decomposability and some of its dimensions, as well as the potential importance of each in determining the requirements that should be applied to ontology for some usage.  To capture the specifics of *how* those usage elements contribute to requirements determination is beyond the ambition of this project. But have been aiming to capture a conceptual model that contributes to the ability to represent and understand such specific knowledge.

 

Best,

Amanda

 

 

_________________________________________________________________
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/

 

_________________________________________________________________
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)