Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon-Clinics Day-3 proceedings - HC-01, HC-03

[jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Peter,
The URL provided for an example of an "ontology evaluation" never loaded for me. Too bad as I think it's important to evaluate at least one ontology using the criteria identified by the communique. I also think the paper would be greatly improved if a glossary is explicitly included as well as references to other's work in this subject area (or to the extent of the "problem" that the paper addresses), were included.

And, as mentioned in chat, I dislike the lack of distinction between evaluation tools or procedures (or anything) as they apply to properties vs classes vs individuals.

Finally I think the non-discussion about "best practices" for ontologies development which to-date others have identified (and any of which the paper identifies?) is a major problem I'd urge be addressed prior to its publication.

In short I don't find the paper illuminating because it is but an "undisciplined informal discussion" of those in your community unanchored to anything previously published. For my view of useful, non-academic papers, see any of the W3 recommendations.

John

 

_________________________________________________________________
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)