W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-ssn@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Comments to the ontology attributes

From: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:12:59 +0200
Message-ID: <4A5357EB.8020507@fi.upm.es>
CC: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
John Graybeal escribió:
> Raúl,
> 
> These are good suggestions.
> 
> Insofar as we have made a preliminary choice as to which ontologies to 
> investigate further, I am wondering if these additions need to be filled 
> out for the original candidates?  I think many of the candidates fell 
> short at a far lower mark, and the ones remaining will be evaluated at a 
> detailed level as they are incorporated (effectively achieving an 
> immediate evaluation on these points).
> 
> I would propose to include your suggestions in the template list of 
> attributes (and you may feel free to add them, or I will).  We could 
> also choose to add them to each individual list also if you would like, 
> but I am not sure that is worth the time.  What do you think?

I also think that it is not worth to revisit again all the ontologies, 
just taking those attributes into account in the ones that we will 
further evaluate is enough.

> One thing I would like to do in any case is include them in material MMI 
> [1] has for evaluating ontologies, as they seem like important 
> criteria.  Please let me know if that is any problem.

No problem at all. :)

> [1] http://marinemetadata.org
> 
> 
> On Jul 7, 2009, at 5:54 AM, Raúl García Castro wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have a couple of comments regarding the ontology attributes that we 
>> are using to describe the ontologies:
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/SSN_Suggested_Key_Ontology_Intro_Attributes 
>>
>>
>> In the ontology attributes we already take into account some aspect of 
>> the ontology quality: that the ontology is well documented.
>> Nevertheless, from our experience, there are other aspects that are 
>> highly relevant such as the lack of anomalies (redundancies, 
>> inconsistencies, etc.) in the ontology, which are important to know to 
>> decide whether to reuse some ontology or part of it.
>>
>> Also, regarding the reliability (trust) of the ontology, now we 
>> already consider if the ontology is maintained/supported by some 
>> organization and its adoption.
>> In this case, other relevant factors could be if the model described 
>> by the ontology is supported by some theory and if the ontology has 
>> been formally evaluated.
>>
>> Kind regards,

-- 

Dr. Raúl García Castro
http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~rgarcia/

Ontology Engineering Group (http://www.oeg-upm.net/)
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid
Phone: +34 91 336 36 70 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 14:13:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 7 July 2009 14:13:35 GMT