|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Some comments on the evaluation questions.
separate the maturity of
the ontology from that of its associated toolset. For the ontology,
is partly the degree in which it meets its stated development goals and
the quality with which it does so We could also consider the
completeness of the ontology with respect to the target domain.
Needless to say, drawing that boundary is non-trivial, and for an upper
ontology the lower bound is somewhat arbitrary. It is probably obvious
to this group but I'll say it anyway. Size is a not terribly relevant
indicator of "goodness"; better to think in terms of completeness for
a purpose and quality. Longevity is a heuristic indicator
only--an ontology that continuously develops over a long period can
improve or can become as much of an accretionary mess as a long-lived
program can. A final dimension of maturity might be the degree to
which the ontology regognizes and handles issues within its scope. An
ontology of process had better have a way to deal with the flow of time
and proabably needs to be able to represent situations that have
changed without running into contradiction.
There is also robustness in the sense of scalability. That seems like a tools issue. There is nothing in logic or KIF that prohibits an ontology of 50m axioms. But nobody will edit it or reason with it using today's tools
4. Language Flexibility
(What ontology language is it in? How stable is language?
If desired, could it be written in a different ontology language?)
This sounds like a question of expressivity on the theoretical side and ease of translation on practical side. An ontology that is purely a term hierarchy with a small number of relations cannot be used to solve problems requiring full first order logic. Any notation is theoretically translatable into any other of equal expressivity, but the tool set may be lacking. A graph representation could be deemed more intuitive but then have problems scaling up in size/complexity of the ontology.
6. Domain Friendly
(How easy to develop domain ontologies based on upper ontology?)
Just a little squishy. If you use time for creation of the domain ontology as a metric, that depends on the size of the domain and its novely. I am not sure how happy I would be with "finished axioms/hour". And if it is a factual ontology the norms are going to be different. If we take concept reuse as a metric, that may be more interesting
-- Allan Terry