RE: Avoiding the pitfalls of ontology development
Dear Jim,
You will be aware that my background is in data modelling, and that
data models are one way of representing an ontology.
In the early nineties we were struggling with the problems you describe,
and we identified 10 Traps that people commonly fell into in developing
data models, and following that 6 Principles that if applied would prevent
you falling into those traps. These were published initially as two internal
Shell documents:
"Reviewing and Improving Data Models" and
"Developing High Quality Data Models".
This latter also included our first attempt at an upper ontology.
The Upper Ontology was used as the start point for what eventually became
ISO 15926. The principles have been applied in its development - it would
have been hopeless without them.
The traps and principles were combined in a publicly available document:
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/Documents/princ03.pdf
I presented the story of the development of the principles and ISO 15926 at
a recent workshop at EKAW04.
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/Documents/Industrial_Experiences_in_Ontology.pdf
I have seen the principles adopted by a number of organisations and consultants
both in the work they do and in their teaching.
Matthew West
Streamline Business Information Architect for Supply Chain Management
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> James R Schoening
> Sent: 25 November 2004 04:15
> To: standard-upper-ontology@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Avoiding the pitfalls of ontology development
>
>
> All,
>
> At my employer (US Government), I'm finding more and more
> ontology projects, but I have to wonder about the quality and value of
> them. Some start with taxonomies and add some basic OWL
> relationships.
> Others appear to take abstract/complex terms (found in enterprise
> architectures) and add relationships. Others are such quick
> efforts, one
> has to wonder. Others are developed with little or no background or
> experience in ontology development. Most projects appear to
> be starting
> with terms, not concepts.
>
> Has anyone yet characterized this trend? Are there
> any names yet
> for this? What are the pitfalls? Has anyone written a
> paper on the 7
> pitfalls of ontology development? I need a polite way of
> helping these
> projects avoid such pitfalls.
>
> Jim Schoening
>