Re: SUO: Criteria that an ontology must satisfy
John,
I am glad to see some criteria surface.
I have some questions and comments on your proposed criteria....
First, how can these criteria be operationalized, in the sense that how
can it be made explicit just what needs to be done so that a given
criterion is met?
Specifically, your two criteria concerning definitions speak of "an ability
to define...." I would ask, "What needs to be done to establish such an
ability?" I note that your criteria don't say "to define ...." all the
terms that you mention, but just that we have the _ability_ to define
them. I would say that the collective "we" of the SUO list already have
such an ability, but perhaps not according to some operational criteria
that are implicit in the words "The ability to define." What does
it mean for the SUO itself to have this ability? How is this ability
demonstrated?
Second, since you suggest "only" the ability to define, and not the
definitions themselves, your criteria seem to leave open the possibility of
adding new definitions. Is this a correct reading of what you say?
Third, you mention "The ability to support inferences ... that agree with
established usage...." How is this ability to be demonstrated? By looking
at "all possible" inferences that the SUO generates and then determining
that such inferences do indeed accord with established usage? Is that
desirable or even possible?
Fourth, what other criteria might be suggested, specific to the SUO
efforts, that allow the following question to be answered?
How will the SUO group determine that it has successfully met its
goals?
Jim
At 08:19 AM 3/9/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Recommended criteria:
>
> 1. The ability to define any and all terms used in well
> established laws and theories of the major scientific
> fields, especially physics, chemistry, and biology. That
> may also include defining some terms, such as phlogiston
> and ether, which eventually become obsolete, but which
> are reasonable hypotheses at the time they are proposed.
>
> 2. The ability to define any and all terms used in major
> areas of business, engineering, agriculture, and other
> fields that do enough useful work that people are willing
> to pay them to keep doing it.
>
> 3. The ability to support inferences with those definitions
> that agree with established usage in the fields in which
> the terms are used.