[Top] [All Lists]

[ontac-forum] Evaluation Criteria for a Common Upper Ontology

To: "'ONTAC-WG General Discussion'" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6" <James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:12:51 -0500
Message-id: <5F6E70D8ED5D274F9D9A721485C0A46207A2D639@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
All,    (01)

        John Sowa asked:   "If there is a need for a single upper ontology, by 
what criteria could we judge which, if any, of the current proposals are worthy 
candidates?    (02)

 Here's one set of evaluation questions developed by members of the IEEE 
Standard Upper Ontology WG.    (03)

1. Maturity
        How ready is it to use now ?
        What capabilities have already been demonstrated ?
        Time and resources needed to start using ?
        Potential for improvement.
2. Robustness
        Heavy weight vs. light weight ontology features ?
        Potential for improving robustness ?
        How well it handle known requirements such as those listed in SUO Scope 
and Purpose ?
3. Potential For Broad Acceptance
        How well will it support maximum number of domains ?
4. Language Flexibility
        What ontology language is it in ?
        How stable is language ?
        If desired, could it be written in different ontology language ?
5. Ownership/Cost
        Who owns it ?
        Any proprietary restrictions on use ?
        Will there be charges for utilization ?
        How will it changed and who controls the changes ?
        Is it being developed by Standard Developing Organization ?
6. Domain Friendly
        How easy is it to develop domain ontologies based on the upper ontology 
?    (04)

        These questions are also posted at http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/Evaluations/.    (05)

        Some actual evaluations are at http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/Evaluations/, 
which is set up as an open forum for anyone to evaluate any upper ontology.  
I'm Chair of the IEEE SUO WG, so subscribers of this ONTAC forum are welcome to 
use this web site to post evaluations.  We could also update the questions if 
we want.     (06)

        I'm in favor of doing an evaluation, not for a final selection, but so 
different developers can try out different candidates.  But there is the chance 
one could gain momentum.    (07)

        Question:  If there were any level of agreement on the best upper 
ontology, are there any members of this group that would use or test it to any 
significant degree?  Perhaps those individuals should get together and see if 
they can agree on a selection.      (08)

Jim Schoening    (09)

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (010)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>