[307]                           home                           [309]

 

Thursday, December 15, 2005

 

 The BCNGroup Beadgames

 

 

Challenge Problem  à

 

 

Communications on lattice of theories

 

 

 

All,

 

              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?

 

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

 

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 ?

 

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

 

              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.

 

              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.

 

              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. 

 

 

Jim Schoening