Towards ontology evaluation across the life cycle

Autores
Neuhaus, Fabian; Vizedom, Amanda; Baclawski, Ken; Bennett, Mike; Denny, Michael; Grüninger, Michael; Hashemi, Ali; Longstreth, Terry; Hashemi, Ali; Obrst, Leo; Ray, Steve; Sriram, Ram; Schneider, Todd; Vegetti, Maria Marcela; West, Matthew; Yim, Peter
Año de publicación
2013
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Currently, there is no agreed on methodology for development of ontologies, and there is no consensus on how ontologies should be evaluated. Consequently, evaluation techniques and tools are not widely utilized in the development of ontologies. This can lead to ontologies of poor quality and is an obstacle to the successful deployment of ontologies as a technology.Currently, there is no agreed on methodology for development of ontologies, and there is no consensus on how ontologies should be evaluated. Consequently, evaluation techniques and tools are not widely utilized in the development of ontologies. This can lead to ontologies of poor quality and is an obstacle to the successful deployment of ontologies as a technology. This document focuses on the evaluation of five aspects of the quality of ontologies: intelligibility, fidelity, craftsmanship, fitness, and deployability. A model for the ontology life cycle is presented, and evaluation criteria are presented in the context of the phases of the life cycle. We discuss the availability of tools and the document ends with observations and recommendations. Given the current level of maturity of ontology as an engineering discipline, any results on how to best build and evaluate ontologies have to be considered as preliminary. However, the results achieved a broad consensus across the range of backgrounds, application foci, specialties and experience found in the Ontology Summit community.
Fil: Neuhaus, Fabian.
Fil: Vizedom, Amanda.
Fil: Baclawski, Ken.
Fil: Bennett, Mike.
Fil: Denny, Michael.
Fil: Grüninger, Michael.
Fil: Hashemi, Ali.
Fil: Longstreth, Terry.
Fil: Hashemi, Ali.
Fil: Obrst, Leo.
Fil: Ray, Steve.
Fil: Sriram, Ram.
Fil: Schneider, Todd.
Fil: Vegetti, Maria Marcela.
Fil: West, Matthew.
Fil: Yim, Peter.
Materia
Ontology Evaluation
Ontology Lifecycle
Best Practices
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/6965
Acceder
id CONICETDig_c1824b9fbbc833b04cc89936ed9c380c
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/6965
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Towards ontology evaluation across the life cycleNeuhaus, FabianVizedom, AmandaBaclawski, KenBennett, MikeDenny, MichaelGrüninger, MichaelHashemi, AliLongstreth, TerryHashemi, AliObrst, LeoRay, SteveSriram, RamSchneider, ToddVegetti, Maria MarcelaWest, MatthewYim, PeterOntology EvaluationOntology LifecycleBest Practiceshttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/2.11https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2Currently, there is no agreed on methodology for development of ontologies, and there is no consensus on how ontologies should be evaluated. Consequently, evaluation techniques and tools are not widely utilized in the development of ontologies. This can lead to ontologies of poor quality and is an obstacle to the successful deployment of ontologies as a technology.Currently, there is no agreed on methodology for development of ontologies, and there is no consensus on how ontologies should be evaluated. Consequently, evaluation techniques and tools are not widely utilized in the development of ontologies. This can lead to ontologies of poor quality and is an obstacle to the successful deployment of ontologies as a technology. This document focuses on the evaluation of five aspects of the quality of ontologies: intelligibility, fidelity, craftsmanship, fitness, and deployability. A model for the ontology life cycle is presented, and evaluation criteria are presented in the context of the phases of the life cycle. We discuss the availability of tools and the document ends with observations and recommendations. Given the current level of maturity of ontology as an engineering discipline, any results on how to best build and evaluate ontologies have to be considered as preliminary. However, the results achieved a broad consensus across the range of backgrounds, application foci, specialties and experience found in the Ontology Summit community.Fil: Neuhaus, Fabian.Fil: Vizedom, Amanda.Fil: Baclawski, Ken.Fil: Bennett, Mike.Fil: Denny, Michael.Fil: Grüninger, Michael.Fil: Hashemi, Ali.Fil: Longstreth, Terry.Fil: Hashemi, Ali.Fil: Obrst, Leo.Fil: Ray, Steve.Fil: Sriram, Ram.Fil: Schneider, Todd.Fil: Vegetti, Maria Marcela.Fil: West, Matthew.Fil: Yim, Peter.Ios Press2013-11info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/6965Neuhaus, Fabian; Vizedom, Amanda; Baclawski, Ken; Bennett, Mike; Denny, Michael; et al.; Towards ontology evaluation across the life cycle; Ios Press; Applied Ontology; 8; 3; 11-2013; 179-1941875-8533enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://content.iospress.com/articles/applied-ontology/ao125info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.3233/AO-130125info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-10T13:25:13Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/6965instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-10 13:25:13.918CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Towards ontology evaluation across the life cycle
title Towards ontology evaluation across the life cycle
spellingShingle Towards ontology evaluation across the life cycle
Neuhaus, Fabian
Ontology Evaluation
Ontology Lifecycle
Best Practices
title_short Towards ontology evaluation across the life cycle
title_full Towards ontology evaluation across the life cycle
title_fullStr Towards ontology evaluation across the life cycle
title_full_unstemmed Towards ontology evaluation across the life cycle
title_sort Towards ontology evaluation across the life cycle
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Neuhaus, Fabian
Vizedom, Amanda
Baclawski, Ken
Bennett, Mike
Denny, Michael
Grüninger, Michael
Hashemi, Ali
Longstreth, Terry
Hashemi, Ali
Obrst, Leo
Ray, Steve
Sriram, Ram
Schneider, Todd
Vegetti, Maria Marcela
West, Matthew
Yim, Peter
author Neuhaus, Fabian
author_facet Neuhaus, Fabian
Vizedom, Amanda
Baclawski, Ken
Bennett, Mike
Denny, Michael
Grüninger, Michael
Hashemi, Ali
Longstreth, Terry
Obrst, Leo
Ray, Steve
Sriram, Ram
Schneider, Todd
Vegetti, Maria Marcela
West, Matthew
Yim, Peter
author_role author
author2 Vizedom, Amanda
Baclawski, Ken
Bennett, Mike
Denny, Michael
Grüninger, Michael
Hashemi, Ali
Longstreth, Terry
Obrst, Leo
Ray, Steve
Sriram, Ram
Schneider, Todd
Vegetti, Maria Marcela
West, Matthew
Yim, Peter
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Ontology Evaluation
Ontology Lifecycle
Best Practices
topic Ontology Evaluation
Ontology Lifecycle
Best Practices
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2.11
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Currently, there is no agreed on methodology for development of ontologies, and there is no consensus on how ontologies should be evaluated. Consequently, evaluation techniques and tools are not widely utilized in the development of ontologies. This can lead to ontologies of poor quality and is an obstacle to the successful deployment of ontologies as a technology.Currently, there is no agreed on methodology for development of ontologies, and there is no consensus on how ontologies should be evaluated. Consequently, evaluation techniques and tools are not widely utilized in the development of ontologies. This can lead to ontologies of poor quality and is an obstacle to the successful deployment of ontologies as a technology. This document focuses on the evaluation of five aspects of the quality of ontologies: intelligibility, fidelity, craftsmanship, fitness, and deployability. A model for the ontology life cycle is presented, and evaluation criteria are presented in the context of the phases of the life cycle. We discuss the availability of tools and the document ends with observations and recommendations. Given the current level of maturity of ontology as an engineering discipline, any results on how to best build and evaluate ontologies have to be considered as preliminary. However, the results achieved a broad consensus across the range of backgrounds, application foci, specialties and experience found in the Ontology Summit community.
Fil: Neuhaus, Fabian.
Fil: Vizedom, Amanda.
Fil: Baclawski, Ken.
Fil: Bennett, Mike.
Fil: Denny, Michael.
Fil: Grüninger, Michael.
Fil: Hashemi, Ali.
Fil: Longstreth, Terry.
Fil: Hashemi, Ali.
Fil: Obrst, Leo.
Fil: Ray, Steve.
Fil: Sriram, Ram.
Fil: Schneider, Todd.
Fil: Vegetti, Maria Marcela.
Fil: West, Matthew.
Fil: Yim, Peter.
description Currently, there is no agreed on methodology for development of ontologies, and there is no consensus on how ontologies should be evaluated. Consequently, evaluation techniques and tools are not widely utilized in the development of ontologies. This can lead to ontologies of poor quality and is an obstacle to the successful deployment of ontologies as a technology.Currently, there is no agreed on methodology for development of ontologies, and there is no consensus on how ontologies should be evaluated. Consequently, evaluation techniques and tools are not widely utilized in the development of ontologies. This can lead to ontologies of poor quality and is an obstacle to the successful deployment of ontologies as a technology. This document focuses on the evaluation of five aspects of the quality of ontologies: intelligibility, fidelity, craftsmanship, fitness, and deployability. A model for the ontology life cycle is presented, and evaluation criteria are presented in the context of the phases of the life cycle. We discuss the availability of tools and the document ends with observations and recommendations. Given the current level of maturity of ontology as an engineering discipline, any results on how to best build and evaluate ontologies have to be considered as preliminary. However, the results achieved a broad consensus across the range of backgrounds, application foci, specialties and experience found in the Ontology Summit community.
publishDate 2013
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2013-11
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/6965
Neuhaus, Fabian; Vizedom, Amanda; Baclawski, Ken; Bennett, Mike; Denny, Michael; et al.; Towards ontology evaluation across the life cycle; Ios Press; Applied Ontology; 8; 3; 11-2013; 179-194
1875-8533
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/6965
identifier_str_mv Neuhaus, Fabian; Vizedom, Amanda; Baclawski, Ken; Bennett, Mike; Denny, Michael; et al.; Towards ontology evaluation across the life cycle; Ios Press; Applied Ontology; 8; 3; 11-2013; 179-194
1875-8533
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://content.iospress.com/articles/applied-ontology/ao125
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.3233/AO-130125
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Ios Press
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Ios Press
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1842981399164878848
score 12.48226

Publicaciones similares