Evaluation Activities - Revision history

Jessica121 at 09:09, 5 August 2010

2010-08-05T09:09:44Z

Nigam at 19:13, 29 November 2005

2005-11-29T19:13:00Z

Nigam at 19:31, 23 November 2005

2005-11-23T19:31:05Z

New page

Background reading on ontology evaluation:
[http://bioontology.org/literature_on_evaluation.html See Articles]

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:09, 5 August 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:

	== Evaluation ==		== Evaluation ==
		+
		+	[http://www.asiawriters.com/ essay writers]

	We have to have some criteria based on which an evaluative statement about an ontology is produced, otherwise it might be labeled as a 'biased' opinion. Also, if we say every-ontology is good (which they certainly arent) that’s not productive either.		We have to have some criteria based on which an evaluative statement about an ontology is produced, otherwise it might be labeled as a 'biased' opinion. Also, if we say every-ontology is good (which they certainly arent) that’s not productive either.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:13, 29 November 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Background reading on ontology evaluation:	+	== Background reading on ontology evaluation: ==
		+
	[http://bioontology.org/literature_on_evaluation.html See Articles]		[http://bioontology.org/literature_on_evaluation.html See Articles]
		+
		+
		+	== Evaluation ==
		+
		+	We have to have some criteria based on which an evaluative statement about an ontology is produced, otherwise it might be labeled as a 'biased' opinion. Also, if we say every-ontology is good (which they certainly arent) that’s not productive either.
		+
		+	[Barry's suggestions]
		+
		+	Does it have a clear name?
		+
		+	Does it have clear documentation?
		+
		+	Does it have a clear subject matter?
		+
		+	Are its assertions universally true
		+	(e.g. if it says A part_of B then is it true of all instances of A that they are part of some instance of B)?
		+
		+	Is it used by other independent groups?
		+
		+	[Nigam's suggestions]
		+
		+	There are four main axes on which an ontology ought to be reviewed:
		+
		+	1 - extent to which it satisfies the purpose for which it was built
		+
		+	2 - ability to express what a user might want to express (use case tests)
		+
		+	3 - ease with which one can express non-sense while using it (i.e. take a few hundred use case instances and see how many were actually meaningful)
		+
		+	[2 and 3 will be at odds with each other much like sensitivity and specificity]
		+
		+	4 - consistency checking (i.e. is the ontology formally consistent)
		+
		+	[Barry's input on 4]
		+
		+	These are two related questions: are there tools/methodology for checking?
		+	what is the result of such checking? (and if no tools, what is the
		+	result of a quick manual check?)