Difference between revisions of "Evaluation Activities"
| 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?) | ||
Revision as of 12:13, 29 November 2005
Background reading on ontology evaluation:
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?)