SUO: RE: Question from a potenial SUO user
Dear Jim,
This is a good question.
There are all sorts of red herrings about formats and syntaxes
that it is important to set on one side. The most important thing
with an ontology is that the concepts are used with the definition
(including but not limited to its axiomatisation) provided in the
standard, i.e. not reinterpreting the label for the concept as
meaning something else. Note: I am taking concepts to be separate
from their linguistic representation, reference recent discussions
on polysemy.
The way to test for conformance is I think through statistical
sampling - rather as resistors (say) are tested. You pick out a
statistically significant sample of usages of the concept and
rigourously check that they have been applied correctly. If you
see patterns of misuse, you may need to take corrective action.
Matthew West
Business Information Architect - Supply Chain Management
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jim.s3@juno.com [mailto:jim.s3@juno.com]
> Sent: 15 March 2004 22:13
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: SUO: Question from a potenial SUO user
>
>
>
>
> All,
>
> Here's a question from a potential SUO user:
>
> How would one do conformance testing? If the SUO WG
> produced an IEEE standard, and a program mandated it for new
> systems/applications, how could one measure whether a new
> system conformed to the standard?
>
> The question comes from a senior technical leader on
> the Future Combat System (FCS), which has plenty of content
> on the Web.
>
> Jim Schoening
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>