dc.creatorNeuhaus, Fabian
dc.creatorVizedom, Amanda
dc.creatorBaclawski, Ken
dc.creatorBennett, Mike
dc.creatorDenny, Michael
dc.creatorGrüninger, Michael
dc.creatorHashemi, Ali
dc.creatorLongstreth, Terry
dc.creatorHashemi, Ali
dc.creatorObrst, Leo
dc.creatorRay, Steve
dc.creatorSriram, Ram
dc.creatorSchneider, Todd
dc.creatorVegetti, Maria Marcela
dc.creatorWest, Matthew
dc.creatorYim, Peter
dc.date.accessioned2016-08-05T18:43:11Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-06T16:17:37Z
dc.date.available2016-08-05T18:43:11Z
dc.date.available2018-11-06T16:17:37Z
dc.date.created2016-08-05T18:43:11Z
dc.date.issued2013-11
dc.identifierNeuhaus, 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
dc.identifier1875-8533
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/6965
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1906648
dc.description.abstractCurrently, 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.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherIos Press
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://content.iospress.com/articles/applied-ontology/ao125
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.3233/AO-130125
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/AO-130125
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.subjectOntology evaluation
dc.subjectontology lifecycle
dc.subjectbest practices
dc.titleTowards ontology evaluation across the life cycle
dc.typeArtículos de revistas
dc.typeArtículos de revistas
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución