Search

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.