The evaluation of ontologies: Editorial review vs. democratic ranking

In Proceedings of InterOntology (Tokyo, Japan, 26-27 February 2008),. Tokyo: Keio University Press. pp. 127-138 (2008)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Increasingly, the high throughput technologies used by biomedical researchers are bringing about a situation in which large bodies of data are being described using controlled structured vocabularies—also known as ontologies—in order to support the integration and analysis of this data. Annotation of data by means of ontologies is already contributing in significant ways to the cumulation of scientific knowledge and, prospectively, to the applicability of cross-domain algorithmic reasoning in support of scientific advance. This very success, however, has led to a proliferation of ontologies of varying scope and quality. We define one strategy for achieving quality assurance of ontologies—a plan of action already adopted by a large community of collaborating ontologists—which consists in subjecting ontologies to a process of peer review analogous to that which is applied to scientific journal articles.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
SMITEO-63
Upload history
Archival date: 2017-12-11
View other versions
Added to PP index
2017-12-11

Total views
124 ( #30,422 of 51,729 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
27 ( #21,842 of 51,729 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.