Experiment: Evaluation of categorization options for focus class

Česká verze stránky.

The goal: to assess whether the categorization option for given focus class is meaningful from perspective of its usability in different applications (i.e. whether it is reusable).

Questionnaires

Examples

Guidelines: the expression, e.g. (hasReceived value MasterDegree), is suitable for categorization of FC, e.g. Person, if
a) (in theory) there is a higher number of instances (i.e. not 0, 1 or a few of them) of FC which meet the expression.
b) (in theory) there is a higher number of instances (i.e. not 0, 1 or a few of them) of FC which, on the contrary, do not meet the expression.
c) in an ideal case (this is not a strict condition) the expression is not obviously connected to some certain subclass of given FC so that it is not meaningful to consider the expression for other subclasses of the given FC.

Example nr. 1

OWL (Manchester syntax):
Individual: ?i Types: Person
Individual: ?i Types: bornIn value {UK}

Explanation: 
?i is an instance of the class that includes all objects which are in the relationship “bornIn” to the object “UK”.

Question: is this class (bornIn value {UK}) meaningful category for object classification (categorization) of the class Person?

-2 (certainly not), -1 (perhaps not), 0 (borderline), N (no judgement, since I don’t understand the
example), 1 (perhaps),	2 (certainly)
The answer: 2

Example nr. 2

OWL (Manchester syntax):
Individual: ?i Types: Person
Individual: ?i Types: bornIn some Thing

Explanation: 
?i is an instance of the class that includes all objects which are in the relationship “bornIn” to at least one object.

Question: is this class (bornIn some Thing) meaningful category for object classification (categorization) of the class Person?

-2 (certainly not), -1 (perhaps not), 0 (borderline), N (no judgement, since I don’t understand the
example), 1 (perhaps),	2 (certainly)
The answer: -2

(Too general category which is satisfied by all Person objects. Thus, it is not suitable for categorization.)

Example nr. 3

OWL (Manchester syntax):
Individual: ?i Types: Person
Individual: ?i Types: hasWife value Jana

Explanation: 
?i is an instance of the class that includes all objects which are in the relationship “hasWife” to the object Jana.

Question: is this class (hasWife value Jana) meaningful category for object classification (categorization) of the class Person?

-2 (certainly not), -1 (perhaps not), 0 (borderline), N (no judgement, since I don’t understand the
example), 1 (perhaps),	2 (certainly)
The answer: -2

(Too narrow category which is not satisfied by many Person objects. Thus, it is not suitable for categorization.)

Notes for the conference organization application domain