OMAF Case Study — [Ontology Name]
Domain: [e.g., Existence, Love, Knowledge]
Theorist/s: [e.g. Plato, Alfred North Whitehead]
Assessor(s): [DeepSeek, ChatGPT, John I. Mackay]
Date: [Todays date formated as: YYYY-MM-DD]
Version of OMAF Used: [e.g., v0.1.1]
1. Overview of the Ontology
Purpose & Scope:
[Briefly describe the ontology’s aim, scope and the domain it addresses.]
Core Claims:
[List the main propositions or theses the ontology asserts.]
Theoretical Influences:
[Optional — name philosophical, scientific, or conceptual traditions that influenced it.]
2. Application of OMAF
[Refer to the rubric for ratings]
Axis I — Completeness
| Criterion | Score (1–5) | Notes / Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Grounding | ||
| Manifestation | ||
| Persistence | ||
| Boundaries |
Axis II — Robustness
| Criterion | Score (1–5) | Notes / Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Internal Coherence | ||
| Domain Validity | ||
| Objectivity / Reflexivity | ||
| Explanatory Power | ||
| Resilience to Critique |
Axis III — Pragmatic Usefulness
| Criterion | Score (1–5) | Notes / Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Operational Clarity | ||
| Integrability | ||
| Heuristic Utility |
Axis IV — Transformative Potential
| Criterion | Score (1–5) | Notes / Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive Shift | ||
| Experiential Depth | ||
| Generativity |
3. Visualisation
Radar Chart:
| Dimensions | Average Score |
|---|---|
| Completeness | 0 |
| Robustness | 0 |
| Pragmatic Usefulness | 0 |
| Transformative Potential | 0 |
radar-beta
title "Name of Ontology"
axis Completeness, Robustness, Usefulness, Potential
curve Score{0, 0, 0, 0}
max 5
4. Summary & Observations
Strengths:
[List areas where the ontology scores highly.]
Weaknesses:
[List areas where the ontology scores lower.]
Trade-offs / Tensions:
[Note any areas where improvement in one axis might reduce performance in another.]
5. Recommendations
[List actionable steps to improve weaker areas or make the ontology more balanced, robust, or applicable.]
6. References
[List any sources, prior work, or related ontologies referenced in this case study.]
Contents