Actions

Ontolog Forum

Ontology Summit 2010 review and follow-up action planning ("postmortem") session - Thu 15-Apr-2010

  • Chair: Dr. SteveRay and Dr. FabianNeuhaus

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Thursday, 15-April-2010
  • Start Time: 10:30am PDT / 1:30pm EDT / 7:30pm CEST / 6:30pm BST / 17:30 UTC
  • Expected Call Duration: ~1.5 hours
  • Dial-in Number:
    • from a US telephone (US): +1-218-844-8060 (domestic long distance cost will apply)
    • When calling in from a phone, use Conference ID: "4389979#"
    • from Europe, call:
      • Austria 0820-4000-1577
      • Belgium 070-35-9992
      • France 0826-100-280
      • Germany 01805-00-7642
      • Ireland 0818-270-037
      • Italy 848-390-179
      • Spain 0902-886-056
      • Switzerland 0848-560-327
      • UK 0844-581-9148
    • callers from other countries please dial into either one of the US or European numbers
  • Shared-screen support (VNC session) will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/
    • view-only password: "ontolog"
    • if you plan to be logging into this shared-screen option (which the speaker may be navigating), and you are not familiar with the process, please try to call in 5 minutes before the start of the session so that we can work out the connection logistics. Help on this will generally not be available once the presentation starts.
    • people behind corporate firewalls may have difficulty accessing this. If that is the case, please download the slides above and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.
  • Discussions and Q & A:
    • (Unless the conference host has already muted everyone) Please mute your phone, by pressing "*2" on your phone keypad, when a presentation is in progress. To un-mute, press "*3"
    • You can type in your questions or comments through the browser based chat session by:
    • or point your browser to: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontolog_20100415
      • instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field). You can indicate that you want to ask a question verbally by clicking on the "hand" button, and wait for the moderator to call on you; or, type and send your question into the chat window at the bottom of the screen.
    • (when everyone is muted) If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please "raise your hand (virtually)" by click on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the speaker or the session moderator (again, press "*3" on your phone to unmute). Test your voice and introduce yourself first before proceeding with your remarks, please. (Please remember to click on the "hand button" again (to lower your hand) and press "*2" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)
    • thanks to the soaphub.org folks, one can now use a jabber/xmpp client (e.g. gtalk) to join this chatroom. Just add the room as a buddy - (in our case here) ontolog_20100415@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!
  • Please note that this session will be recorded, and the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.

Attendees

  • Expecting:
    • ... if you are coming to the session, please add your name above (plus your affiliation, if you aren't already a member of the community) above; or e-mail <peter.yim@cim3.com> so that we can reserve enough resources to support everyone's participation. ...

Resources

Abstracts

  • Session Topic: "OntologySummit2010 review and follow-up action planning"
The goal of this session is to revisit the last Ontology Summit and plan ahead for the future. We will discuss what worked and what did not work during the 3~4 months of Ontology Summit 2010, and get ideas on how to make next year's Ontology Summit even better. This meeting is also an opportunity to suggest topics for next year's Ontology Summit. Further, this meeting gives us an opportunity to revisit the action items listed at the end of the Communique and to identify members of the community who would be interested in participating in projects to address them.

Agenda Ideas

  • Review what worked and what didn't this year
  • Good ideas, suggestions and possible action that arose
  • Follow-up Action planning
  • Suggestions (e.g. topics) for Ontology Summit 2011
  • ... (please insert below, anything else you may suggest)

Agenda & Proceedings

Transcript of the online chat during the session

see raw transcript here.

(for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)

Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.

-- begin of chat session --

Peter P. Yim: .

Welcome to the Ontology Summit 2010 review and follow-up action planning session - Thu 15-Apr-2010

The goal of this session is to revisit the last Ontology Summit and plan ahead for the future. We

will discuss what worked and what did not work during the 3~4 months of Ontology Summit 2010, and get

ideas on how to make next year's Ontology Summit even better. This meeting is also an opportunity to

suggest topics for next year's Ontology Summit. Further, this meeting gives us an opportunity to

revisit the action items listed at the end of the Communique and to identify members of the

community who would be interested in participating in projects to address them.

. Please refer to details on the session page at:

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_04_15 .

anonymous morphed into Kurt Conrad

anonymous1 morphed into Doug Foxvog

anonymous morphed into Bobbin Teegarden

Peter P. Yim: For Ontology Summit 2010 - What went right? ... please type them in

Peter P. Yim: Full 3-month period ... from the Launch in Dec-2009 to the Symposium in Mar-2010

Rex Brooks: I think the survey needed a bit more work to get more focused results.

Fabian Neuhaus: Rex: which survey are you referring to?

Rex Brooks: I think that having the surveys was a great improvement, though.

Rex Brooks: I didn't take the real time delphi, but the other two needed to focus in on specific

questions.

Amanda Vizedom: I think surveys added a lot, *and* along Rex's line, would have added even more if

planned and launched further ahead of time.

Rex Brooks: @Amanda, I agree that working on the surveys perhaps a month ahead of when it started

this year would give those creating the surveys more time to get feedback on focus.

Arturo Sanchez: @SteveRay: I enjoyed very much the F2F meeting. We all had the opportunity to share

our perspectives as part of collaboratively composing the communique. It was also great I was able

to meet in person some of the folks I interacted with via conference calls before the F2F.

Amanda Vizedom: I think we improved outreach, *and* have a lot more room for improvement there.

Peter P. Yim: I guess we are doing "What needs improvements?" too now ...

Antony Galton: There was quite a lot of uncertainty at the beginning about the different track and

what they meant - but I think we more or less sorted that out eventually.

Fabian Neuhaus: @Antony: I agree, this was very difficult this year to slice up the discussion in

tracks.

Arturo Sanchez: @RexBrooks: please bear in mind some of us are not trained in preparing surveys ...

Surveys are great tools for mining information from communities and it would be great if people with

experience in preparing surveys could volunteer

Rex Brooks: @Arturo: I agree. I think that searching for contacts in survey management and perhaps

market research would pay big benefits.

Rex Brooks: We could trade benefits to the surveyors since ontological-semantic questions could be

helpful to advancing the state of their art, especially if we can educate them about Linked Open

Data for instance.

Rex Brooks: @Steve, that's why I suggested a benefit for the professional surveyors.

Eric Lindahl: While I've loosely followed the development, it would be nice to have an ongoing

developing 'Getting Started' artifact providing link lists and glossary/overview for people new to

ontology development. E.g. http://www.google.com/search?q=ontology+training+site%3Acim3.net

Eric Lindahl: A concrete environment, ontology sandbox would be good. Rather just downloading

Protege. Example texts gathered to act as ontology exemplars (like the wine ontology)

Eric Lindahl: What site will provide these materials? Are there copyright problems?

anonymous2 morphed into JulitaBermejoAlonso

anonymous1 morphed into Pierre Grenon

Arturo Sanchez: Did we hear an UK-style ambulance passing by?

JulitaBermejoAlonso: @Arturo: French ambulance, sorry, I did not unmute the phone. Running late with my kids

Arturo Sanchez: @Julita: ahh! No worries ... I think it is great we can hear street noises from

far-away places in real time. De dónde eres, Julita?

JulitaBermejoAlonso: @Arturo: Spanish, but living in France after the States. University in Madrid,

though. A long story.

Arturo Sanchez: @Julita: nice meeting you

Eric Lindahl: I wonder how closely the goal of this communique is being obviated, to some extent, by

the evolution and adoption of modeling frameworks, like Eclipse Modeling Framework. EMF will likely

be the de facto toolset for 'domain interoperation', one of the main factors for ontology

development.

Eric Lindahl: Or should I say, tree rewriting.

Amanda Vizedom: FYSA, as the committee knows, I submitted a proposal to present the summit findings

at SemTech, but have not heard back and don't know whether that's likely to happen.

I think that such presentations could offer an opportunity to do some more of the bridge-building I

was talking about. I can also imagine working it in as part of a larger session or workshop

involving folks from some of the stakeholder communities, tailored perhaps to other audiences. Do

others have thoughts about particularly good venues for something like this? Next year's ISWC, for

example? Other?

anonymous1 morphed into Pierre Grenon

Eric Lindahl: It would seem that 'ontologists' learn something from the fact that Google is rather

ontology hostile'. Tools have a way of treating ontology as a rewrite problem. Concept-net,

BigTable, HBase, etc.

Pierre Grenon: It would be useful to have something between the communique and the futurist paper,

perhaps minus the particulars account of the Delphi experiment. For example, in order to approach

course production teams at the Open University, I could use a write up that explains the findings of

the summit and has enough context...

Amanda Vizedom: @Pierre - I agree, we should have this. A not-incidental side effect, if the

SemTech proposal were accepted, would be that we'd have to create one!

Peter P. Yim: @Steve: ref. the whitepaper for "State of the Future 2010" ... (while that book is not an

open publication) I will work with the Millennium Project people about allowing the open publication

of our paper (on the Ontolog website, for example)

Steve Ray: @Peter: I think that would be a good thing to pursue, in the spirit of the Ontolog Forum.

Peter P. Yim: @Steve - agree totally

Rex Brooks: @Arturo: [ref. your presentation, Arturo] I would be happy to help with a Service

Interface to the Registry because I am active in the OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee,

the Reference Architecture Subcommittee and the efforts to align OASIS, Open Group and OMG SOA

efforts. So I can socialize the Registry in those venues.

Eric Lindahl: What happened to the ontology of measures? Measures seems prima facie for building

working systems. e.g. http://jscience.org/api/javax/measure/unit/package-summary.html

Peter P. Yim: @Eric - that project has now moved on and has morphed into the OASIS QUOMOS TC - see:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=quomos

Pierre Grenon: @amanda -- re. submissions; perhaps some knowledge management and/or business

informatics conference?

Rex Brooks: @Amanda: I am speaking at SemTech, and I believe I can work a mention of

the Ontology Summit and these various follow-up efforts as part of the context in which Semantic

Technology tools are developing.

Rex Brooks: @Amanda: I don't think specifically mentioning the results is a good connection, unless

you are actually presenting the results.

Amanda Vizedom: @Rex: Good to know. There are a few others from the Summit who will be speaking as

well, and if the proposal is accepted, the plan is to draw from that presences/support. It was a

late submission, however, and I really have no idea whether it is likely to be selected. But I think

it would be good to make such a presentation - between the communique and the gory details, as

Pierre suggests. So, I think it's worth thinking about other gatherings of potentially interested people.

Pierre Grenon: @amanda -- re. propaganda paper - happy to read any draft whenever they come if that helps

Amanda Vizedom: @Pierre - Count on being held to that!

Eric Lindahl: @PeterYim Thanks! @RexBrooks The market is moving more towards RESTful systems (which

subsume many web services) which is design by *convention* NOT by *contract*. This is opposed to

proving or even negotiating metadata by ontology

Rex Brooks: @Eric: A lot of RESTful applicatons are gaining traction but I wouldn't put all my eggs

in any one basket. It's a horses for courses world.

Rex Brooks: In a world of emergency management and law enforcement information exchange by contract

only will remain the case where necessary.

Eric Lindahl: @RexBrooks Having just read a 'large' government RFP, it was pushing towards RESTful.

EMF is essentially a RESTful technology. However, I do agree.

Rex Brooks: I suspect RESTful will find a receptive audience in the cloud computing world that is

developing, and we need it in the portion of the information spectrum that allows public input and

can aid immensely in emergency response.

Eric Lindahl: @RexBrooks I have some experience with HBase and Cassandra, which require little to

  • no* pre-designed schema. Need a new attribute for 1 specific row, add it. No ontology required.

[ref. Arturo's suggestion of putting together a ontology education resources repository]

Eric Lindahl: This opencourseware idea is excellent.

Pierre Grenon: re. 'open source': nice if that happens, everybody should be encouraged to put their

material out. very useful from the community would be a public domain template curricular structure

against which institution specific outputs may be checked

Rex Brooks: @Arturo: Linked Open Data between registry participants could be very valuable.

Eric Lindahl: I would like to see a code.google.com project where we can check in these artifacts,

as Rex suggests.

Peter P. Yim: @Arturo ... please consider using OOR as part of your infrastructure for the "Ontology

Education and Training Registry" initiative

Rex Brooks: @Peter: I agree, combining OOR with Linked Open Data could be extremely valuable.

Arturo Sanchez: @RexBrooks: Thanks for the suggestion

Arturo Sanchez: @PeterYim: thanks, Peter ... Noted!

Steve Ray: Can someone provide a reference to SCORM (?) or other metadata?

[ ref.: Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharable_Content_Object_Reference_Model ]

Eric Lindahl: @SteveRay the first 5 google links are fairly good. US government uses SCORM quite a

bit (I've found Moodle a huge PITA, IMHO)

Eric Lindahl: Perhaps I will take it upon my self in May to create a code.google.com project (or

equivalent) where I'll check in whatever artifacts come across the 'Ontolog' desk.

Rex Brooks: @Eric: I'd be happy to check it out and use whatever I can and suggest it to the groups I work with.

Eric Lindahl: by sandbox, what is Peter referring to? Not Protege?

Rex Brooks: @Eric: I missed that. There's a sandbox in the wiki where people new to using the Ontolog

wiki can learn how to use it, but he may have been referring to something more generic.

Peter P. Yim: @Eric - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository ... the OOR

sandbox is (currently) based on the NCBO BioPortal codebase - see: http://oor-01.cim3.net/ontologies

Rex Brooks: @Peter: Ahh, yes!

Peter P. Yim: @Eric - not Protege (which is an ontology development platform) BioPortal is more of a

repository for users to "share" their ontologies (after they are developed)

Eric Lindahl: @PeterYim Thanks. I'm hoping for something like 'hg clone

http://code.google.com/p/boot-ontolog/' I'll see what I can do. Thanks again.

anonymous3 morphed into Dagobert Soergel

Dagobert Soergel: Metadata for educational materials

  • Learning objects (instructional materials):
    • The Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM) -

http://www.thegateway.org/about/documentation/metadataElements

    • Learning Technology Standards Committee of the IEEE -

http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf

    • IMS Global: IMS learning resource meta-data information model. (September 2001) -

httP;//www.imsproject.org/metadata/

    • Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. DCMI Education Working Group -

http://dublincore.org/groups/education/ (not much concrete to see there)

    • CRP Henri Tudor-CITI: Training Exchange Definition: TED. -

http://www.xml.org/xml/schema/8dbca03a/trainingExchangeDefinition.pdf (July 2002)

Antony Galton: I'm afraid I have to go now. Hope to see some of you at FOIS!

Peter P. Yim: Thank you Antony ... see you at FOIS!

Arturo Sanchez: @AntonyGalton: me too

Pierre Grenon: Could there be a notion that the programmes contemplated could perhaps become pilots

for the summit or the IAOA? This could drive the definition of programmes but also could serve as

references when trying to achieve similar things in places that are less aware of ontology at the

moment.

Peter P. Yim: Now brainstorming on "suggestions for 2011 Ontology Summit" ... please make sure you

document ALL suggestions into this chat-board (as we will need to look through these suggestions

again later in the year when we actually start organizing OntologySummit-2011

Eric Lindahl: My suggestion: Tools & Technologies. This is where the 'rubber meets the road'. IOW

where I work everyday.

Eric Lindahl: I second 'OntologyFest'

Rex Brooks: I would suggest "Applications and Tools for Practical Ontology" or "Ontology in the

Enterprise"?

Eric Lindahl: With EMF you can use the 'Ontology' right away.

Rex Brooks: I think Case Studies and a Hackathon at the face-to-face might be helpful.

Michael Grüninger: Address the question -- how are the methodologies, tools, and environments for

ontological engineering different from those for software engineering?

Eric Lindahl: In support of Arturo, I suggest systems like QVT or ATL

Peter P. Yim: please propose some "Themes" worthy of a *Summit*

Peter P. Yim: question we should ask ... by end this year ... what would be the *most* strategic issue

that this field (of ontology) should be addressing?

Rex Brooks: My thinking is that it naturally follows training new ontologists, that we look at what

they would actually be doing at work?

Arturo Sanchez: For the record. The two recommendations I voiced are: (1) Examples of systems for

which the use of ontology technology was successful and otherwise; (2) Sessions similar to

design-fest and "code-fest" from OOPSLA, which in our case would be hands-on sessions on the

design/use/testing/integration/etc of ontologies. I think this can be combined with the

Michael Grüninger suggestion.

Fabian Neuhaus: suggesting the topic: "Ontology Modularity"

Pierre Grenon: theme: good ontology

Eric Lindahl: @PierreGrenon implied 'Ontology of Utility'

Pierre Grenon: @eric: not sure I follow

Amanda Vizedom: "Ontology Practices in Context" or something, meaning: collecting info on, and

developing some collective understanding of, how ontology practices (both actual and best) vary with

elements of context such as application type, developer community, user community, large goals

(monetization vs. decision support, reuse vs. one-time-need)...

Eric Lindahl: Good is a utility function. Applies to decision support, marketing etc.

Rex Brooks: the problem with word "good" is the difference between useful (utility) versus

effectiveness (value to user for achieving objectives).

Eric Lindahl: To say 'good(Ontology) range [0..1)' (assuming it's unit). I prefer DS or rational

Rex Brooks: That's actually a valid question for an ontology of meanings.

Peter P. Yim: please also think of "involving another community" - like OntologySummit2009 when we got

the ontology and the standards communities to get together

Michael Grüninger: @Peter -- yes, bringing the ontological engineering and software engineering

together -- that is in the direction that I was thinking

Arturo Sanchez: @Peter-and-Michael: I like very much the idea!

Rex Brooks: @Michael & Peter: Me, too.

Peter P. Yim: something that is important for the two communities, as Michael suggested, bringing

together the ontology community and the software engineering community

Michael Grüninger: Ontological engineering can learn about methodologies and best practices from

Software Engineering, while Software Engineering can learn about how software integration and

model-directed architectures can be supported by the application of high quality ontologies

Rex Brooks: I think using Case Studies: successful and not is very useful for engaging other

communities like software engineering, but I wouldn't focus on SE alone. The domains that SE deals

with are equally important as end users.

Amanda Vizedom: In a way, my suggestion could integrate Pierre's (good ontology) and Arturo's (what

has worked where? & design-fest) and would have to incorporate draw from evaluation / standards.

Pierre Grenon: @Fabian: I agree this is a topic that could cause troubles

Rex Brooks: @Peter: that's what I was aiming for, combining standards for ontology and standards that

use ontologies as representations in the practical world: Case Studies.

Eric Lindahl: I submit that Utility is a better and more tractable subject, than whether a given

ontology is better than another. That presumes too much, IMHO.

Rex Brooks: @Eric: agreed!

Amanda Vizedom: @Peter - I also think the "practice in context" idea inherently brings in other communities.

anonymous morphed into JulitaBermejoAlonso

Pierre Grenon: well it could be purpose / context oriented. No absolute norms of q

Pierre Grenon: but good for a purpose. We could then include application and tool developers

Eric Lindahl: Specifically, perhaps, SizeOf is a better quality measure than Good. E.g. Equivalence

partition on KolmogorovComplexity(Ontology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

Eric Lindahl: I disagree

Pierre Grenon: @amanda: yep, that sounds very good, but hard

Amanda Vizedom: To put my suggestion differently: We know that we have differences in views on

Methodology. Can we discover relationships between methodologies used, application/community, and

success? I think so, and it gives a way to make headway on quality & best practices without

searching for universally agreed upon, context-free principles.

Amanda Vizedom: @Pierre: Does it? It seems moderately hard but doable to me, because we could again

develop questions to elicit information to ground the discussion in. Harder to have nothing

empirical, I think, and more likely to degrade into ideological battles.

Pierre Grenon: it will be tricky to define a specific domain and less appealing to a general audience.

Amand's suggestion allows people from different domains to relate to the summit on the same level

Pierre Grenon: @amanda: I think the difficulty is primarily in diversity

Arturo Sanchez: All, I need to go now. Good session. Thank you for the feedback offered!

Dagobert Soergel: I suggest "making sense out of data" as a topic

Peter P. Yim: other possibilities is to bring together the "library science community and the ontology

community" ... another one, "enterprise architecture and ontology"

Eric Lindahl: Library science is a KR problem, right?

Rex Brooks: I wouldn't focus on any one other community, library science, software engineering, et al.

But I do think that if we did it well, it would be an opportunity to refine our skills at survey management.

Amanda Vizedom: @Peter - I guess I'm thinking about each of the cases you've suggested, plus a few --

but I'm either up a level or too impatient. Instead of delving deep into one of those pairings, I'd

like to look at the patterns. It would be natural for folks to do some deeper delving within the

pairings that might run parallel and beyond.

Peter P. Yim: @Amanda - not really - take a look at the case of OntologySummit2009 "Toward Ontology-based Standards"

(maybe we can't craft such a theme when putting other communities together with ontologists

Eric Lindahl: (aside, a scientist I worked with responded to my suggestion of ontology in software

with 'so you believe God is enumerable?')

Rex Brooks: @Eric: did you offer him an ontology of religiosity?

Rex Brooks: religiosity in software?

Eric Lindahl: @Rex we're just sorting bits in a finite string, is his point I believe.

Rex Brooks: @Eric: Ahh...

Amanda Vizedom: Perhaps one reason I think this is not harder is that I think the specific pairings

may assume uniformity that isn't there. It seems very probable to me that when you dig into any one

of these pairs, you find complexity that reflects the broader diversity.

Pierre Grenon: @amanda: yes, the risk is getting into fights, my proposal was too confrontational in

that respect, obviously people will disagree. If we start from what people do and what are their

requirements, we can perhaps have different answers of the practical utility of an ontological

approach.

Eric Lindahl: (everyone is shy all of a sudden)

Amanda Vizedom: Example: ontologies and libraries includes distinct activity- and interest- based

groups around search and retrieval, metadata and digital curation, text processing, ... more I think.

Eric Lindahl: And maybe get sponsors

Rex Brooks: @Eric: I think none of us is fond of saying things twice? Once written, twice shy.

Pierre Grenon: @amanda: too abstract, can you explain 'pairs'or give an example? (I'll be reading

upward meanwhile in case I missed something)

Pierre Grenon: oh nevermind

Eric Lindahl: I second Amanda's real world complexity POV

Eric Lindahl: General ontology design patterns for dealing with real world complexity in ontology development?

Pierre Grenon: @amanda: yes, "where can there be trade-offs" could be the theme

Eric Lindahl: Ontology design heuristics

Eric Lindahl: Does anyone use CLIPS or Flora-2 in ontology research?

Eric Lindahl: But actually they have sub-minimal ontological intersection?

Rex Brooks: I think Amanda's points can be addressed in the context of Ontology Applications and Tools:

(the domain considerations for best practices and methodologies can go in this explanatory passage.)

Doug Foxvog: The issue of people from different fields arguing, is often that they use the same terms

in different ways.

Doug Foxvog: This does not mean that either is wrong, they are labeling different concepts with the

same term.

Eric Lindahl: Semiotics (just had to say it)

JulitaBermejoAlonso: the ontology-based or ontology-driven label: what does it really mean?

Eric Lindahl: Thank you all!

Amanda Vizedom: I will try to make a clearer proposal offline.

Peter P. Yim: Thanks everyone

Eric Lindahl: So, that's the end of our Ontology party. Anyone need a ride home?

Peter P. Yim: One last time ... please endorse the Communique if you haven't already done so -

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_Communique and

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_Communique#nid2CUN

Peter P. Yim: -- session ended: 2010.04.15-12:15pm PDT --

-- end of chat session --

  • Further Question & Remarks - please post them to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv
    • if you are already subscribed, post to <ontology-summit [at] ontolog.cim3.net>
    • (if you are not yet subscribed) you may subscribe yourself to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv, by sending a blank email to <ontology-summit-join [at] ontolog.cim3.net> from your subscribing email address, and then follow the instructions you receive back from the mailing list system.

Audio Recording of this Session

  • To download the audio recording of the session, click here
    • the playback of the audio files require the proper setup, and an MP3 compatible player on your computer.
  • Conference Date and Time: 15-Apr-2010 10:36am ~ 12:15pm Pacific Daylight Time
  • Duration of Recording: 1 Hour 35 Minutes
  • Recording File Size: 10.8 MB (in mp3 format)
  • suggestion: its best that you listen to the session while having the [ presentation] opened in front of you. You'll be prompted to advance slides by the speaker.
  • Take a look, also, at the rich body of knowledge that this community has built together, over the years, by going through the archives of noteworthy past Ontolog events. (References on how to subscribe to our podcast can also be found there.)

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)



Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2010_04_15&oldid=322"