From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]

Contents

Ontology Summit 2016 Finance and Retail - Thu 2016-04-21     (1)

Abstract     (1B)

In this session, we will investigate various aspects of semantic interoperability in the area of retail and finance.     (1B1)

Agenda     (1C)

  • Introduction     (1C1)
  • Speakers     (1C2)
    • Cory Casanave - Conceptual modeling using SIMF Slides Slides in pptx format     (1C2A)
    • Elisa Kendall (Thematix Partners LLC) - Using Business Architecture and Semantics to Drive Data Quality Improvement in Banking Slides     (1C2B)
      • Abstract: Elisa Kendall of Thematix will present on the use of formal ontologies in data quality improvement at a systemically important European bank.     (1C2B1)
    • Mirek Sopek (Makolab)The Quest for meaning and trust on the Web - schema.org in Retail and Finance Slides     (1C2C)
    • Rebecca Tauber and Andrea Westerinen (Nine Points Solutions, LLC) Semantic Interoperability and Knowledge Engineering: Use of GoodRelations in a Climbing Gear Retail Ontology Slides Slides in pptx format     (1C2D)
      • Abstract: GoodRelations has existed since 2008 to aid businesses in describing their products and services on the web. However, many uses of GoodRelations are simply web-page extensions and the ontologies and individual definitions are not used beyond the page. But, what happens when you combine GoodRelations with a domain-specific ontology related to the products or services being exposed? The answer is improved customer experience and sales! You assist your customer by providing both advice and product/services recommendations. This presentation discusses a climbing gear ontology, which was created as an learning experience in knowledge engineering and ontology development. The climbing ontology is then integrated with GoodRelations to create both a customer- and business-oriented solution that can be used in several scenarios. In this talk, we overview the tie between knowledge engineering and semantic interoperability, and how we applied this in the development of the climbing gear ontology. We discuss the use of the ontology in three different application areas, and the development approach that we are using to realize the applications.     (1C2D1)

  • Dial-in:     (1D4)
    • Phone (US): +1 (425) 440-5100 ... (long distance cost may apply)     (1D4A)
    • Skype: join.conference (i.e. make a skype call to the contact with skypeID="join.conference") ... (generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer ... ref.)     (1D4B)
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758#     (1D4B1)
      • Unfamiliar with how to do this on Skype? ...     (1D4B2)
        • Add the contact "join.conference" to your skype contact list first. To participate in the teleconference, make a skype call to "join.conference", then open the dial pad (see platform-specific instructions below) and enter the Conference ID: 843758# when prompted.     (1D4B2A)
      • Can't find Skype Dial pad? ...     (1D4B3)
        • for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"     (1D4B3A)
        • for Linux Skype users: please note that the dial-pad is only available on v4.1 (or later; or on the earlier Skype versions 2.x,) if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. ... (ref.)     (1D4B3B)
    • instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field from "anonymous" to your real name, like "JaneDoe").     (1D5A)
    • 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.     (1D5B)
    • 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) summit_20160421@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!     (1D5C)
  • Discussions and Q & A:     (1D6)
    • Nominally, when a presentation is in progress, the moderator will mute everyone, except for the speaker.     (1D6A)
    • To un-mute, press "*7" ... To mute, press "*6" (please mute your phone, especially if you are in a noisy surrounding, or if you are introducing noise, echoes, etc. into the conference line.)     (1D6B)
    • we will usually save all questions and discussions till after all presentations are through. You are encouraged to jot down questions onto the chat-area in the mean time (that way, they get documented; and you might even get some answers in the interim, through the chat.)     (1D6C)
    • During the Q&A / discussion segment (when everyone is muted), If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please raise your hand (virtually) by clicking on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the session moderator (again, press "*7" on your phone to un-mute). 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 "*6" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)     (1D6D)
  • RSVP to gruninger@mie.utoronto.ca with your affiliation appreciated, ... or simply just by adding yourself to the "Expected Attendee" list below (if you are a member of the community already.)     (1D8)
  • This session, like all other Ontolog events, is open to the public. Information relating to this session is shared on this wiki page.     (1D9)
  • Please note that this session may be recorded, and if so, the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content, along with the proceedings of the call to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.     (1D10)

Attendees     (1E)

Proceedings     (1F)

[12:48] RaviSharma: Cory - does the domain on slide 5 imply subject domain for Semantic Modeling or the domain of SIMF only?     (1F2)

[12:53] RaviSharma: Cory - are the relationship types that distinguish you from RDBMS? Also why could those be not done in OWL?     (1F3)

[12:54] ToddSchneider: How is 'context' represented?     (1F4)

[12:55] Russell Reinsch: Great talk Cory     (1F5)

[12:56] RaviSharma: Cory - Is metaclass Dependency the set of relationships (types also) allowed?     (1F6)

[12:57] ToddSchneider: Cory, why UML at all?     (1F8)

[12:58] ToddSchneider: Why not use concept maps?     (1F9)

[12:58] Donna Fritzsche: were other graphical tools considered? Which ones     (1F10)

[12:59] ToddSchneider: Cory, how is 'context' represented?     (1F11)

[13:01] Donna Fritzsche: I would love to see a more detailed demo/discussion at some point! I am very interested and hopeful about this standard.     (1F12)

[13:02] Elisa Kendall: A number of languages, including SBVR, have combined ontology concepts with the language itself, which has proven to make the language less useful. Can you comment on that?     (1F13)

[13:03] AndreaWesterinen: We need to keep to the times to get all the talks in.     (1F14)

[13:03] AndreaWesterinen: Can we defer more questions to the end?     (1F15)

[13:04] MikeBennett: Yes, ideally 15 min for th talk + 5 min Q and A so we are now 3 ins over.     (1F16)

[13:04] Elisa Kendall: Fine with me -- I'll try to run through some of my slides quickly.     (1F17)

[13:04] MikeBennett: We'll take Elisa's question and then move on     (1F18)

[13:04] AndreaWesterinen: I have a hard stop by 2:15, so I am a bit worried.     (1F19)

[13:05] MikeBennett: Shall we put you on next?     (1F20)

[13:05] AndreaWesterinen: We can go with Elisa.     (1F21)

[13:06] ToddSchneider: Cory, the explicit representation of (some portion of) 'context' (to constrain interpretation) is very interesting!     (1F22)

[13:07] MikeBennett: SBVR = Semantics for Business Vocabularies and Business Rules     (1F23)

[13:08] RaviSharma: Todd and Cory - thanks, I agree it is important - shall we say pre positioning the interoperability!     (1F24)

[13:08] Mark Underwood: @Mike, thx for the lookup     (1F25)

[13:08] Donna Fritzsche: are we recording?     (1F26)

[13:09] Mark Underwood: Cory - Can u recommend anything written on your take on SBVR?     (1F27)

[13:09] Donna Fritzsche: this is a great conversation     (1F28)

[13:11] RaviSharma: Cory and Todd - can we work offline to generate a process for context before interoperation?     (1F29)

[13:11] CoryCasanave: Ravi, would be happy to work with this group. -COry     (1F30)

[13:12] ToddSchneider: Ravi, "... a process for context ..."???     (1F31)

[13:15] RaviSharma: Elissa -We find data governance works mostly well within a system or sub-agency but not among standards enforcer (regulatory) or across enterprise. do you think so?     (1F32)

[13:17] ToddSchneider: Elisa, 'P/L' == Profit/Loss?     (1F33)

[13:21] RaviSharma: Elissa - how different is Business logical from Conceptual or subject area data modeling concepts?     (1F34)

[13:22] Mark Underwood: Slightly offtopic - Anyone aware of ontology-based governance or analytics apps with the SEC trading app http://www.sec.gov/marketstructure/midas.html#.VxkLrfkrKUk     (1F35)

[13:22] Mark Underwood: @Todd P/L, yes     (1F36)

[13:24] Mark Underwood: - suffix to my offtopic Q - or the SEC Consolidated Audit Trail project http://www.catnmsplan.com/     (1F37)

[13:25] AndreaWesterinen: Elisa - What kind of policy docs are you analyzing? What tooling? GATE or something else?     (1F38)

[13:25] RaviSharma: Elisa - are you tracking the current value of collaterals?     (1F39)

[13:27] ChristiKapp: I have found a product called Rochade Enterprise Metadata Repository to be very useful in developing documentation of the connections between terminology terms, and between terminology and technology that has been implemented (e.g. database schemas, business objects universes, informatica, class diagrams, etc )     (1F40)

[13:27] RaviSharma: Elisa - how different was the vocabulary for this EU bank as compared to FIBO or SBVR?     (1F41)

[13:28] Donna Fritzsche: Thanks for the reference Christi.     (1F42)

[13:31] RaviSharma: Elisa - how much different the vocabulary would be if it was also filtered through Controlled Natural Language?     (1F43)

[13:32] RaviSharma: Elisa - thanks for some of responses.     (1F45)

[13:34] MikeBennett: @Ravi we will pick up the remaining questions later - i was concerned about time a we had spent longer on Cory's Q and A then we scheduled.     (1F46)

[13:39] MikeBennett: @Mirek you seem to identify ontology and vocabulary as being the same thing. In other literature they are very different things, so please could you Clarify how you see these in the context of Semantic Web?     (1F47)

[13:47] Donna Fritzsche: @mirek - Can you expand on how you think about and implement Alignment? (for instance between FIBO/Schema terms.     (1F48)

[13:47] Mark Underwood: The VW incident deserves a deeper dive - IMHO more than just data or ontology - would be interesting for Summit conceptual walkthrough     (1F49)

[13:48] RaviSharma: Mirek - how is intelligence built into vocabularies? through domain vocabularies or in the terms definitions only?     (1F50)

[13:48] MikeBennett: Slide Infinity     (1F51)

[13:48] Russell Reinsch: Great talk Elisa     (1F52)

[13:48] Russell Reinsch: Great talk Mirek too     (1F54)

[13:48] Donna Fritzsche: @mike - +1 to your question and I also would refer folks to the 2007 Summit - where they presented some views that I don't think all would agree with - but I tend to agree with.     (1F55)

[13:48] Mirek Sopek: thanks !     (1F56)

[13:51] Mark Underwood: (Mirek discussed connection between Google Search adoption / latency in use of schema.org)     (1F57)

[13:55] MikeBennett: Topics to pick up after all 4 talks will include ontology v vocabulary, integration / interoperability matters, concept v data, alignment etc.     (1F58)

[13:55] Donna Fritzsche: @mirek/mike - for alignment, are you using crosswalks? or a more complex mapping?     (1F59)

[13:56] Donna Fritzsche: Good Relations reference: http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/     (1F60)

[14:00] Mirek Sopek: BTW, Martin Hepp - author of GoodRelations was very active in auto.schema.org and fibo.schema.org  !!! what is more GoodRelations is the base of schema.org e-commerce vocabulary     (1F61)

[14:00] ChristiKapp: @Andrea. You mentioned 'buying incompatible stuff' in context of climbing gear. Is there a concept of "fitment" between the products and the brands, or the products and other products?     (1F62)

[14:01] AndreaWesterinen: Christi, I will talk about this in a bit. Let me know if I don't completely answer your question.     (1F63)

[14:01] ChristiKapp: sure     (1F64)

[14:04] Mirek Sopek: @Donna, as I said - in most cases the mapping was fairly simple and was based on human readable descriptions in schema.org to make sure that the meaning is close to that in FIBO. There were some over dimensions of alignment, like the actual name of the type or property. However, it was not an alignment in the proper "ontological" sense of the word     (1F65)

[14:05] Mirek Sopek: See http://sdo-fibo.appspot.com/FinancialProduct for the typical case ...     (1F66)

[14:06] Donna Fritzsche: Here is a question - I am one who finds OWL overly complicated for a variety of reasons, I would rather use a good OO language or even something link CLIPS/ART/OPS to model what was just described. If you remove the Open World assumption? why is OWL preferred by so many? I am trying to understand it, but I still dont. (This is part of the reason that I like SIMF)     (1F67)

[14:06] Donna Fritzsche: Here is a CLIPS reference: http://clipsrules.sourceforge.net/WhatIsCLIPS.html     (1F68)

[14:07] Donna Fritzsche: OO languages I would like for this type of work - Lisp, Objective-C, Smalltalk, Java     (1F69)

[14:08] Mirek Sopek: @Donna - will certainly look into CLIPS ...     (1F70)

[14:10] Donna Fritzsche: For metadata specification/schema - I think that MLR proides a great spec. he ISO/IEC 19788 standard is intended to provide optimal compatibility with both DC and the LOM and supports multilingual and cultural adaptability requirements from a global perspective. The standard has two primary purposes:     (1F71)

facilitate the identification and specification of the metadata elements required to describe a learning resource by providing metadata elements and their attributes support search, discovery, acquisition, evaluation, and use of learning resources by learners, instructors or automated software processes.     (1F72)

[14:12] RaviSharma: Rebecca - is GR vocabulary shared by other domains and is it a generic collection and classes and domains do a sub-setting from it?     (1F74)

[14:12] Donna Fritzsche: I also like SKOS     (1F75)

[14:15] Mark Underwood: comment: wow, CLIPS still around?     (1F76)

[14:16] RaviSharma: Andrea and Rebecca - thanks.     (1F77)

[14:16] ToddSchneider: Donna, why OWL, the use of a reasoner.     (1F78)

[14:16] Donna Fritzsche: Mirek- also check out MLR, they did a great job of specifiying a class-based metadata standard with agreed upon definitions. It took them along time - and I dont know if they ever got traction.     (1F79)

[14:17] ChristiKapp: @Andrea - This is very interesting work. In addition to 'what to buy' - also things about 'how to repair' might be interesting to model into this.     (1F80)

[14:18] Donna Fritzsche: You get reasoners with other tools - CLIPS and handwritten reasoners in other tools. I dont find that to be a limiter.     (1F81)

[14:19] ToddSchneider: Donna, okay. I'm not familiar with CLIPS.     (1F82)

[14:21] Mark Underwood: @Leo - Do you have a take on Donna's Q?     (1F83)

[14:21] BobbinTeegarden: OWL choice imho is the plethora of good (...) tools     (1F84)

[14:22] MikeBennett: Why OWL as a syntax versus why ontology versus terminology, vocabulary and so on.     (1F85)

[14:23] MikeBennett: Inference only makes sense when there is underlying logic     (1F86)

[14:23] Jim Logan: As a simpler notation for ontologies, you should check out the Cameo Concept Modeler. It reads and writes OWL, but uses business-friendly graphics.     (1F87)

[14:23] Jim Logan: It is a growing subset of SIMF.     (1F88)

[14:23] Elisa Kendall: @Christi -- our client is currently using an IBM product as their metadata repository for linking their models, software artifacts, and performing data lineage, and a crude sharepoint server for document management at the moment. We're attempting to move them to something more sophisticated, possibly Ontotext or something else, but the Stardog solution for the moment is at least a stop gap to show them what's possible.     (1F89)

[14:24] Mark Underwood: @Elisa Can u name IBM's tool?     (1F90)

[14:25] Mark Underwood: @Mike - yes, the biz analyst transform is a key feature     (1F92)

[14:25] LeoObrst: @MarkUnderwood: CLIPS was superseded by JESS (Java Expert System Shell). All expert/production systems are rule-based with no ontologies, with origins in the 1980s. Some tools (e.g., Protege) had JESS extensions so that you could use the rules with ontologies. Rule-based systems now include many other kinds: DROOLS, JBoss, etc. And these are typically forward-chaining rule systems (typically based on Rete algorithm). However, logic programming is an alternative, i.e., Prolog, ASB.     (1F93)

[14:26] ToddSchneider: The question should be what do you need to accomplish? OWL might be a reasonable solution, Common Logic may be a better one.     (1F94)

[14:27] LeoObrst: My phone died. No audio.     (1F95)

[14:27] Mark Underwood: @Leo - Thanks. Wondering if u were in agreement w/ Michael's take on OWL     (1F96)

[14:27] Donna Fritzsche: The commercial OPS-family tools provided the abilities to create classes with attributes, axiom-like constraints, etc.     (1F97)

[14:28] ToddSchneider: Donna, what does 'OPS' mean?     (1F98)

[14:28] Mark Underwood: @becky + Andrea - cool use of graphml + yEd     (1F99)

[14:28] LeoObrst: I don't know what Michael said.     (1F100)

[14:29] Donna Fritzsche: Rete algrorithm,, forward and backward chaining systems. They are still logic-based (maybe not as pure - the Phds can correct me on this! - We need Pat Hayes here!).     (1F101)

[14:29] LeoObrst: OPS, KEE, ART are all expert systems originating in 1980s.     (1F102)

[14:29] ChristiKapp: @Elisa - thanks. corporate metadata can be challenging to maintain - constant sales process of benefits until executives understan benefits     (1F103)

[14:30] Mark Underwood: @becky + Andrea - cool use of graphml + yEd => Powerpoint slide ?     (1F104)

[14:30] Donna Fritzsche: The OPS family grew out of efforts at CMU - they created rule engines based on Rete algroithm, etc.     (1F105)

[14:30] Elisa Kendall: @Mark The IBM tooling they are using is called Information Governance Catalog, which is part of the Information Server suite of tools.     (1F106)

[14:31] LeoObrst: @DonnaFritzsche: most expert systems are not logic-based, but some nowadays are, if you keep to specific kinds of rules. The old expert systems were globally side-effecting, and for negation (negative rules) you would often have to hack the agenda mechanism (which determined which rules fired, in what order). Ontologies are an advance over expert systems.     (1F107)

[14:32] RaviSharma: Mirek - please comment on Intelligence in VOcabularies when and if you can?     (1F108)

[14:33] Elisa Kendall: @Donna -- The OWL language is a member of a family of logic languages called description logics -- they are really good at classification, far better than rete algorithms, but as I just mentioned, a combination of classification based reasoning and a more traditional rete approach is what we're using with other tools to support analytics.     (1F109)

[14:34] Donna Fritzsche: Elisa - I think you just hit the nail on the head for me - and what I have been discovering - The DLs are really good at classification.     (1F110)

[14:34] RaviSharma: Thanks all especially Mike and Michael     (1F111)

[14:34] MikeBennett: Registration page will be up shortly for the face to face.     (1F112)

[14:34] RaviSharma: What is the conference Michael?     (1F113)

Audio Recording     (1G)