From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]
Session Planning
Duration 1.5 hour90 minute
5,400 second
0.0625 day
Date/Time Sep 27 2017 16:00 GMT
9:00am PDT/12:00pm EDT
6:00pm CEST/5:00pm BST
Convener KenBaclawski


Ontology Summit 2018 Third Research Session     (2)

Abstract and Agenda     (2A)

In this session, JohnSowa will continue the discussion from last week, Representing and Reasoning about Contexts The slides from last week are at Previous Slides. The new slides are at Slides. Pat Hayes' website for IKL GUIDE is     (2A1)

Conference Call Information     (2B)

    • 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").     (2B5A)
    • 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.     (2B5B)
  • This session, like all other Ontolog events, is open to the public. Information relating to this session is shared on this wiki page.     (2B6)
  • 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.     (2B7)

Attendees     (2C)

Proceedings     (2D)

[12:07] David Whitten: Hello one and all.     (2D1)

[12:07] ToddSchneider: Hello David. Great notes.     (2D2)

[12:11] David Whitten: Thanks. I'm trying to connect to John's talk right now is:     (2D3)

[12:14] ChristiKapp: sorry - I am here but my audio is broken     (2D4)

[12:14] ToddSchneider: David, yes.     (2D5)

[12:14] ChristiKapp: It is ok - no question right now     (2D6)

[12:15] David Whitten: So, where is the written model theory for Common Logic that Pat made? and/or the IKL ?     (2D7)

[12:16] David Whitten: Where would the Situation Theory Ontology be ?     (2D8)

[12:17] David Whitten: Ken says that Situation Theory by Barwise exists in the form of an ontology, some of his students have used it     (2D9)

[12:20] ChristiKapp: I remember my question from last week . I was interested in the example about the child and the toys. Specifically in that situation there seemed to also be context provided by human senses such as sight, smell, touch, etc. how does input from those senses contribute to text-based context?     (2D10)

[12:23] David Whitten: ChristiKapp thinks people may be working on Contexts without using the name "Contexts"     (2D11)

[12:23] ChristiKapp: @David Whitten - yes     (2D12)

[12:24] David Whitten: Ken says there is an annual conference called "Contexts" but it doesn't appear to have a strong overlap with Ontolog community. There is also an annual conference on Situation Theory with overlaps with Context too.     (2D13)

[12:25] David Whitten: ChristiKapp some terms are "systems of Systems" or "Agility" or ...     (2D14)

[12:26] ToddSchneider: The relation among 'frame of reference' and context?     (2D15)

[12:29] ChristiKapp: DavidWhidden Here is an example - - Gabriele Randelli     (2D16)

[12:30] David Whitten: Todd feels that Type Theory may provide a way of handling the logical issues with Contexts.     (2D17)

[12:32] ToddSchneider: Has anyone ever been in a non-physical context?     (2D18)

[12:33] David Whitten: So "Bill" in (that (Married Bill Sue)) may be a referent, or an indexical (linguistic idea) or having a meaning function defined.     (2D19)

[12:34] Gary Berg-Cross: If you think of the triangle of meaning there is a context for each of the 3 vertices of the triangle and a context of each vertex/node is provided by the relation with the other 2 nodes.     (2D20)

[12:34] ToddSchneider: What is the relation(s) among reification and context?     (2D21)

[12:34] David Whitten: Married might be defined by "common knowledge" or a salient assumption on a micro theory.     (2D22)

[12:36] Gary Berg-Cross: You're welcome     (2D23)

[12:37] David Whitten: A useful IKL "trick" would redefine the "Not" in a module such as in the example on page 27.     (2D24)

[12:38] David Whitten: Todd asks: What are the problems with defining context when developing an ontology. as with issues of defining sufficient amounts of your context so that your rules make sense.     (2D25)

[12:38] David Whitten: Ken asks: Does the "that" construction form a kind of reification ?     (2D26)

[12:39] David Whitten: Ken suggests simple reification may not have significance in RDF     (2D27)

[12:41] David Whitten: Todd suggests OWL and RDF are the least powerful languages. Is there a hierarchy of formulations which would allow for a limiting action using a contexts ? It is important to explain purpose to the adopters or re-users of the ontology.     (2D28)

[12:42] RaviSharma: ordinary reification is associating an object with an idea or emotion? Is that right? if so what would be the context in RDF? relations between idea and symbolism?     (2D29)

[12:43] David Whitten: Christi suggests when you change the context you need to identify what the previous context held.     (2D30)

[12:43] David Whitten: Making context explicit may require self-examination.     (2D31)

[12:43] David Whitten: Christi says interoperability and re-use are good reasons to use Ontologies.     (2D32)

[12:44] David Whitten: Todd add that knowledge representation also is a good reason to use an Ontology.     (2D33)

[12:44] RaviSharma: Todd KR would provide canvas for describing context?     (2D34)

[12:44] David Whitten: Christi suggests that Re-use may exist even with a single author over time looking at old models/ontologies.     (2D35)

[12:45] ChristiKapp: DavidWhtten - That is Janet talking     (2D36)

[12:45] David Whitten: Todd suggests KR in information systems supports reasoning or making decisions.     (2D37)

[12:46] David Whitten: Janet suggests that communication is an third reason to use an ontology.     (2D38)

[12:47] David Whitten: Doug asks (previously) can you set up an ontology that changes meaning when you change contexts ?     (2D39)

[12:47] RaviSharma: ontology can also describe different contexts (say temporal events)     (2D40)

[12:48] David Whitten: Doug=DougMiles     (2D41)

[12:49] ToddSchneider: Isn't an interpretation (for which there may be more than one) that's the final arbiter.     (2D42)

[12:49] David Whitten: Ravi suggests that an ontology may cover a group of contexts, perhaps a different context that currently applies to the current position if you have an ontology that covers the moving object.     (2D43)

[12:50] David Whitten: Ken points to (forall (x) (= (Not x) (that (not (x)) ))     (2D44)

[12:50] Gary Berg-Cross: I would think that Pat Hayes wouldn't agree that there is a 1-to-1 relation of context to an ontology. As he said there are at least 4 perspectives. There is no 1 thing of a context.     (2D45)

[12:51] David Whitten: Todd asks how we know what substitutions have occurred. Is this an interpretation? An interpretation is mapping into a domain. Explicit knowledge may embed a context. Expectations and implicit assumptions during the development of the ontology may not be extant when using the ontology or applying it.     (2D46)

[12:52] Gary Berg-Cross: Work needed, - A vocabulary to discuss context? John started us on this....But it is hard to keep to it in our discussions. Maybe by Summit end we will have made progress.     (2D47)

[12:52] David Whitten: Ravi a model may fail when your assumptions break.     (2D48)

[12:53] David Whitten: Ken if you allow an ontology to have multiple contexts, you need some way to talk about variables coming in.     (2D49)

[12:53] David Whitten: Common Logic allows one to import an ontology into another ontology, and to specify which constants in the incoming module are variables when it is imported.     (2D50)

[12:55] ToddSchneider: Hans Polzer has agreed to provide a talk on context and context shifting (from an operational perspective).     (2D51)

[12:55] David Whitten: Pat Hayes has created a catalog of Time Ontologies which may be relevant to specifying a context for a given ontology.     (2D52)

[13:00] ToddSchneider: Possible tracks for the summit??: Formalization of Context; Ontology Development & Context; Ontology Reuse/Interoperability & Context; Ontology Interpretations & Context     (2D53)

[13:04] David Whitten: Question for Common Logic Cognoscenti: does CL provide for functions as well as relations.     (2D54)

[13:05] David Whitten: Semantics for CLIF :     (2D55)

[13:06] ToddSchneider: Have to go.     (2D56)

[13:09] Gary Berg-Cross: When ODPs are created we talk about aligning them to alternate upper level or reference ontologies. This is an approach to handle data heterogeneity. We have had some talks at previous summits about this.     (2D57)

[13:14] David Whitten: Ken suggests that Situation Theory has many situations and relationships between situations.     (2D58)

[13:19] janet singer1: got it     (2D59)

[13:22] David Whitten: Janet suggests we are having multiple use of Contexts, when developing, when using them, when time passes, etc. She also suggests if we don't use contexts by adding them as part of formalizing an ontology we could have more problems.     (2D60)

[13:22] janet singer1: Another possible track to add to Todd's: Handling Multiplication of Contexts - guidelines and heuristics     (2D61)

[13:27] Gary Berg-Cross: Will miss next week's call. Will be at Open Knowledge Network community meeting (October 4-5, 2017) at NIH in Bethesda, MD     (2D62)

[13:29] KenBaclawski: The meeting is adjourned. Next week's meeting is Contexts for Medical Decision Making.     (2D63)

[13:29] KenBaclawski: David Whitten is the speaker.     (2D64)

[13:31] janet singer1: I will also miss next week to be at NASA's Nature-Inspired Exploration for Aerospace biomimicry summit. This context discussion is very promising - thanks     (2D65)

[13:31] RaviSharma: janet good topic     (2D66)

[13:35] KenBaclawski: It would be nice to advertise next week's talk more in the medical informatics community.     (2D67)

[14:03] RaviSharma: John described no-ary and FOL terms and RDF etc. wish it were recorded!     (2D68)

[14:04] RaviSharma: name to a proposition left paren equals     (2D69)

[14:05] RaviSharma: Ken what is context in ontology     (2D70)

[14:05] RaviSharma: (=x( ... is name of theory?     (2D71)

[14:05] RaviSharma: Ist operator?     (2D72)

[14:07] RaviSharma: any name in CL is used as variable and bound to environment in that theory     (2D73)

[14:08] RaviSharma: in x all free names are assumed to be bound to that environment.     (2D74)

[14:08] RaviSharma: John gave Java, PL1 language examples.     (2D75)

[14:08] RaviSharma: Global names     (2D76)

[14:09] RaviSharma: prog name of program passing parameters and all global variable are evaluated.     (2D77)

Resources     (2E)

Previous Meetings     (2F)

Next Meetings     (2G)