From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]
Session Planning
Duration 1.5 hour90 minute
5,400 second
0.0625 day
Date/Time Nov 01 2017 16:00 GMT
9:00am PDT/12:00pm EDT
5:00pm CEST/4:00pm GMT
Convener KenBaclawski


Ontology Summit 2018 Contexts for Integration and Interoperability     (2)

Abstract and Agenda     (2A)

In this session, the various threads of the previous sessions will be used to select the tracks of the summit.     (2A1)

Note that the US is still on Summer Time while Europe has switched to standard time. So the meeting will be one hour earlier than usual in Europe. This anomalous situation will only occur for this meeting. Next week both the US and Europe have switched to standard time.     (2A2)

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)

Proposed Summit Organization     (2C)

  • Summit organization will consist of an introductory session, tracks, synthesis sessions, and communiqué sessions.     (2C1)
  • The introduction will be convened by John Sowa with one speaker from each track, with at most 12 minutes including questions. Ken Baclawski will be responsible for strictly enforcing the time limit. The whole session will last 2 hours.     (2C2)
  • Potential tracks (1 session per track, except for the Domain specific track, not necessarily in the order shown here):     (2C3)
    • Upper ontologies for specifying context (Solution POV)     (2C3A)
    • Domain specific needs for context (Problem POV) Track with 2 sessions, potentially (but not limited to) the following:     (2C3B)
      • System realization as a context for ontologies: Need for harmonization of diverse semantics/conceptualizations (Problem POV)     (2C3B1)
      • Medical decision making as a context for ontologies (Problem POV)     (2C3B2)
    • Microtheory vs upper ontology (Solution POV)     (2C3C)
    • Deductive contexts (Solution POV)     (2C3D)
    • Linguistic contexts (Problem POV)     (2C3E)
    • Contexts in the Open Knowledge Network (Solution POV)     (2C3F)
    • Contexts in the Pragmatic Web (Solution POV)     (2C3G)
    • Contexts for Integration and Interoperability (Problem POV)     (2C3H)
  • This has 4 Problem POV sessions and 5 Solution POV sessions.     (2C4)
  • The total number of sessions is 1 intro, 9 track sessions, 2 synthesis, 2 communiqué, for a total of 14.     (2C5)
  • If we start on 1/17, then the last session will be on 4/18.     (2C6)
  • This gives us about 2.3 months after next week's session for speakers to be invited and for the speakers to prepare their introductory talks.     (2C7)
  • The product (communiqué and any supplementary materials) will be a collection of guidelines for contexts.     (2C8)

Attendees     (2D)

Proceedings     (2E)

[11:36] JackRing: Douglas, Are you on line?     (2E1)

[11:58] AlexShkotin: Hi Ken.     (2E2)

[11:59] AlexShkotin: Sorry I don't have microphone today/     (2E3)

[12:17] Donna Fritzsche: agreed with Cory - on acknowledging Domain needs     (2E4)

[12:17] RaviSharma: Ken I added Follow on Discussion and have a draft of both parts for 09/27 talk and discussion which will finish recordings, we need 10/04 next!     (2E5)

[12:25] John Sowa: Serious problem: The current ISO proposal does absolutely nothing for contexts,     (2E6)

[12:25] RaviSharma: there is suggestion of example that upper ontology describes two ontologies, one describes the context and the other describes the subject or domain ontology?     (2E7)

[12:26] John Sowa: BFO is extremely narrow. It says nothing about metalanguage, or even language.     (2E8)

[12:27] Cory Casanave: +1 Serious problem     (2E9)

[12:28] John Sowa: BFO says nothing about context, security, modality, intentionality, agents, goals...     (2E10)

[12:28] RaviSharma: that conversation was between Mike Bennett and Cory Casanave     (2E11)

[12:28] David Whitten: I've heard some ontologists say that time and place should not be considered as contexts. If not, how should their influence be recognized/formalized ?     (2E12)

[12:29] Cory Casanave: Strongly disagree with: I've heard some ontologists say that time and place should not be considered as contexts.     (2E13)

[12:30] RaviSharma: John Sowa - part 1 is everything except context (BFO) ?     (2E14)

[12:31] David Whitten: As many of y'all know, I am very interested in structural ontology. It seems to me that context is all about refining definitions. Is there an analogy between structural relations that affect the expression of a relation and context structural relations that affect the meaning of a relation?     (2E15)

[12:32] RaviSharma: John suggests someone from Cyc would be a good speaker, BFO is smaller compared to Experience with Cyc.     (2E16)

[12:32] David Whitten: I strongly agree that hearing from a Cyc person might be really useful.     (2E17)

[12:33] Cory Casanave: David: My opinion - every relationship or set of relationships is a situation. Situations are one dimension of context. A context is any entity that impacts the condition or interpretation of other entities     (2E18)

[12:34] David Whitten: Michael Witbrock would be a good person as he now is with IBM/Watson and he used to be a Cyclist.     (2E19)

[12:34] RaviSharma: Ram Sriram and John Sowa - Guha who has experience of Cyc, Apple, Google, Open Knowledge Network etc. would be a good speaker.     (2E20)

[12:35] David Whitten: By the way, Lenat wrote a paper on Context Space many years ago which outlined over 20 different dimensions of context.     (2E21)

[12:35] RaviSharma: John - in addition to Guha someone from Cyc would be great.     (2E22)

[12:36] RaviSharma: David, without space and time as well as dynamics (events, story context, etc, it will be difficult to describe context? hope you also think so!     (2E26)

[12:37] Gary Berg-Cross: I was thinking of Michael Witbrock too. He was at the OKN meeting.     (2E27)

[12:38] MikeBennett: Someone is making a loud crunching noise     (2E28)

[12:38] RaviSharma: John Sowa agrees with Michael Witbrock as speaker. Lenat or someone from Cyc recommended by him.     (2E29)

[12:39] David Whitten: I agree that time and space should be treated as context, but relative time ("last month") and relative space (such as "kitchen") are just as important as absolute time ("Jan 12, 2018@Noon) and absolute place ("at Coordinates -32.29323, 23.2912")     (2E30)

[12:39] RaviSharma: JackRing - content of ontology is being discussed but context of ontology is also important?     (2E31)

[12:39] Gary Berg-Cross: OKN Breakout Session Reports- Michael Witbrock gave the HC one. Biomedicine Breakout Report, Stan Ahalt, Rafael Gocalves, Susan Gregurick, Charlotte Nelson, Dexter Pratt, Michael Witbrock Finance Breakout Report, Doug Burdick, Stephen Dennis, Laura Dietz, Mark Flood, Shawn Mankad, Edgar Meij, Jay Pujara, Louiqa Raschid, Ted Senator Geoscience Breakout Report, Gary Berg-Cross, Ruth Duerr, Daniel Garijo, Yolanda Gil, Tsengdar Lee, Andrew Moore, Shashi Shekar Jia Zhang Manufacturing Breakout Report, workshop participants OKN Workshop Breakout: Horizontal, workshop participants     (2E32)

[12:40] Gary Berg-Cross: Doug tends to give canned, marketing reports unless he is motivated.     (2E33)

[12:42] RaviSharma: Gary, when I heard him, it was complex.     (2E34)

[12:42] David Whitten: John Sowa might be interested in why folks who worked with Cycorp now are working elsewhere. I note that the reasons may include personal style and logistics as well as professional views.     (2E35)

[12:43] David Whitten: John Sowa asks "why hasn't Cyc taken over the world ?"     (2E36)

[12:43] David Whitten: Janet could you summarize what you said for the chat?     (2E37)

[12:44] MikeBennett: Good idea to have Amanda's perspective on Cyc.     (2E38)

[12:44] David Whitten: That is Amanda Vizedom, btw.     (2E39)

[12:44] Cory Casanave: Possible track: For all X, Why hasn't X taken over the world?     (2E40)

[12:46] David Whitten: RV Guha wrote his doctorate on the ideas of microtheories, lifting conclusions from a microtheory into another microtheory, and dealing with ways to avoid contradictions.     (2E41)

[12:46] MikeBennett: We need to hear about the microtheory approach- but not just from Cyc but generally. As compared to upper ontology usage     (2E42)

[12:46] DouglasRMiles: Content of upper ontology: Is it all about Term Mapping? Is it to describe the Context/Microtheory Hierarchy?     (2E43)

[12:46] BobbinTeegarden: @David Yes ! to time and space, including relative! I still contend that context can be captured in the large with the attributes (some or all of the set) who what when where why how. Is there anything missing from this list also?     (2E44)

[12:46] David Whitten: For All Microtheories, why hasn't a microtheory taken over the world ?     (2E45)

[12:47] Gary Berg-Cross: Ken Forbus published an article using CYC He posted a link to paper because it provides evidence as to the utility of the Cyc ontology and representations. CYC's not the main point of the paper, which is a summary of the evidence we've gathered about the central ideas of our Companion cognitive architecture, so it may be of broader interest. It's appearing in AI Magazine soon.     (2E46)

[12:47] RaviSharma: Ram Sriram - one reason Cyc was trying too many problems, John says yes, Lenat and Guha 1991 book, 5 year report. Guha developed microtheories of context Ph.D. then Guha worked with McCarthy. Amanda Vizedom(!) is having some experience about what happened at Cyc.     (2E47)

[12:47] David Whitten: how many/how much also.     (2E48)

[12:47] BobbinTeegarden: Is a hierarchy a nesting? Holonic?     (2E49)

[12:48] David Whitten: or is a hierarchy necessarily mereology ?     (2E50)

[12:49] RaviSharma: Bobbin, it can be nesting and or concatenation, trigger for other ontologies or stories etc?     (2E51)

[12:50] Donna Fritzsche: re: CyC - you do need to separate out business climate/decisions and the overall quality/utility of CYC     (2E52)

[12:50] RaviSharma: David - hope more than mereology.     (2E53)

[12:50] AlexShkotin: @Gary, link does not work:-(     (2E54)

[12:51] David Whitten: Douglas Miles is talking about some of the Cyc ways of using multiple hierarchies to organize an ontology, including organizing individuals into categories, microtheory hierarchies using genlMt relation, organizing relations using genlPreds etc.     (2E55)

[12:51] Gary Berg-Cross: Link was truncated. Try     (2E56)

[12:51] RaviSharma: David - especially in context sense, it could be a time ordered context change or sub context or successive events hierarchy?     (2E57)

[12:52] Cory Casanave: Bobbin: Other dimensions include: Logical and physical containment, type, situation (which includes process), speech act, etc.     (2E58)

[12:52] David Whitten: Cyc has implementation specific relations which are "meta" about terms and relations etc. These are called "bookkeeping predicates"     (2E59)

[12:52] John Sowa: Gary, I got 404 not found for Ken F's paper.     (2E60)

[12:54] RaviSharma: Mike asked connection among hierarchy and microtheories.     (2E62)

[12:55] MikeBennett: @Ravi I wasn't so much asking this for me, as suggesting we have a sessions) in which these questions are asked and answered, for clarity in subsequent conversations.     (2E63)

[12:56] RaviSharma: John says about microtheories if you have have a hierarchy of theories, consistencies, intersection, nested meta language can talk about inconsistencies between contexts and it builds a firewall. Critical yes no in context.     (2E64)

[12:56] DouglasRMiles: Well said John     (2E65)

[12:56] BobbinTeegarden: @John Thank you about the nesting!     (2E66)

[12:56] David Whitten: does AQR stand for Analogical Qualitative reasoning ?     (2E67)

[12:57] Donna Fritzsche: Analogy and Qualitative Representations     (2E68)

[12:57] David Whitten: Thank you Donna, the link worked for me.     (2E69)

[12:58] RaviSharma: John can talk about hierarchies, modal logic, consistencies, meta language     (2E70)

[12:59] MikeBennett: This would be something of the nature of a tutorial early in the Summit to get us all using the same terms consistently.     (2E71)

[13:00] David Whitten: I think the meta-meta-mets-language etc. is a particular view of logic (which I think came from Tarski ?) and having a single Universe of Discourse greatly changes the way you view the knowledge.     (2E72)

[13:01] RaviSharma: John - FOL + "That" introduces metalanguage lattice of theories, consistencies, lattice branches can be inconsistent except at intersection, immense categories number of basic ideas are small and based on logic.     (2E73)

[13:01] DouglasRMiles: Yes NL pushes the rubber to the road     (2E74)

[13:02] MikeBennett: Suggested track: the role of context in natural language processing     (2E75)

[13:03] RaviSharma: Q for John does lattice intersection amount to common vocabulary among domains that overlap?     (2E76)

[13:04] David Whitten: I agree with John Sowa that most logics are very simple. The issue of "special vocabulary" can be resolved by definitions at the ontology levels.     (2E77)

[13:04] DouglasRMiles: Ravi: interestingly, CYC ran into an issue that the MT system was mapping information and information about terms in the lattice in a overly connected way     (2E78)

[13:05] David Whitten: Didn't Fritz Lehman have an Egg-Yolk theory ?     (2E79)

[13:05] Cory Casanave: So tracks may include context as it relates to: "Tutorial", "Cross domain integration", "Natural language processing", "Upper Ontologies", "Domain specific ontologies"     (2E80)

[13:05] David Whitten: (John mentioned Bird's nest soup)     (2E81)

[13:05] KenBaclawski:     (2E82)

  • Summit organization consists of a kickoff session, an overview session, tracks, synthesis sessions, communique sessions.     (2E83)

[13:06] DouglasRMiles: (sometimes the lattice of terms and the lattice of the logic using those terms are different)     (2E86)

[13:07] Donna Fritzsche: chat bots for customer support are a possible topic - SUMO has been used by Amelia     (2E87)

[13:07] DouglasRMiles: Overview.. i elect Ken :P     (2E88)

[13:07] DouglasRMiles: Well someone that can summarize the topics     (2E89)

[13:08] David Whitten: What is the difference between an "overview" session and a "summary" session ?     (2E90)

[13:08] DouglasRMiles: (Overview of Summit , Overview of problems? Overview of Solutions?)     (2E91)

[13:08] RaviSharma: Doug - Cyc Lattice sounds like tightly couples and multiple predicates among things?     (2E92)

[13:09] JackRing: Track: Why Ontologies have not enabled successful systems     (2E94)

[13:10] David Whitten: Ravi I think Cyc does have multiple predicates between things and the language used to describe things.     (2E95)

[13:10] RaviSharma: John Suggests short overview session, one person from each track would be introduction, short one.     (2E96)

[13:11] KenBaclawski:     (2E97)

  • Summit organization consists of an introductory session, tracks, synthesis sessions, communique sessions.     (2E98)
  • Introduction convened by John Sowa with multiple speakers from the various tracks, with at most 15 minutes including questions.     (2E99)

[13:11] RaviSharma: David - Wow, are predicated part of the vocabulary?     (2E101)

[13:12] David Whitten: yes. Cyc predicates are part of the vocabulary.     (2E102)

[13:12] Cory Casanave: Jack: I like the "why have not..." track     (2E103)

[13:13] RaviSharma: Donna talked about pragmatic web!     (2E104)

[13:13] Donna Fritzsche: I think that was Janet!     (2E105)

[13:13] Cory Casanave: The pragmatic web vs the pedantic web :)     (2E106)

[13:13] David Whitten: Hey! we can make up a whole new set of buzzwords if we try hard enough (GRIN :) )     (2E107)

[13:14] BobbinTeegarden: Could you add tract on hierarchies, nested contexts, and holonic models? Shapes of Contexts, and consistency?     (2E108)

[13:14] David Whitten: I am not familiar with the term "holonic" do you have a paper or something I can read ?     (2E109)

[13:14] Donna Fritzsche: sounds great Bobbin!     (2E110)

[13:15] Donna Fritzsche: N-dimensional, nested contexts     (2E111)

[13:15] David Whitten: We could call it "I don't think that means what you think..."     (2E112)

[13:15] RaviSharma: was that Janet Singer or Donna?     (2E113)

[13:15] DouglasRMiles: "Pragmatic web" sounds like "Ontology as used in Applications"     (2E114)

[13:16] BobbinTeegarden: @Donna yes!     (2E115)

[13:16] RaviSharma: Ken - you are not recording the session?     (2E116)

[13:16] Donna Fritzsche: @David - theory of     (2E117)

[13:17] David Whitten: Chomsky doesn't think there is semantics, just syntax and pragmatics.     (2E118)

[13:17] Donna Fritzsche: nested contexts in n-dimensional space (just rewording)     (2E119)

[13:17] DouglasRMiles: "Ontology as used in Applications" is what Jack was saying is not often developed adequately     (2E120)

[13:17] David Whitten: John says it is all semiotics.     (2E121)

[13:17] Donna Fritzsche: @Ravi - that was Janet     (2E122)

[13:19] RaviSharma: Thanks     (2E123)

[13:19] David Whitten: John Sowa likes Charles S. Pierce's semiotics and Charles Morris is a "baby version" of C.S. Pierce's work. Charles Morris worked with Carnap. Janice agrees that "pragmatics" is a baby version Charles Morris's work.     (2E124)

[13:19] DouglasRMiles: If i understand correctly Janet is volunteering to help add another track     (2E125)

[13:20] DouglasRMiles: (is my understanding correct?)     (2E126)

[13:20] RaviSharma: John said how do we represent? SysML is more comfortable for programmers.     (2E127)

[13:20] janet singer: Yes, I could do that     (2E128)

[13:21] DouglasRMiles: I don't think John meant to not include that track with his discussion     (2E129)

[13:21] Donna Fritzsche: @Jack - I would like to better understand your question. Can you explain further?     (2E130)

[13:21] DouglasRMiles: (It sounded like that was what he was doing.. but I dint think that was his intent)     (2E131)

[13:22] David Whitten: Jack Ring wonders if this summit will focus on machine ontology, or will issues about ontology affecting human-to-human communication dialogue     (2E132)

[13:22] RaviSharma: Doug - Human dialog - concept dialog?     (2E133)

[13:22] janet singer: Relevant work from language pragmatics perspective includes Winograd and Flores, Language Action Perspective Communicative action Perspective (LAP/CAP)     (2E134)

[13:23] BobbinTeegarden: @Jack what HAS been effective?     (2E135)

[13:23] janet singer: Those are old references - haven't kept up with the field     (2E136)

[13:23] Donna Fritzsche: what about work with chat bots and helping customer support / between bot-human agent - customer     (2E137)

[13:24] Donna Fritzsche: there is some triage effect there that points to your question. @jack     (2E138)

[13:24] David Whitten: Jack asks "Ontology" is about people ideas and communication or computer "conversations" ?     (2E139)

[13:24] David Whitten: John thinks Education Theorists have focused on useful ideas on helping people advance through stages.     (2E140)

[13:24] KenBaclawski:     (2E141)

  • Summit organization consists of an introductory session, tracks, synthesis sessions, communique sessions.     (2E142)
  • Introduction convened by John Sowa with one speaker from each track, with at most 12 minutes including questions.     (2E143)
  • The total number of sessions is 1 intro, 9 tracks, 2 synthesis, 2 communique, for a total of 14.     (2E146)
  • If we start on 1/17, then the last session will be on 4/18.     (2E147)
  • It gives us 2.5 months to invite speakers.     (2E148)

[13:25] RaviSharma: John- Language understanding, educational psychologists working on them, when they stop it is not active anymore     (2E149)

[13:25] David Whitten: Personally, I think "ontology" for this group is mathematical/computational ontology more than "human" ontology.     (2E150)

[13:25] Donna Fritzsche: there is also work with autistic children and personal assistants for them. The guy who created it is at SONY - but I have not been successful in finding a link. I heard about it at an Intelligent Assistants conference     (2E151)

[13:25] BobbinTeegarden: @Jack Amazon is run using 3 huge ontologies at the core, is that what you mean by useful to humans?     (2E152)

[13:26] Gary Berg-Cross: What are doing about "synthesis" sessions?     (2E153)

[13:26] Cory Casanave: Ken: Good list, I would tend to fold "Medical" into domain specific needs for context.     (2E154)

[13:29] David Whitten: John feels Human ontology work goes through a fad-cycle that is very personality driven. (excitement then zealous then behavior changes then rules of behavior then those who commit to that ontology idea will end up fighting each other).     (2E155)

[13:29] RaviSharma: who spoke last?     (2E156)

[13:30] Donna Fritzsche: @janet - I agree with this direction     (2E157)

[13:30] KenBaclawski:     (2E158)

  • Summit organization consists of an introductory session, tracks, synthesis sessions, communique sessions.     (2E159)
  • Introduction convened by John Sowa with one speaker from each track, with at most 12 minutes including questions.     (2E160)
  • The total number of sessions is 1 intro, 9 tracks, 2 synthesis, 2 communique, for a total of 14.     (2E163)
  • If we start on 1/17, then the last session will be on 4/18.     (2E164)
  • It gives us 2.5 months to invite speakers.     (2E165)

[13:31] DouglasRMiles: we need to enable: Human/Computer Interface Ontologies!     (2E166)

[13:31] David Whitten: Janet suggests a mid-level road would focus on machine interfaces and human interfaces to use Morefield's method for communication. A formalism based on Common Logic could answer some high level issues.     (2E167)

[13:31] RaviSharma: janet spoke about interface with humans, also about Witbrock     (2E168)

[13:32] David Whitten: John Sowa asks, what will the product of the Summit? Just a communique we all sign ? Design principles for communication and interoperability for Human-to-Human, Human-to-Computer, Computer-to-Human, and/or Computer-to-Computer.     (2E169)

[13:33] David Whitten: John Sowa thinks the shape of arrow-heads is not the issue for SysML, but creating guidelines that map the display level to the ISO low-level logic features.     (2E170)

[13:33] RaviSharma: John Sowa response human to human, human to machine, also implication on terminology, beyond linear as SysML diagrams for example, how can you have graphic items at human and machine levels guidelines. New features pictures and sounds.     (2E171)

[13:34] BobbinTeegarden: The HCI human computer interaction part is a whole different subject -- gets into visualization haptics sound capture, etc     (2E172)

[13:34] David Whitten: Pictures and Sound are not really tied to low level logic, but with Graphic/Display forms should tie to it.     (2E173)

[13:34] KenBaclawski:     (2E174)

  • Summit organization consists of an introductory session, tracks, synthesis sessions, communique sessions.     (2E175)
  • Introduction convened by John Sowa with one speaker from each track, with at most 12 minutes including questions.     (2E176)
  • Potential tracks (1 session per track, not necessarily in the order shown here):     (2E177)
  • The total number of sessions is 1 intro, 9 tracks, 2 synthesis, 2 communique, for a total of 14.     (2E179)
  • If we start on 1/17, then the last session will be on 4/18.     (2E180)
  • It gives us 2.5 months to invite speakers.     (2E181)
  • The product (communiqué) will be a collection of guidelines for contexts.     (2E182)

[13:34] RaviSharma: John - graphic how it ties with human and machine both?     (2E183)

[13:35] janet singer: @David @Ravi: What Jack had asked about was John Warfield's ISM (Interpretive Structural Modeling)     (2E184)

[13:35] David Whitten: Thx Janet.     (2E185)

[13:35] David Whitten: Any summary URLs for John Warfield's ISMs ?     (2E186)

[13:36] David Whitten: Ken invites all to be involved over the next few months.     (2E187)

[13:36] janet singer: I'm looking     (2E188)

[13:37] RaviSharma: Donna, please type your Q for record.     (2E189)

[13:37] Donna Fritzsche: @janet @john - lets consider looking at chat bots - see above commentary re: human computer - interaction powered by ontologies     (2E190)

[13:37] Donna Fritzsche: ontologies     (2E191)

[13:37] Donna Fritzsche: thanks Ravi!     (2E192)

[13:37] janet singer: @David My network is slow - there should be a Wikipedia entry that's sufficient as a start     (2E193)

[13:38] janet singer: @Donna - yes, good idea     (2E194)

[13:38] DouglasRMiles: re chatbots: are we talking about ontologies of repair dialogs and     (2E195)

[13:39] DouglasRMiles: and making sure that we have adequately chosen terms to do such translations and repairs?     (2E196)

[13:40] DouglasRMiles: Ack i need to run for an hour.. hopefully this doesn't mean i will disappear for the rest of the day :P     (2E197)

[14:06] janet singer: The Wikipedia material on Warfield's ISM is inadequate. This looks like a good overview     (2E198)

Resources     (2F)

Previous Meetings     (2G)

Next Meetings     (2H)