From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]
    (1)
Session Introduction
Duration 1.5 hour90 minute
5,400 second
0.0625 day
Date/Time Jan 17 2018 17:00 GMT
9:00am PST/12:00pm EST
5:00pm GMT/6:00pm CET
Convener JohnSowa

Contents

The first session will feature introductions to the summit tracks by the track co-champions, with John Sowa as the session convener. The Video Recording is available.     (2A)

The banner photo for this Ontology Summit is of Mauna Loa, the tallest mountain on Earth as measured above its base as well as the largest subaerial volcano in both mass and volume. It has a dozen major scientific observatories on the summit.     (2B)

Agenda     (2C)

Conference Call Information     (2D)

    • 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").     (2D5A)
    • 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.     (2D5B)
  • This session, like all other Ontolog events, is open to the public. Information relating to this session is shared on this wiki page.     (2D6)
  • 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.     (2D7)

Attendees     (2E)


Proceedings     (2F)

[12:04] Douglas R. Miles: John De Oliveira     (2F2)

[12:05] Douglas R. Miles: Gary: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johndeo/     (2F3)

[12:04] KenBaclawski: You can also get John Sowa's slides at http://jfsowa.com/ikl/contexts/issues.pdf     (2F5)

[12:25] Cory Casanave: @JohnSowa: What ontology best represents the situation concepts you described?     (2F7)

[12:31] ToddSchneider: One advantage engineering has in constraining contexts and interpretations are requirements.     (2F8)

[12:36] JackRing: How quickly can this kind of ontology evolve when the context changes?     (2F9)

[12:37] Gary Berg-Cross: Hard to swap times when some of us have commitments from hard to get speakers for our planned dates.     (2F10)

[12:38] Gary Berg-Cross: Dave W, can you enter into the chat of the speakers you plan to have??     (2F11)

[12:42] Cory Casanave: Contact Ravi & I about the March 21st date & possible change     (2F12)

[12:43] Gary Berg-Cross: Mike B...as John Sowa pointed out there is also the intentional context of cognitive agents to take into account.     (2F13)

[12:44] bobbinteegarden: perspective = context? sameAs?     (2F14)

[12:45] Cory Casanave: @bobbinteegarden: I would think perspective is one kind of context.     (2F15)

[12:45] Gary Berg-Cross: A number of us are talking about context but we need to develop and agree on a bit of a metalanguage for these conversations.     (2F16)

[12:46] bobbinteegarden: @Cory me too.     (2F17)

[12:48] bobbinteegarden: panel better for the InPerson meeting, IMHO; talks better on the weekly sessions     (2F18)

[12:49] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: Comment: that "brutal" reference to microtheory could be launched against microservices, but there is a useful detour there     (2F19)

[12:50] Ram D. Sriram: @MikeBennett: Suggest Spencer Breiner/Sub as a potential speaker to your track to give a talk on integrating engineering databases     (2F20)

[12:50] MikeBennett: @Ram Thanks!     (2F21)

[12:52] MikeBennett: @Gary good catch. I guess we need to integrate those thoughts into the kinds of question we want to fire at the TLO folks.     (2F22)

[12:53] MikeBennett: @Bobbin likewise. We need to think of that kinds of thing we naturally regard as context and see how the TLOs handle or reflect those.     (2F23)

[12:58] Ravi Sharma: Mike I like the refinement in context as we dive deeper in applications or ontologies     (2F24)

[12:59] MikeBennett: @Ravi thanks. We'll try and dive deeper into that on Session 2.     (2F25)

[13:06] John Sowa: The message that comes across from all these talks is that the number and kinds of context is open ended.     (2F26)

[13:06] John Sowa: The idea of having a single ontology with a single context is extremely unlikely.     (2F27)

[13:08] John Sowa: Trying to standardize a single context framework (knowledge graph) is like building a picket fence to hold back a tidal wave.     (2F28)

[13:10] bobbinteegarden: @john is there even a start of an ontology of the kinds of context? includes perspective, point of view, microtheory, use case, view, aspect ... ?     (2F29)

[13:12] ToddSchneider: Cory, Ravi, The definition of 'interoperation' fails to explicit constrain the receiving entity to interpret any received resource or capabilities in a fashion not too dissimilar from the sender's interpretation.     (2F30)

[13:13] Ram D. Sriram: @Ravi&Cory: Let me know if you want to contact Vipul Kashyap. He works for the health care industry and can check if he is still involved with ontology-based research     (2F31)

[13:14] Gary Berg-Cross: @John These re good comments and Qs for our OKN speakers. They are aware that the existing k-reps are inadequate to support some of the Apps they have in mind. I get a sense that some of theme like Andrew Moore at CMU are looking to some research funding to explore these issue, such as using NELL to populate a k-graph. I look forward to the discussion.     (2F32)

[13:17] Cory Casanave: @Todd, yes, thanks.     (2F33)

[13:17] Cory Casanave: @Ram, yes please     (2F34)

[13:19] Ravi Sharma: John Sowa stated - top level is less imp than mid level ontologies that are built in the context. I add we still need to harmonize those in built contexts for the mid level ontologies to interoperate, thanks John.     (2F35)

[13:20] Cory Casanave: @Bobbin, here are a few conceptual dimensions (kind of context): Time, Situations (occurrences and states), authority, interactions, social groups, location, type, systems, and designs.     (2F36)

[13:21] Cory Casanave: @John; I find the top level concepts (relations in particular), valuable for integration and federation.     (2F37)

[13:22] ToddSchneider: The 'dimensions' of the NCOIC SCOPE model could also be construed as potential 'dimensions' for qualifying 'context'.     (2F38)

[13:22] Ravi Sharma: @Ram thanks for agreeing and then inviting Kashyap.     (2F39)

[13:26] Ravi Sharma: @jack - extraction of embedded contexts from such complex systems such as autonomous vehicle, requires more powerful tools compared to ETL, vocabulary harmonization etc. perhaps requiring all the power of AI to extract and meaningfully interpret them and finally validate. Large problem compared to rule or embedded hard coded parameters??     (2F40)

[13:26] John Sowa: As Jack's talk says, system thinking is critical for designing, implementing, testing, and using.     (2F41)

[13:26] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: Speaking of "no harm," an IEEE subgroup is worry about that in P7007 7007 - Ontological Standard for Ethically Driven Robotics and Automation Systems . Open to members of IEEE Stds Assoc or public w/o voting rights. I am lightly participating. https://standards.ieee.org/develop/project/7007.html     (2F42)

[13:27] John Sowa: For ontology, that implies that no concept is more important for the top level than SYSTEM.     (2F43)

[13:27] John Sowa: All agents are systems -- living or robotic.     (2F44)

[13:28] ToddSchneider: There is an effort underway, Semantic Technologies 4 Systems Engineering, spearheaded by engineers at JPL and faculty from the Stevens Institute to bring semantic technologies, in particular the use of ontologies, into the practice of systems engineering.     (2F45)

[13:28] John Sowa: The world is a system, the environment is a system, people are systems, organizations are systems.     (2F46)

[13:28] Cory Casanave: @John, when you are creating reference ontologies for federating/integrating systems (theories in the lattice), system would not be at the top.     (2F47)

[13:29] bobbinteegarden: Systems (and ontologies?) are holonic?     (2F48)

[13:30] Cory Casanave: @Todd, SysML Version 2 - just started, is being designed with a strong semantic foundation. JPL is part of that as well.     (2F49)

[13:30] BobSchloss: I do not know if we can have a session later in this summit where any practitioners that blend Ontology to represent aspects of the real world together with scoring systems based on DeepLearning. Right now part of the AI engineering community is overly optimistic that DeepLearning can evolve to handle most parts of AI Solutions. I tend to be a skeptic, more along the lines of Gary Marcus ( https://medium.com/@GaryMarcus/in-defense-of-skepticism-about-deep-learning-6e8bfd5ae0f1 ). Since part of my work has to do with developing tools that detect unfairness or bias in components or services used in AI solutions, I am eager to hear from, or read about, work that blends Ontologies and Deep Learning.     (2F50)

[13:30] Gary Berg-Cross: @Jack, is a virus a system? Is a composite rock a system?     (2F51)

[13:31] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: @Todd... can you email me a contact for that initiative? knowlengr@gmail.com ... thx     (2F52)

[13:32] MikeBennett: It sounds like the Upper Ontology sessions should be lively!     (2F53)

[13:32] bobbinteegarden: So holons have no 'center' or upper/lower... just a perspectives based on what you're doing (purpose?)     (2F54)

[13:35] Gary Berg-Cross: Dov dori has some work on systems - ABSTRACT Over the past decades, the definition of system has eluded researchers and practitioners. We reviewed over 100 definitions of system to understand the variations and establish a framework for a widely acceptable system definition or a family of system definitions. There is much common ground in different families of definitions of system, but there are also important and significant ontological differences. Some differences stem from the variety of belief systems and worldviews, while others have risen within particular communities. Both limit the effectiveness of system communities efforts to communicate, collaborate, and learn from others experience. We consider three ontological elements: (1) a worldview-based framework for typology of different system types and categories, (2) key system concepts that are fundamental to the various system types and categories, and (3) appropriate language for the target audience. In this work, we establish the ontological framework, list key concepts associated with different types of system, and point to a direction for agreeing on an integrated set of system definitions in a neutral language consistent with the framework. The definitions are compatible with both the realist and constructivist worldviews, covering real (physical, concrete) and conceptual (abstract, logical, informatical) systems, which are both human-made (artificial) and naturally occurring, using language acceptable to a wide target stakeholder audience. The contribution of this paper is setting up an ontologically founded framework of system typologies, providing definitions for system, and identifying the issues involved in achieving a widely accepted definition or family of definitions of system. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sys.21383/abstract     (2F55)

[13:36] ToddSchneider: Jack, Janet, The use of ontologies in model based engineering is of interest to certain large organizations.     (2F56)

[13:37] Gary Berg-Cross: Also the notion of system is explored in http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783540291695-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-279797-p81056370 The notion of system is an important notion in all sciences, each of them studying its own kind of system. Thus physics studies physical systems, biology biosystems, and sociology studies social systems. Since about 1950, research ([7], [9], [65]) has strived for and contributed to the development of a general systems theory, also called systemics, which focuses on the characteristics of systems across the barriers between scientific disciplines. This systems approach is important for enterprise ontology since we have to deal with at least three distinct kinds of systems: social systems (as will become clear, the essence of enterprises), conceptual systems (information or knowledge systems), and technical systems (ICT systems). Not only is it necessary to profoundly understand these kinds of systems in isolation, but also to understand their interrelationships in a thorough way.     (2F57)

[13:39] ToddSchneider: Cory,Ravi, the definition you've presented for 'Context' is very good!     (2F58)

[13:40] Ravi Sharma: Todd - thanks     (2F59)

[13:41] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: who was speaking about SysML 2.0?     (2F60)

[13:41] MikeBennett: @Mark that was Cory Casanave     (2F61)

[13:41] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: thx Mike     (2F62)

[13:43] Cory Casanave: Leads for SysML v2 are: Sandy Friedenthal & Ed Seidewitz.     (2F63)

[13:44] Gary Berg-Cross: have to go, let me know what is concluded...     (2F64)

[13:44] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: Thx Gary     (2F65)

[13:45] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: If a separate call, I am interested as well knowlengr@gmail.com     (2F66)

[13:46] Ravi Sharma: Jack mentioned that SysML2 and Dori's efforts need to interoperatre     (2F67)

[13:46] bobbinteegarden: Pls include me in phone call, also?     (2F68)

[13:47] Ravi Sharma: Cory likewise please let me also know when.     (2F69)

[13:47] Douglas R. Miles: I'd like to listen too     (2F70)

[13:48] John Sowa: I have to sign off now, Bye.     (2F71)

[13:48] Douglas R. Miles: Thx John     (2F72)

[13:48] Ravi Sharma: thx john     (2F73)

[13:48] MikeBennett: Thanks John - great session!     (2F74)

[13:50] Ravi Sharma: Cory will swap for 31 Jan one talk     (2F75)

[13:52] Ravi Sharma: Ram said he might get some speakers for 24th Jan for Domain and context topics (category theory).     (2F76)

[13:53] MikeBennett: I have to go. We haven't finalized any speakers yet so if anyone needs to swap we can do that - but none of ours are in January.     (2F77)

[13:54] bobbinteegarden: Yes Jack, and that system 'problem' is a context diagram...     (2F78)

[13:54] Ravi Sharma: Ken will try to speak on situation theory or awareness and tie talk with those presentations that have been made for Summit 2018     (2F79)

[13:55] Ravi Sharma: Jack - SysML and OPM     (2F81)

[13:55] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: Front loading the model building is very waterfall . . Agile follows a very different process     (2F82)

[13:57] Ravi Sharma: David Whitten will put together 30 minutes presentation on Domains and context, request we search other domains examples as well. thanks David.     (2F83)

[13:59] Ravi Sharma: track names rather than number.     (2F84)

[13:59] Cory Casanave: For collaboration on SysML, etc, please email me: Cory-c (at) modeldriven.com     (2F85)

[14:00] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: Be well all     (2F86)

Resources     (2G)

Previous Meetings     (2H)


Next Meetings     (2I)