From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]
    (1)
Session Topic Discussion
Duration 1 hour60 minute
3,600 second
0.0417 day
Date/Time July 03 2019 16:00 GMT
9:00am PDT/12:00pm EDT
5:00pm BST/6:00pm CEST
Convener Ken Baclawski

Contents

Agenda     (2A)

Open-ended discussion of the topics for summer meetings and the next summit.     (2A1)

Ontology Summit Topic Suggestions     (2A2)

(Suggested by Ravi Sharma - who agrees to be Co-Champion or derived tracks Champion - topics can be subtopics relating to standards)     (2A2A)

  • For major domains Create hype-cycles based on Ontology Use Cases and Adoption of ontology applications and techniques – document benefits of using ontologies.     (2A2B)
  • Audio-Visual (graphic) and NLP representations of knowledge enhanced by ontologies     (2A2C)
  • Meaning, understanding, knowing - using ontologies     (2A2D)
  • Interdomain and subdomain vocabularies/terms and ontologies as facilitators in cross linking them     (2A2E)
  • Cloud architectures with ontologies     (2A2F)

(Suggestions from other participants)     (2A2G)

  • Graphics and ontologies example ref: Graph-based Ontology Summarization: A Survey [1] also [2]     (2A2H)
  • An Overview on Visualization of Ontology Alignment and Ontology Entity (China Euro Conference ECC 2018)     (2A2I)
  • Ontologies and standards (revisiting Ontology Summit 2009)     (2A2J)
    • Rationales for ontology based standards     (2A2J1)
    • What are ontologies for standards?     (2A2J2)
    • Is the focus ontologies for standards or standards for ontologies or both?     (2A2J3)
    • What is the relationship between NL and standards?     (2A2J4)
    • Ontological Standards: Past, Present, and Future is my preferred topic (Ram D. Sriram)     (2A2J5)
    • Start by talking about the existing approaches e.g. use of terminologies, dictionaries and so on, and show where that leads (show some leadership). Lead in to broader topic of getting formal common meaning (ontology) into industry standards, formalizing the knowledge that is already there. (Mike Bennett)     (2A2J6)
    • Champion (during planning sessions): Mike Bennett     (2A2J7)
  • Ontology of the ontology summits (possibly workshop or mini-series)     (2A2K)
  • The role of DOL and CL for standardizing knowledge graphs (John Sowa)     (2A2L)
    • This could include aspects of "Ontologies and standards" suggestion above     (2A2L1)

Conference Call Information     (2B)

Participants     (2C)

Proceedings     (2D)

[12:06] Ken Baclawski: Possible summit topic: knowledge graphs     (2D1)

[12:07] Ken Baclawski: If one looks up "knowledge graph" on Google one gets Google's Knowledge Graph (no surprise).     (2D2)

[12:08] RaviSharma: i want to request Ken to address visual and graph in ontology and AI as I wrote and he responded     (2D4)

[12:09] MikeBennett: Curious that the list of possible topics doesn't include last week's suggestion of standards.     (2D5)

[12:09] ToddSchneider: Standards for what?     (2D6)

[12:10] Mark Underwood: I did attend an EDM meeting last year, and Thomson Reuters is usually KG's heavily https://blog.cambridgesemantics.com/thomson-reuters-graph-based-data-analytics-and-serendipity     (2D7)

[12:13] Mark Underwood: In cybersec, some also refer to "vector spaces"     (2D9)

[12:15] Mark Underwood: The 2019 knowledge graph conference was well summarized here http://www.juansequeda.com/blog/2019/05/11/2019-knowledge-graph-conference-trip-report     (2D10)

[12:15] RaviSharma: We have to transform beyond NL and rely more on visual languages and KGs which might be easier as demonstrated by very very young people using video learning rather than text based and so we ought to embrace new visual learning techniques, examples are youtube's video games, mixing annotated text with visuals, comics and cartoon TV etc.?     (2D11)

[12:18] MikeBennett: ISO TC68 (Finance), SC9 WG1 is looking at how to apply semantics to the ISO20022 (bank messaging standard). Early days - focus on RDF/OWL representation of existing logical models, but future activity is planned to look at real ontology, possibly as a separate ISO NWIP (New Work Item Proposal).     (2D12)

[12:19] MikeBennett: The OMG also uses ontologies in a number of its standards e.g. the OMG LCC ontology (which replicates ISO 6166 in RDF extensional representations).     (2D13)

[12:20] MikeBennett: the Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) has recently completed an OWL ontology for its data structures.     (2D14)

[12:21] MikeBennett: OMG is also looking to implement ontology in the Space Domain Task Force work, I don't know where that has got. There is a risk that OMG ontologies may be overly influenced by Semantic Web design practice (as happened with FIBO).     (2D15)

[12:21] MikeBennett: The OMG Retail Domain Task Force is I think moving its ARTS logical model into OWL ontology.     (2D17)

[12:22] Mark Underwood: "t uses multiple knowledge representations like, vector spaces and knowledge graphs in a 'VKG structure' to store incoming intelligence. The system also uses neural network models to pro-actively improve its knowledge. "     (2D18)

[12:22] MikeBennett: NB we can talk about ontologies for standards or about standards for ontologies. Or both.     (2D19)

[12:23] MikeBennett: Most standards groups are looking to have some common vocabulary or terminology and most are not aware that the real solution to the common language problem requires ontology not words. Needs our leadership.     (2D20)

[12:23] Mark Underwood: made the Google doc page public for now     (2D21)

[12:23] John Sowa: Google technology involves word vectors, knowledge graphs, and DNNs. Hinton mentioned word vectors in his talk.     (2D22)

[12:24] John Sowa: Those word vectors are the encoding that Google uses in the NN-based machine translation.     (2D23)

[12:27] Mark Underwood: I don't have the abstract yet, but this paper title reflects an approach in cybersec to represent attacks in graphical format, which inevitably involve deep knowledge about the IT assets, vulnerabilities, countermeasures, events, etc. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328375391_Security_Vulnerability_Analysis_using_Ontology-based_Attack_Graphs     (2D24)

[12:31] Mark Underwood: Mike - Are any of the Retail Domain TF artifacts public yet?     (2D25)

[12:32] RaviSharma: John Said: conceptual graphs do not lock you and John wrote about connecting them to common logic     (2D26)

[12:32] Mark Underwood: This vendor would be an interesting presenter. I've sat in on several of their pitches https://neo4j.com/use-cases/knowledge-graph/     (2D27)

[12:33] ToddSchneider: I have to go. I think using 'Standards' as the summit subject will allow us to include many related areas.     (2D28)

[12:33] RaviSharma: discussion centered on proprietary standards and knowledge graph and John said CL is semantics for any Knowledge Graphs     (2D29)

[12:33] TerryLongstreth: Mark - I didn't see DOL (http://dol-omg.org/) in your list     (2D30)

[12:34] Mark Underwood: Thanks Terry. I'm sure there are other overlooked -keep 'em coming     (2D31)

[12:34] MikeBennett: DOL - OMG standard for mapping kinds of logic to CL. Worth publicizing more.     (2D32)

[12:35] RaviSharma: Todd please narrow the topic Request Ken will include your support for standards as a topic     (2D33)

[12:36] MikeBennett: Should there be an Ontocratic Oath - 'Do no confusion' or something?     (2D34)

[12:37] RaviSharma: Standards and any graph - knowledge graph is not a proprietary word relating to Google     (2D35)

[12:37] RaviSharma: Mike, I like your comment     (2D36)

[12:38] MikeBennett: The term Knowledge Graph is starting to gain traction in favor of Semantic Web in the implementation space, see e.g. recent EDM Council events on this topic.     (2D37)

[12:40] RaviSharma: For John - computers in financial and data analysis areas use statistics as well but often these are added as solvers, apps and software that sits on top of databases?     (2D38)

[12:44] Mark Underwood: I think knowledge graph would have broader appeal -- though my attempts to broaden appeal have not exactly blown down our virtual doors     (2D39)

[12:45] Mark Underwood: ISO standards are typically $124-200 each     (2D40)

[12:46] janet singer: Mike: Ontocratic Oath - 'Do no confusion' might be the turning point for explaining and popularizing ontologies     (2D41)

[12:46] MikeBennett: OMG requires membership to vote on standards, but often seeks input from people in developing the standards who are not members.     (2D42)

[12:46] MikeBennett: Disclaimer: I a a co-Chair of the OMG Finance Domain Task Force.     (2D43)

[12:46] MikeBennett: By the way the OMG has an Ontology Platform Special Interest Group.     (2D44)

[12:47] Mark Underwood: Mike - are you involved with it?     (2D45)

[12:48] Mark Underwood: Mike - cancel that Q     (2D46)

[12:49] MikeBennett: I will happily champion the topic of standards.     (2D47)

[12:49] TerryLongstreth: Also - the future of computing may include quantum technologies. That's probably a disruptive (to logic) path but we're still some way (years, perhaps) from having a quantum logic standard.     (2D48)

[12:53] Mark Underwood: Mike - My list has several ISO (mostly) standards that have embedded ontologies     (2D50)

[12:53] RaviSharma: we have Mike and Ram as potential champions     (2D51)

[12:53] Mark Underwood: Industry-scale Knowledge Graphs: Lessons and Challenges / Five diverse technology companies show how it's done / https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3332266     (2D52)

[12:53] John Sowa: Terry, QM reasoning and predictions are based on mathematics. As Peirce said, mathematics has no need for a basis on logic, especially since math is far more reliable than any version of logic.     (2D53)

[12:53] RaviSharma: Ravi is interested in visual learning and standards     (2D54)

[12:56] Mark Underwood: John's point is taken, but despite their limitations, the domain standards in ISO for buildings and autonomous vehicles are quite valuable for developers     (2D55)

[12:57] Mark Underwood: & yes, they embed ontologies of a sort     (2D56)

[12:58] Mark Underwood: I vote that the scope should be both, certainly, for the reasons just given here     (2D57)

[12:58] MikeBennett: Scope (if we do standards): (1) Standards for ontologies; (2) ontologies for standards; or (3) both / de facto standards and their semiotics etc. etc. and the broader view     (2D58)

[12:59] MikeBennett: +1 for the broader view     (2D59)

[12:59] MikeBennett: (per Janet's comments)     (2D60)

[12:59] TerryLongstreth: John, I may have been misled by quantum logic's relationship to uncertainty and entanglement.     (2D61)

[12:59] John Sowa: before you can define a standard for any subject, you need to have a clear idea about the subject matter.     (2D62)

[12:59] RaviSharma: Janet said both topics mentioned by on standards and ontologies     (2D63)

[13:00] MikeBennett: I won't be here next week either.     (2D64)

[13:01] MikeBennett: @John thing about existing standards bodies is that by definition they raw together the main experts in that subject matter. Just most of them don't know what you can do with an ontology. ]     (2D65)

[13:01] RaviSharma: I like MikeBennett suggestion     (2D66)

[13:02] MikeBennett: Perhaps we can look into using DOL and CL as a unifying technique for industry standards as ontologies.     (2D67)

[13:02] MikeBennett: +1 for John's comment of 'what is ontology'. some standards use words (a mistake); some are starting to use OWL (another mistake).     (2D68)

[13:04] RaviSharma: in Ravi opinion listing and comparing standards and overlaps by domains and purpose for which standards are developed would be interesting to study     (2D69)

[13:05] MikeBennett: Start by talking about the existing approaches e.g. use of terminologies, dictionaries and so on, and show where that leads (show some leadership). Lead in to broader topic of getting formal common meaning (ontology) into industry standards, formalizing the knowledge that is already there.     (2D70)

[13:05] Ram D. Sriram: As I mentioned in the past, Ontological Standards: Past, Present, and Future is my preferred topic.     (2D71)

[13:06] MikeBennett: Standards vary between messaging (EDI / XML etc.); logical data models; vocabularies (FHIR etc.) and business practice. Lots of things can be standardized.     (2D72)

[13:08] TerryLongstreth: @Mark : also, ISO 11179     (2D73)

[13:08] Mark Underwood: Have that one, Terry     (2D74)

[13:10] Ram D. Sriram: There are two aspects here: Role of Standards in Ontologies and Role of Ontologies for Standards.     (2D75)

[13:11] RaviSharma: broad overview John says many and a lot about Ontology, how Ontology helps in dictionaries, glossaries, notations, terminologies, TLOs, Wordnet - no definitions, independently developed ontologies, mappings complicated issues, and Janet said we need to organize these and John said defer the title, and concentrate on what are we going to study     (2D76)

[13:12] RaviSharma: I agree with topic and inclusion of subtopics and then abstract the title.     (2D77)

[13:12] RaviSharma: I Like create a list and subtopics. and then 2020 topic.     (2D78)

Previous Meetings     (2E)


Next Meetings     (2F)