From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]

Contents

OpenOntologyRepository: OOR Metadata Workshop-I - Fri 2011_03_18     (1)

Topic: OOR Metadata Workshop-I     (1A)

Session Chair: MichaelGruninger     (1B)

  • RSVP to peter.yim@cim3.com appreciated, ... or simply just by adding yourself to the "Expected Attendee" list below (if you are a member of the team.)     (1C4G)
  • 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.     (1C4I)

Attendees     (1D)

  • Expecting:     (1D2)
    • ... if you are coming to the meeting, please add your name above (plus your affiliation, if you aren't already a member of the community) above, or e-mail <peter.yim@cim3.com> so that we can reserve enough resources to support everyone's participation. ...     (1D3A)

Agenda Ideas     (1E)

please insert agenda ideas below ...     (1E1)

  • using the currently published OMV as a baseline, discuss what metadata would we need to capture, for the OOR.     (1E2)

Abstract     (1F)

The Future of Ontology Metadata? by Michael Grüninger     (1F1)

This meeting will kickoff the discussion of the use of ontology metadata within OOR.     (1F3)
MichaelGruninger will present a few slides to start the discussion.     (1F4)

Of primary importance will be the identification of use cases within OOR that can be used to evaluate the adequacy of OMV (Ontology Metadata Vocabulary) for OOR and to propose any new extensions.     (1F5)

References     (1G)

Agenda & Proceedings     (1H)

1. Meeting called to order:     (1H1)

2. Roll Call:     (1H5)

3. Key items for review and discussion today:     (1H7)

3.2 Discussion:     (1H9)

  • Michael: in summary - 3 take aways:     (1H11)
    • 1. review Ken's use cases to validate the adequacy of OMV - near term     (1H11A)
    • 2. research, discussion, sought expert advice on state-of-art on versioning, identifier, etc. - medium term     (1H11B)
    • 3. drive the sandbox to production box transition - urgent     (1H11C)

3.3 ===IM Chat Transcript captured during the session===     (1H12)

see raw transcript here.     (1H13)

(for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)     (1H14)

Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.     (1H15)

-- begin in-session chat-transcript --     (1H16)

[06:00] Peter P. Yim: Welcome to the ...     (1H17)

OpenOntologyRepository: OOR Metadata Workshop-I - Fri 2011_03_18 (2MRJ)     (1H18)

Topic: OOR Metadata Workshop-I (2Q8X)     (1H19)

Session Chair: Michael Grüninger (2Q8Y)     (1H20)

Please see details on session page     (1H21)

Peter P. Yim: Michael Grüninger briefs group with his presentation "The Future of Ontology Metadata?" ... essentially to start the discussion today     (1H24)

Leo Obrst: ref. the discussion about "configuration" from the Architecture-API workshops in the     (1H25)

last couple of weeks     (1H26)

Michael Grüninger: Earlier OOR meetings have introduced the notion of configuration.     (1H28)

How is this related to the specification of relationships between modules.     (1H29)

Todd Schneider: Leo, are you talking about historical usage information?     (1H30)

Todd Schneider: Maybe whatever OOR uses for metadata needs to be modular itself.     (1H31)

Michael Grüninger: What is the distinction between semantic versioning and ontology versioning     (1H32)

that is closer to software versioning (a la SVN and CVS)     (1H33)

Peter P. Yim: assuming metadata (requirement, implementing into gatekeeping, etc.) is a key piece     (1H34)

of the puzzle ... How do we move from "sandbox" to "production" OOR ... maybe we can use that     (1H35)

as our use case scenario that might drive this discussion     (1H36)

Michael Grüninger: We should make a distinction between two different scenarios -- 1) we have a     (1H37)

use case that requires metadata that in some way conflicts with OMV; 2) we have a use case that     (1H38)

requires new kinds of metadata. If all of our use cases are in the same category, then we can     (1H39)

adopt OMV but develop / propose our own extensions.     (1H40)

collected so far.     (1H42)

Todd Schneider: We will review OOR use cases that will require additional elements for OMV or     (1H43)

elements of OMV that are inconsistent with OMV.     (1H44)

I assume it's current.     (1H46)

Peter P. Yim: Thanks, Mike - I've added that to the OMV page on our wiki as well     (1H47)

Mike Dean: Michael has been using the v2.4.1 report, which includes the v2.4 figure link above.     (1H49)

Reviewer is part of the Evaluation extension.     (1H50)

Frank Olken: Michael, What software tools are you using for the development of the COLORE ontologies?     (1H51)

Michael Grüninger: @Frank: We are mainly building our own tools, but Cameron Ross at Kojeware     (1H52)

has also been developing Common Logic parsers, validators, editors, etc     (1H53)

Tim Darr: @Michael: are those tools available? KBSI might be interested in using them.     (1H54)

Michael Grüninger: @Tim: Contact Cameron (cross[at]kojeware.com)     (1H55)

Tim Darr: @Michael: Thanks!     (1H56)

Frank Olken: Does OMV have any notion of authoritative source documents (e.g., legal code,     (1H57)

federal regulation, etc.) for an ontology?     (1H58)

Frank Olken: Some of the issues (e.g., administrative metadata) are addressed by ISO/IEC 11179     (1H59)

(Edition 3 of Part 3 is currently being progressed to a new ISO standard.)     (1H60)

Frank Olken: ISO/IEC 11179 is described in UML - could be converted OWL (Kevin Keck may     (1H61)

have done this.)     (1H62)

Frank Olken: ISO/IEC 11179 is a generic metadata registry standard.     (1H63)

Ken Baclawski: @Frank: The gatekeeper prototype is based on ISO/IEC 11179, but it is not yet     (1H64)

integrated with the OOR sandbox.     (1H65)

Peter P. Yim: ref. the "gatekeeping" & "workflow" in the Architecture discussion     (1H66)

Peter P. Yim: the issue of the OOR providing a persistent URI for a ontology, or the     (1H69)

finer granular parts of it, when the ontology moves from different repository instances     (1H70)

(as in federated OORs) and from version to version - that needs to be discussed in the     (1H71)

context of metadata, as well as independently     (1H72)

Michael Grüninger: Action Item 1: Evaluate the adequacy of OMV with respect to the     (1H73)

Michael Grüninger: Action Item 2: Focus on issues related to "production" OOR, particularly     (1H75)

the gatekeeper functionality.     (1H76)

Peter P. Yim: @Michael and All - please review the summary take-away of this meeting (as Michael described     (1H77)

Peter P. Yim: next Friday (Mar-25) is a Architecture-API workshop again     (1H79)

Peter P. Yim: after that, we should have a regular OOR team meeting (Apr-1)     (1H80)

Peter P. Yim: we can consider what to do for Apr-8 then (at the Apr-1 meeting) ... noting that     (1H81)

Ken will be away for 2 weeks (until Apr-11) after he runs the Mar-25 Architecture-API workshop     (1H82)

Peter P. Yim: great meeting, bye!     (1H83)

Peter P. Yim: -- session ended: 7:26am PDT --     (1H84)

-- end of in-session chat-transcript --     (1H85)

4. Any Other Business:     (1H86)

5. Action items:     (1H87)

6. Schedule Next Meeting & Adjourn:     (1H88)

notes taken by: Peter P. Yim / 2011.03.18-7:58am PDT     (1H92)

All participants, please review and edit to enhance accuracy and granularity of the documented proceedings.     (1H93)


Resources     (1I)


This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (1I20)