From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]

Contents

OpenOntologyRepository: OOR Metadata Workshop-II - Fri 2011_05_13     (1)

Topic: OOR Metadata Workshop-II     (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)

  • continue from the 2011.03.18 discussion on Metadata needs for the OOR     (1E2)
  • explore what resources are needed to carry this work forward, and solicit volunteers     (1E3)
  • ... if we have some extra time, we might spend a few minutes to see if there are questions about the OOR-Logo     (1E4)

References     (1F)

Agenda & Proceedings     (1G)

1. Meeting called to order:     (1G1)

2. Roll Call:     (1G5)

3. Key items for review and discussion today:     (1G8)

The objective of this workshop is to address the following questions:     (1G10)

are required to support the OMV use cases?     (1G13)

These are empirical questions that we can answer, given some effort.     (1G14)

3.2 Discussion:     (1G15)

  • From the 2011.03.18 "OOR Metadata Workshop-I":     (1G17)
    • 1. review Ken's use cases to validate the adequacy of OMV - near term     (1G17A)
    • 2. research, discussion, sought expert advice on state-of-art on versioning, identifier, etc. - medium term     (1G17B)
    • 3. drive the sandbox to production box transition - urgent     (1G17C)
    • Specific question for the OOR Team:     (1G17D)
  • explore what resources are needed to carry this work forward, and solicit volunteers     (1G19)
  • [OT] (optionally) ... if we have some extra time, we might spend a few minutes to see if there are questions about the OOR-Logo     (1G20)

3.3 ===IM Chat Transcript captured during the session===     (1G21)

see raw transcript here.     (1G22)

(for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)     (1G23)

Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.     (1G24)

-- begin in-session chat-transcript --     (1G25)

OpenOntologyRepository: OOR Metadata Workshop-I - Fri 2011_05_13     (1G27)

Topic: OOR Metadata Workshop-II     (1G28)

see details on the session page at:     (1G30)

JouniTuominen: As a reference, in ONKI we describe ontologies with following metadata:     (1G34)

JouniTuominen: When we designed the metadata schema, we weren't aware of the OMV. It would be     (1G36)

reasonable to make it OMV-compatible, by using OMV properties when possible, and extending it when     (1G37)

necessary.     (1G38)

MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa: do you have documentation about those metadata? Any document, or figure?     (1G39)

Mike Bennett: Just a heads-up: we have started joint work with the OMG on Semantics Repository     (1G40)

standardization; a major component is how to socialize the middle/upper ontology content. We would     (1G41)

expect to leverage OMV terms.     (1G42)

Michael Grüninger: What metadata do we require to support modularity?     (1G43)

Michael Grüninger: What extensions to OMV are needed to support additional ontology representation     (1G44)

languages such as Common Logic?     (1G45)

Mike Bennett: We are still working out what is the best formal approach - at present we've got     (1G46)

placeholder terms for most content, will look at how to align with external ontologies. In     (1G47)

particular, not ontology-level terms but terms about terms (SKOS type of terms etc.).     (1G48)

Tim Darr: This is the only relationship between ontologies that we would be interested in. We     (1G49)

typically decompose our ontologies as taxonomies, relations, and rules.     (1G50)

Tim Darr: A query, it seems to me, should match against the "composition" as opposed to the     (1G51)

individual components.     (1G52)

Peter P. Yim: [action] JouniTuominen will do a comparison of the ONKI metadata schema with OMV and     (1G53)

report back (at the next workshop)     (1G54)

Michael Grüninger: @Tim: The modularity I was thinking about is along the lines of an ontology that     (1G55)

combines a time ontology, a product ontology, and a business process ontology, which in turn extends     (1G56)

a generic process ontology. How are all of these ontologies related to each other?     (1G57)

Tim Darr: @Mike Is that different from the OMV import relations?     (1G58)

Mike Bennett: THe kinds of ontologies we are looking at include UN-FAO, REA, XBRL (probably XBRL-GL),     (1G59)

OWL Time, OMG's Time model,     (1G60)

Tim Darr: OMV provides a way to list the ontologies that are imported     (1G61)

Mike Bennett: Future one would include GeoNames, any ISO standards that are     (1G62)

ontologies;     (1G63)

Peter P. Yim: maybe we can take MikeBennett's use cases ... and see if OMV suffices (or what extensions     (1G64)

are necessary to meet his needs)     (1G65)

Mike Bennett: Units of Measure     (1G66)

Mike Bennett: Action on me: Define Use Case     (1G67)

Mike Bennett: @Michael at 14:33 this is very much our use case     (1G68)

Michael Grüninger: @Tim: In COLORE, we make distinctions between conservative and nonconservative     (1G69)

extensions. In the latter case, some modules allow the entailment of new axioms     (1G70)

Mike Bennett: I am working through an example with the REA ontology to see what approaches work best.     (1G71)

Tim Darr: Use vs. extend, for example?     (1G72)

Mike Bennett: I have a draft paper on that which might be useful.     (1G73)

Tim Darr: That sort of ontology-to-ontology relationship seems to me to be useful: what you are doing     (1G75)

with the ontology that you import.     (1G76)

Mike Bennett: Our challenges are two-fold: The SR ontology adds decorative terms (Archetypes) which     (1G77)

are not an OWL concept, and it disposes all high level terms under 3 top level lattices. So most     (1G78)

(not all) external ontologies which have owl:Thing at the top, would be redisposed under the     (1G79)

Sowa-derived lattice     (1G80)

Michael Grüninger: Would it make sense to focus on a particular domain or a particular set of     (1G81)

ontologies such as time?     (1G82)

Mike Bennett: Time ontology efforts: W3C time; OMG draft work; Mayo Clinic (Cui Tao, paper at ICBO in     (1G83)

Buffalo in July); FpML derived time terms; our own draft terms     (1G84)

Mike Bennett: Pat Hayes: Catalog of Temporal Theories     (1G85)

Mike Bennett: One thing we are thinking of is separating business domain specific (Legal, Accounting)     (1G86)

versus domain neutral things like time and math and units of measure which are not related to any     (1G87)

MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa: Related to TimDarr's comment: with OMV you can describe the relationships     (1G89)

between two ontologies (imports, versions, compatibility); and if more are needed OMV can be     (1G90)

extended.     (1G91)

Peter P. Yim: In the interest (and urgency) of our need to stand up a "production" instance of the OOR     (1G92)

... noting that we only have a "sandbox" instance of OOR now, and that the key differentiation     (1G93)

between the two is the implementation of "Gate Keeping" which, among other things, *requires* anyone     (1G94)

who uploads an ontology to OOR to populate the metadata (which is not required for the OOR-sandbox -     (1G95)

Question: can we just go ahead and implement the "Gate Keeper" with OMV (as is) or (we here, take     (1G96)

the time to) specify a "minimal required subset" ... can we discuss this?     (1G97)

Mike Bennett: Tree analogy: mid level is under-specified. things like legal, country, legal entity,     (1G98)

are owned by some industry but are terms which other industry need to refer to (financial:     (1G99)

securities are contracts; insurance: risk etc.     (1G100)

Michael Grüninger: @MikeBennett: Which of the ontologies that you mention in your chat posts can be     (1G101)

submitted to OOR Sandbox?     (1G102)

Mike Bennett: @MichaelGruninger the thing that can be submitted at present: OMG time work when this     (1G103)

is done. The Mayo work definitely. Need to deduplicate these two     (1G104)

Michael Grüninger: Action Item 1: Focus on time ontologies as a testbed for exploring relationships     (1G105)

between ontologies     (1G106)

Ken Baclawski: The OMV would have to be extended to deal with the gatekeeping metadata such as the     (1G107)

owner, group, status, rights, etc. I noticed that the onki ontology has some properties dealing with     (1G108)

these issues.     (1G109)

MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa: Metadata such as status, developers, rights, etc. are also covered by OMV.     (1G110)

We can analyse which ones from ONKI are not covered yet by OMV.     (1G111)

Mike Bennett: Accounting: XBRL and REA which have related but different terms and ontological     (1G112)

commitments     (1G113)

Tim Darr: How about something like SPIN?     (1G114)

Michael Grüninger: Action Item: Contact GaryBergCross (SOCoP) to contribute geospatial ontologies to     (1G115)

OOR Sandbox     (1G116)

Mike Bennett: Geographical ontologies would be a very useful area to align and cross reference     (1G117)

ontologies (for instance UN-FAO has very specific scope; ISO 3166 has no axioms;     (1G118)

GeoNames?...     (1G119)

Mike Bennett: Geographical is a good one to focus on because it is more like an "industry" vertical     (1G120)

(there are expert bodies, standard bodies etc. specific to it) but it is a set of terms which almost     (1G121)

any ontology will need to refer to (securities; buildings management; etc.)     (1G122)

Mike Bennett: And if anyone wants to be involved in the OMG joint work drop me a mail     (1G123)

Peter P. Yim: Next session: Fri 5/20 "Architecture & API - V" ... then Fri 5/27 "Metadata III"     (1G124)

Peter P. Yim: -- session ended: 7:01am PDT --     (1G125)

-- end of in-session chat-transcript --     (1G126)

4. Any Other Business:     (1G127)

5. Action items:     (1G128)

6. Schedule Next Meeting & Adjourn:     (1G130)

notes taken by: Peter P. Yim / 2011.05.13-___am PDT     (1G134)

All participants, please review and edit to enhance accuracy and granularity of the documented proceedings.     (1G135)


Resources     (1H)


This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (1H15)