From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]

2009_02_26 - Thursday: OntologySummit2009 Organizing Committee Meeting - OntologySummit2009/OrganizingCommitteeMeeting_2009_02_26        (1)

Contents

  • Shared-screen support (VNC session), if needed, will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/     (3E)
    • view-only password: "ontolog"     (3E1)
    • if you plan to be logging into this shared-screen option (which the speaker may be navigating), and you are not familiar with the process, please try to call in 5 minutes before the start of the session so that we can work out the connection logistics. Help on this will generally not be available once the presentation starts.     (3E2)
  • 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.)     (3F)
  • 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.     (3H)

Attendees     (4)

Agenda Ideas     (5)

please insert below (along with your name for follow-up purposes)     (5A)

  • Steve: review "where are we now, where do we want to be, and how do we get there"     (5B)
    • 1) The community has had a good opportunity to state their positions, but the conversation is not moving forward in a focused direction     (5B1)
    • 2) Need to clarify some concrete objectives for the summit     (5B2)
      • a. Idea of getting requirements from the industrial standards world, and capabilities from the ontology world     (5B2A)
      • b. Strawman objective of identifying some good candidate standards to ��ontologize��     (5B2B)
      • c. Others?     (5B2C)
    • 3) Need to identify some champions to synthesize and articulate the evolving position of the community:     (5B3)
  • Michael Grüninger to help focus the conversation to better articulate the capabilities of ontologies     (5C)
  • Howard Mason to, similarly, articulate the requirements of real, industrial standards     (5D)
  • hoping to nail down specific tactics to get the community to a productive conclusion     (5E)

Agenda & Proceedings     (6)

1. Meeting called to order:     (6A)

2. Roll Call:     (6E)

3. Discussion:     (6G)

  • Steve: review "where are we now, where do we want to be, and how do we get there"     (6H)
    • 1) The community has had a good opportunity to state their positions, but the conversation is not moving forward in a focused direction     (6H1)
    • 2) Need to clarify some concrete objectives for the summit     (6H2)
      • a. Idea of getting requirements from the industrial standards world, and capabilities from the ontology world     (6H2A)
      • b. Strawman objective of identifying some good candidate standards to ��ontologize��     (6H2B)
      • c. Others?     (6H2C)
    • 3) Need to identify some champions to synthesize and articulate the evolving position of the community:     (6H3)
  • Michael Grüninger to help focus the conversation to better articulate the capabilities of ontologies     (6I)
    • Michael: have sent a note to the discussion list ... but probably lost in the noise     (6I1)
      • using ontologies to help reengineer standards     (6I1A)
      • leveraging ontologies to enable enhanced services on standards - validation, reasoning, disembiguation and mediating disagreements     (6I1B)
      • using ontologies for integration of standards     (6I1C)
      • infusing ontologies into emerging standards     (6I1D)
    • Michael: can repost ... or better, will put that onto the wiki     (6I2)
  • Howard Mason to, similarly, articulate the requirements of real, industrial standards     (6J)
    • Howard:     (6J1)
      • it's not standards vs. ontologies, but rather, reaching out to the rest of each community     (6J1A)
      • how can we make that (applying ontologies) work in the bigger world (and not just the Shells and BAE's)     (6J1B)
      • clear identification of how the technology can improve the level of agreement among standards development participants     (6J1C)
      • how can the two communities support each other?     (6J1D)
    • we have to be clear - what are the benefits?     (6J2)
  • Thoughts:     (6K)
    • Peter Benson: who is the audience?     (6K1)
      • Steve: we want to have the two communities as each others' audience     (6K1A)
    • Peter Benson: what is our focus?     (6K2)
      • Steve: not mass marketing of ontologies and semantics ... confining to the two communities (ontologies and standards) would be a more modest and meaningful endeavor, and possibly achievable     (6K2A)
    • Leo: electronic commerce standards, universal business language, EDI could also be a useful focus - we could showcase how ontologies can help improve that     (6K3)
      • using existing standards to help build ontologies (e.g. UN-SPSC, UBL, ...)     (6K3A)
    • Peter Benson: landscape changing (between last year and this year) - data quality and portability - industry is almost at the edge to "need" ontologies (even if they don't know the term yet)     (6K4)
      • in terms of impact, if we can get everyone lined up to say the same thing (in a communique), it will generate some result     (6K4A)
    • Nicola: on methodologies ... word of caution: there is no methods or tools for "ontologizing existing standards" out there quite yet     (6K5)
      • developing such ontologies would cost as much as developing the standards (although with greater benefits)     (6K5A)
      • Michael: demonstratable examples     (6K5B)
      • Matthew: identity (URI) for access and rules     (6K5C)
    • Pat Hayes: are we focused on information standards or are we casting the net wider?     (6K6)
      • Steve: information standards would be the low hanging fruits     (6K6A)
      • Michael: we do need to define the scope and but we did want to case the net a little wider     (6K6B)
    • Rex Brooks: I can see a necessity to establish the level of abstraction at which such interrelated standards could be connected by referencing each other.     (6K7)

It turns out that there are and will be ontologies that are not exactly domain-specific, but still can make use of each other, such as the ontology or ontologies included in EDXL-RIM using concepts defined in the Reference Model and Reference Architecture for SOA from OASIS, and possibly the SOA Ontology Draft 2.0 from The Open Group and the related work in the OMG Service oriented architecture Modeling Language (SoaML) - Specification for the UML Profile and Metamodel for Services (UPMS).     (6L)

  • virtual panel sessions     (6N)
    • Michael: Mar-12 - to rally ontology community input - candidate panelists: Evan, Conrad, Leo, Nicola, Pat, ... - ConferenceCall_2009_03_12     (6N1)
    • Howard: Mar-19 - to rally standards community input - ConferenceCall_2009_03_19     (6N2)
    • Steve: Mar-26 - to synthesize on what we can offer each other - ConferenceCall_2009_03_26     (6N3)
    • Apr-2: community logistics, vetting of communique drafts - ConferenceCall_2009_04_02     (6N4)
  • hoping to nail down specific tactics to get the community to a productive conclusion     (6O)

5. New Issues:     (6Q)

6. Any Other Business:     (6R)

7. Action items:     (6S)

8. Schedule Next Meeting & Adjourn:     (6T)

  • determine date/time of next call - the Mar-12 panel session - see (closer to the time): ConferenceCall_2009_03_12     (6U)
    • we will do away with the previously agreed weekly Monday 1-Hr calls, and continue to operate through the [ontology-summit-org] email list and the wiki.     (6U1)

notes taken by: Peter P. Yim / 2009.02.26-11:39 am PST     (6Y)

All participants, please review and edit to enhance accuracy and granularity of the documented proceedings.     (6Z)


This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (6AA)