Notice: Undefined offset: 1001 in /var/www/html/extensions/pmwx/includes/hid/Hid.php on line 182
OntologySummit2013 Symposium - OntologPSMW

From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]

Contents

Ontology Summit 2013: May 2~3, 2013 Symposium (Face-to-Face Workshop)     (1)

The culmination of Ontology Summit 2013 - a 2-day workshop and symposium event at the Gaithersburg campus of NIST that supported both face-to-face and virtual (remote) participation!     (1A)

P1100302c.jpg . P1100322c.jpg . P1100388c.jpg . P1100363c.jpg ... [more pics]     (1B)

Theme: Ontology Summit 2013: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle     (1C)

8th in the series of a 3-month annual event by and for the Ontology Community. This Summit is co-organized by Ontolog, NIST, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD     (1C1)

Currently, there is no agreed methodology for development of ontologies, and there are no universally agreed metrics for ontology evaluation. At the same time, everybody agrees that there are a lot of badly engineered ontologies out there, thus people use -- at least implicitly -- some criteria for the evaluation of ontologies.     (1D1)
The goal for Ontology Summit 2013 is to identify best practices for ontology development and evaluation. We will consider the entire lifecycle of an ontology -- from requirements gathering and analysis, through to design and implementation. In this endeavor, the Summit will seek collaboration with the software engineering and knowledge acquisition communities. Research in these fields has led to several mature models for the software lifecycle and the design of knowledge-based systems, and we expect that fruitful interaction among all participants will lead to a consensus for a methodology within ontological engineering. Following earlier Ontology Summit practice, the synthesized results of this season's discourse will be published as a Communique.     (1D2)
In the course of the Symposium, we shall distill the results from this summit's 3.5 months of research, discourse, analysis, synthesis and to present this knowledge in the form of presentations and a broadly distributed communique collective produced by the participants of this OntologySummit.     (1D3)

Resources     (1E)

Program / Agenda     (1F)

Thursday, May 2, 2013 (Green Auditorium)     (1G)

Day 1: ... [ Archives ]     (1G1)

8:30 am: Breakfast and Setup     (1G2)

9:00 am: Welcome by Dr. Charles Romine, Director of the Information Technology Laboratory, NIST     (1G3)

9:15 am: General Ontology Summit Symposium Introductions and Information - Ram D. Sriram and Mike Dean, Symposium Co-chairs     (1G4)

9:25 am: Ontology Summit Opening Remarks - Matthew West and Michael Grüninger, Ontology Summit 2013 General Co-chairs ... [ slides ]     (1G5)

9:30 am: Keynote 1: Dr. James Warren, NIST, Materials Genome Initiative ... [ slides ]     (1G6)

10:20 am: Ontologies in the Materials Genome Initiative - Alden Dima ... [ slides ]     (1G7)

10:30 am: Break     (1G8)

11:00 am: Panel: Ontologies in the Materials Genome Initiative - Fabian Neuhaus (moderator), James Warren, Alden Dima, Mike Bennett, Leo Obrst, Steve Ray     (1G9)

11:30 am: Discussion: Track-A Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Co-Champions: Leo Obrst & Steve Ray ... [ slides ]     (1G10)

12:00 pm: Discussion: Track-B Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Co-Champions: Terry Longstreth & Todd Schneider ... [ slides ]     (1G11)

12:30 pm: Lunch and Discussion Break     (1G12)

2:00 pm: Keynote 2: David Newman, Wells Fargo, Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO) ... [ slides ]     (1G13)

3:00 pm: Break     (1G14)

3:30 pm: Discussion: Track-C Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Co-Champions: Matthew West & Mike Bennett ... [ slides ]     (1G15)

4:00 pm: Discussion: Track-D Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Co-Champions: Michael Denny, Ken Baclawski & Peter P. Yim ... [ slides ] . [ survey ] . [ responses ]     (1G16)

4:30 pm: Ontology Summit 2013 Web Site - Co-Champions: Marcela Vegetti & Ali Hashemi ... [ slides ]     (1G17)

4:45 pm: Ontology Summit 2013 Community Library (bibliography) - Amanda Vizedom ... [ slides ]     (1G18)

5:00 pm: End of Day 1 Business     (1G19)

6:30 pm: Summit Dinner at Growlers Brew Pub, 227 E. Diamond Ave., Gaithersburg     (1G20)

Friday, May 3, 2013 (Portrait Room)     (1H)

Day 2: ... [ Archives ]     (1H1)

8:30 am: Breakfast and Setup     (1H2)

9:00 am: Keynote 3: Dr. Olivier Bodenreider, National Institutes of Health, Quality Assurance of Biomedical Ontologies and Derived Artifacts in the Era of the Meaningful Use of Electronic Health Record Data ... [ slides ]     (1H3)

10:00 am: Presentation of the Communique: Amanda Vizedom & Fabian Neuhaus ... [ slides ] . [ [[OntologySummit2013_Communique|OntologySummit2013_Communique]] ]     (1H4)

10:45 am: Affirmation of Communique by Community: Matthew West & Michael Grüninger     (1H5)

11:00 am: Break     (1H6)

11:30 am: Hackathon-Clinics Overview - Co-Champions: Mike Dean, Ken Baclawski, Peter P. Yim ... [ slides ]     (1H7)

11:40 am: HC-01 BACnet Ontology Hackathon - Joel Bender ... [ slides ]     (1H8)

12:00 pm: HC-02 The General Ontology Evaluation Framework (GOEF) & the I-Choose Use Case - Joanne Luciano, James Michaelis, DjokoSigitSayogo, NicolauDePaula ... [ slides ]     (1H9)

12:20 pm: HC-03 Evaluation of OOPS! OQuaRE and OntoQA for FIBO Ontologies - Mike Bennett, MariaPovedaVillalon, AstridDuqueRamos, Samir Tartir, et al. ... [ slides ]     (1H10)

12:40 pm: Lunch     (1H11)

1:40 pm: HC-04 Ontology Summit 2013 Content Hack: Leveraging Semantics on OntologPSMW - Ken Baclawski, et al. ... [ slides ]     (1H12)

2:00 pm: HC-05 Hackathon: Ontology of Ontology Evaluation - Amanda Vizedom ... [ slides ]     (1H13)

2:20 pm: HC-06 ISO 15926 Reference Data Validation - Victor Agroskin, Anatoly Levenchuk, et al. ... [ slides ]     (1H14)

2:40 pm: HC-07 Ontohub-OOR-OOPS! Integration - Till Mossakowski, DanielCouteVale, Ken Baclawski, MariaPovedaVillalon, et al. ... [ slides ]     (1H15)

3:00 pm: Announcement and Award of the First IAOA Best Ontology Summit Hackathon-Clinic Prize - Panel of Judges: Leo Obrst, Matthew West & Michael Grüninger     (1H16)

3:10 pm: Next Steps and Conclusion: Michael Grüninger, Matthew West, Ram D. Sriram, Mike Dean ... [ slides ]     (1H18)

3:30 pm: End of Day 2 Business     (1H19)

3:30 pm: Available for BOFs, small groups, etc.     (1H20)

5:00 pm: Adjourn     (1H22)

Transcript of the online chat during the session     (1I)

Thu 2013.05.02     (1I1)

(for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)     (1I3)

Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.     (1I4)

-- begin of chat session --     (1I5)

[06:03] Peter P. Yim: Welcome to the     (1I6)

Ontology Summit 2013 Symposium (Day-1) 2-May-2013     (2)

Terry Longstreth, Till Mossakowski, Torsten Hahmann, anonymous, anonymous1, mpavel, vnc2     (2I)

proceedings:     (2J)

[05:54] anonymous morphed into Sylvia Spengler     (2J1)

[05:56] Symposium (SteveRay): Welcome everyone.     (2J2)

[06:09] Sylvia Spengler: can people hear on the phone?     (2J3)

[06:09] Till Mossakowski: not very well     (2J4)

[06:10] Symposium (SteveRay): I will go check with the A/V folks.     (2J5)

[06:11] Till Mossakowski: I have to put my local volume at maximum, and then I still the outcome is     (2J6)

so low-volume that it is hard to understand everything.     (2J7)

[06:11] Sylvia Spengler: I thought it was my phone but nothing works.     (2J8)

[06:12] anonymous morphed into Doug Foxvog     (2J9)

[06:13] Peter P. Yim: more slides uploaded ... please refresh your agenda page to see their active links     (2J10)

[06:15] Symposium (SteveRay): OK, sound should be good now. Is it OK?     (2J11)

[06:16] Symposium (SteveRay): Also, could the call-in folks please mute your phones when you aren't     (2J12)

speaking? We had some microphone rustling sounds earlier.     (2J13)

[06:16] Till Mossakowski: yes, better now     (2J14)

[06:17] Sylvia Spengler: much better now     (2J15)

[06:19] Till Mossakowski: currently, I cannot understand a word...     (2J16)

[06:20] Till Mossakowski: better again     (2J17)

[06:20] Symposium (SteveRay): OK, let us know if there are problems during the day.     (2J18)

[06:25] anonymous morphed into Frank Olken     (2J19)

[06:25] Frank Olken: Sylvia, Can you hear now??     (2J20)

[06:26] Sylvia Spengler: yes, but some speak much more quietly....     (2J21)

[06:27] anonymous morphed into Chuck Ward     (2J22)

[06:27] Till Mossakowski: is there a vnc screen, or do we have to download each slide set     (2J23)

individually?     (2J24)

[06:30] Symposium (SteveRay): Regarding VNC, yes, it is the same VNC as our normal Thursday calls.     (2J25)

[06:27] Frank Olken: Peter P. Yim & George Strawn announced that next year's Ontology Summit Symposium     (2J26)

will be held at NSF/NITRD near Ballston Metro station in Arlington, VA.     (2J27)

[06:30] Peter P. Yim: next year's Ontology Summit Symposium will be hosted by NCO/NITRD ...     (2J28)

[06:31] anonymous morphed into Elizabeth Florescu     (2J29)

[06:40] anonymous morphed into Jim Jacobs     (2J30)

[06:43] Peter P. Yim: == James Warren giving the Keynote-1 talk on the Material Genome Initiative (MGI)     (2J31)

[06:44] Sylvia Spengler: can the speaker please speak up?     (2J32)

[06:50] Symposium (SteveRay): Is that better? They turned up the gain on his mic.     (2J33)

[06:51] Symposium (SteveRay): Question on the relationship with DARPA's manufacturing program     (2J34)

[06:52] Doug Foxvog: Remote users should turn off their microphones. We're getting some clicks and     (2J35)

noises over the loudspeakers at NIST.     (2J36)

[07:07] Terry Longstreth: Q: J. Warren - did the conference/MGI itself deal with Intellectual     (2J37)

property, patents and copyright ?     (2J38)

[07:08] Sylvia Spengler: Can presenters please repeat the questions!!     (2J39)

[07:09] Doug Foxvog: The question was what Terry put on the chat.     (2J40)

[07:09] Symposium (SteveRay): This last question was Terry's question above     (2J41)

[07:09] Symposium (SteveRay): Terry is raising the issue that, for example, seismic data is hard to     (2J42)

get from oil companies?     (2J43)

[07:10] Bob Schloss: There is a multi-national initiative starting, called the Research Data     (2J44)

Alliance, http://rd-alliance.org that is in the organizing stage. Some of the technical conventions     (2J45)

about metadata etc they are addressing would also be relevant to MGI. Also, the World Wide Web     (2J46)

consortium is planning to increase their work on representations of web-accessible data collections     (2J47)

(I was at their "Open Data" meeting in London last week), and could help on some of this work.     (2J48)

[07:27] Peter P. Yim: == Alden Dima giving a brief on CALPHAD, a project in the Material Genome area     (2J49)

where ontologies are coming into play     (2J50)

slides will be uploaded later     (2J52)

[07:36] anonymous morphed into Marc Halpern     (2J53)

[07:40] Symposium (SteveRay): Break until 11am Eastern time (10:40 EDT now).     (2J54)

[07:44] Peter P. Yim: Slides from Alden Dima is now online ... please refresh the agenda page (url above)     (2J55)

to see it. His questions on the last slide will be part of the panel discussion that follows after     (2J56)

the break     (2J57)

[08:09] Peter P. Yim: == session resuming - Panel Discussion -     (2J58)

[08:28] anonymous morphed into Torsten Hahmann     (2J60)

[08:31] anonymous morphed into Matthew Kaufman     (2J61)

[08:41] Symposium (SteveRay): == Track A session - Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation -     (2J62)

[08:45] Doug Foxvog: The panel discussion brought up the question as to what the requirements are for     (2J64)

an ontology being developed. Often it turns out that ontology development is part of requirements     (2J65)

analysis or modeling. So one requirement for developing the ontology is to develop a subset of the     (2J66)

requirements for the system and to develop a model of an area.     (2J67)

[08:51] Symposium (SteveRay): Remote participants please mute your microphones. Lots of rustling     (2J68)

sounds. Thanks     (2J69)

[08:52] Doug Foxvog: Leo discusses OntoClean methodology. OntoClean says a role, e.g., Employee,     (2J70)

should not be a subclass of Person because the role is dynamic, but Person is static. This is valid     (2J71)

in a 4D theory, but in a 3D+1 system, is not a necessary restriction. This suggests that at least     (2J72)

some of the rules should depend upon the broader model, e.g., 4D vs. 3D+1 the ontology is based on.     (2J73)

[08:53] Mike Bennett: @Doug interesting point. In FIBO we use the "Relative Thing" partition which     (2J74)

has a similar effect - so it's not only a 4D thing - but it reinforces your opinion that some of     (2J75)

these considerations are to do with the theories in the upper ontology partitions     (2J76)

[09:00] Doug Foxvog: @Mike: This brings up the point that "upper-level" decisions are not always     (2J77)

necessary to be made in an ontology. One could identify from an ontology whether the ontology     (2J78)

intrinsically includes such a decision -- in which case it should be identified, perhaps by     (2J79)

  1. including an "upper-level" ontology with that model. It might be useful to create an agnostic     (2J80)

relation that would map to different relations in (in this case) 4D and 3D+1 ontologies.     (2J81)

[09:02] Mike Bennett: @Doug yes, it occurs to me that there is a connection between upper ontology     (2J82)

use, and semantic conformance criteria. Some folks have suggested that we should not use the     (2J83)

Independent / Relative / Mediating partitions because it's easy for modelers to get it wrong.     (2J84)

Conversely, something which is easy for a modeler to get wrong, is one where you have a means to     (2J85)

test when the meaning has been consistently understood and applied.     (2J86)

[08:54] anonymous morphed into mpavel     (2J87)

[08:54] anonymous morphed into Fouad Ramia     (2J88)

[08:54] anonymous1 morphed into AdrianBaranyuk     (2J89)

[08:55] Jim Jacobs: What evaluation methods speak to the strength of the property or relation side of     (2J90)

an ontology (as opposed to class taxonomy issues)? The relative "flatness or bushy-ness" of the     (2J91)

property set greatly affects reasoning power.     (2J92)

[08:56] Mike Bennett: @JimJacobs the OQuaRE toolset has measures for that and similar things.     (2J93)

[08:58] AstridDuqueRamos: @JimJacobs In OQuaRE, the subcharacteristic "Formal relations support".     (2J94)

and the metric RROnto is related with that.     (2J95)

[09:00] Terry Longstreth: IMO flatness or bushyness affects the utility of the ontology, in much the     (2J96)

same way as abstraction does. If the ontology detail is elided, then it's utility is equivalently     (2J97)

reduced. If the requirement exists for the greater utility, then the ontology fails.     (2J98)

[09:00] Steve Ray: Regarding question #2, one piece of evidence leading toward a larger ROI is if you     (2J99)

answer "yes" to question 1. In that case, the "I" (investment) part of ROI is small, thus the     (2J100)

chances of the ROI will be large increases.     (2J101)

[09:02] Doug Foxvog: FWIW, the question numbers that are referred to above are to Leo's questions on     (2J102)

his Slide 5. // 1) Structural evaluation tests are the easiest set of tests to apply. Agree or     (2J103)

disagree?     (2J104)

2) Structural evaluation provides the greatest ROI during ontology development. Agree or disagree?     (2J105)

3) Is ontology quality always relative to some external criteria? Can an ontology intrinsically be     (2J106)

of high quality without respect to some criteria? Is ontology quality inherently second-order?     (2J107)

4) Does ontological analysis in terms of relatively agreed upon and sound theories (e.g.,     (2J108)

mereotopology, a theory of parts; distinguishing semantic vs. metaphysical analyses or commitments,     (2J109)

a theory of referring expressions and their referents; 3D vs. 4D analyses; parsimony of     (2J110)

representation; explicit intentional and causal focus; etc.) enable a better ontology?     (2J111)

5) If we were to rank criteria that a good ("quality") ontology would have, what would be the first     (2J112)

five criteria in order of importance? //     (2J113)

[09:03] Sylvia Spengler: thanks...hard to tell on some things....     (2J114)

[09:04] Jim Jacobs: With respect to Q3, there seems to be a distinction between intrinsic quality and     (2J115)

utility for any particular purpose. In both cases it seems critical to have meta information     (2J116)

regarding the intended context for use. I believe specificity of context to the "next big thing" in     (2J117)

this area.     (2J118)

[09:05] Sylvia Spengler: Very nice point.     (2J119)

[09:07] Doug Foxvog: @JimJacobs: I suggest that the intended context of an ontology should be     (2J120)

reified. I.e., statements in the ontology language should be made providing information about the     (2J121)

intended context. Thus a knowledge base about the ontology!     (2J122)

[09:09] Doug Foxvog: We could create standards for what sort and breadth of statements should be     (2J123)

included for best practice ontologizing.     (2J124)

[09:11] Mike Bennett: Indeed. Then extending that, whether the ontology merits the use of upper     (2J125)

ontology partitions (e.g. reference ontology Yes, application ontology No), and then quality     (2J126)

measures follow from the due application of these.     (2J127)

[09:12] Symposium (SteveRay): == Beginning Track B - Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation -     (2J128)

[09:12] Bob Schloss: I would like to see any ideas about evaluation of ontologies that takes place     (2J130)

over time -- watches the dynamics of requests for modifications, and whether those modifications are     (2J131)

the kind the require more-expensive changes to producing or consuming software or information     (2J132)

repositories (databases).     (2J133)

[09:17] Matthew Kaufman: It sounds to me like Operational Aspects are Merging Much with Development     (2J134)

Aspects in many domains; such as Ontology Versus Real-Life Use as in: Dev-Ops is Merging with     (2J135)

[09:18] Matthew Kaufman: Software Engineering + Dev-Ops = Future (Now; i.e., the Cloud)? It is     (2J137)

[09:28] Matthew Kaufman: Requirements for Ontology: 1) Business Requirements (Opportunity Discovery,     (2J139)

Due Diligence, or Regulatory/Compliance Checks) -- 2) Regulatory / Legal: Sarbanes-Oxley is a     (2J140)

wonderful example of how operational can fit in to the abstracted design of the ontology -- 3) The     (2J141)

last phase IMO: Is the User Scenario / Use Cases of the software itself that the ontology is created     (2J142)

[09:30] Jim Jacobs: @ToddSchneider wrt "intended interpretation" almost suggests a requirement for a     (2J144)

"SKOS-type"" descriptive document to go along with the actual detailed ontology (""OWL-level""). Having     (2J145)

a recommended set of metadata descriptions to go with ontologies intended for re-use ... this would     (2J146)

be a valuable thing.     (2J147)

[09:30] Amanda Vizedom: RE Regression Testing for ontologies - this does exist in some places, but     (2J148)

needs to be adopted much more broadly. RE: current practices: see Mar-7 presentation by     (2J149)

Maria Copeland [1], Feb-14 by Gavin Matthews [2]. ... ref. [1]     (2J150)

[09:31] Steve Ray: I don't see why much of what comprises requirements engineering cannot also apply     (2J153)

[09:32] Matthew Kaufman: @JimJacobs: ""Having a recommended set of metadata descriptions to go with     (2J155)

ontologies intended for re-use"" ---- I was just going to say this: ***I BELIEVE BEFORE THE     (2J156)

REQUIREMENTS; IT IS REQUIRED AND ESSENTIAL TO FIRST GATHER AND DEFINE AND *KNOW* WHAT THE     (2J157)

""DEFINITIONS"" ARE OF YOUR DOMAIN***     (2J158)

[09:32] Matthew Kaufman: Sec. 2. Definitions. Sec. 3. Commission rules and enforcement     (2J160)

[09:33] Matthew Kaufman: I.e., the Ontology is built on: ""Commission rules and enforcement""; but     (2J161)

first Definitions are required to know the domains and scopes?.     (2J162)

[09:34] Matthew Kaufman: (c) DEFINITIONS.In this section (1) the term securities analyst means any     (2J163)

associated person of a registered broker or dealer that is principally responsible for, and any     (2J164)

associated person who reports directly or indirectly to a securities analyst in connection with, the     (2J165)

preparation of the substance of a research report, whether or not any such person has the job title     (2J166)

of securities analyst; and (2) the term research report means a written or electronic communication     (2J167)

that includes an analysis of equity securities of individual (..)     (2J168)

[09:35] Steve Ray: @MatthewKaufman: Would you agree that one of the main uses of ontology is to     (2J169)

provide the definitions?     (2J170)

[09:37] Steve Ray: @MatthewKaufman: It is looking like you are getting circular: You want definitions     (2J171)

before composing the requirements for an ontology, whose purpose is to provide the definitions.     (2J172)

[09:38] Amanda Vizedom: @MatthewKaufman - many of us view that as an essential part of the     (2J173)

requirements development process, not something which is separate and before it.     (2J174)

[09:38] Matthew Kaufman: @AmandaVizedom: Okay, point taken. Correct. I'd agree and encourage that.     (2J175)

[09:40] Matthew Kaufman: @SteveRay: I see what you are saying; but I think the definitions are in the     (2J176)

""context"" itself; i.e., I see an ontology in being a ""LINKER"" between 2 ""Definitions"" or ""sources""     (2J177)

or "frames". I see an ontology as providing the *links* and or relational connections between 1 or     (2J178)

sources and or concepts/entities/things.     (2J179)

[09:41] Jim Jacobs: This reminds me of why some folks have suggested that in system architecture     (2J180)

frameworks like DODAF or MODAF an "AV-2" document should be quite ontological in its list of     (2J181)

defining terms for system designers and developers to use during system development.     (2J182)

[09:42] Matthew Kaufman: I am not familiar with DODAF or MODAF. AV-2 sounds familiar; but still     (2J183)

unknown. I think GNUStep is the closest thing I have seen to an ontological type concept in systems.     (2J184)

[11:07] Terry Longstreth: @MatthewKaufman: For an overview of MODAF work products see     (2J185)

[11:21] GaryBergCross: DODAFia a DoD Architectural Framework...and Enterprise Architecture.     (2J187)

[11:39] Matthew Kaufman: Thanks Terry     (2J188)

{{{ [11:40] Terry Longstreth: ;}) }}}     (2J189)

[10:19] Ali Hashemi: are people breaking atm?     (2J190)

[10:35] AstridDuqueRamos: has the conference re-started?.     (2J191)

[10:40] Sylvia Spengler: (1:40pm EDT now) 2:00pm EDT is what I have on my agenda copy     (2J192)

[10:52] anonymous morphed into Carmen Chui     (2J194)

[10:55] Amanda Vizedom: People are re-gathering. We should be starting shortly.     (2J195)

[11:01] anonymous morphed into Barry Smith     (2J196)

[11:05] Mike Bennett: We are standing in little clumps chatting, but nearly everyone is here.     (2J197)

[11:06] anonymous1 morphed into Symposium (SteveRay)     (2J198)

[11:07] anonymous morphed into LaVernPritchard     (2J199)

[11:08] Symposium (SteveRay): == David Newman giving the keynote-2     (2J200)

[11:15] Symposium (SteveRay): We can hear keyboard activity. Please try to mute when not speaking.     (2J201)

[11:22] anonymous morphed into Christian Hempelmann     (2J202)

[11:28] anonymous morphed into Ben Bovee     (2J203)

[11:31] List of cuurent members in the chat-workspace: Ali Hashemi, Amanda Vizedom, AstridDuqueRamos,     (2J204)

[11:32] LaVernPritchard: slides are not being advanced     (2J209)

[11:32] Peter P. Yim: ran into a technical issue; vnc service is back now     (2J210)

[11:33] LaVernPritchard: thank you     (2J211)

[11:47] GaryBergCross: How would you describe the method by which you arrive at community agreed     (2J212)

upon standard definitions of business terms? And what were the challenges along the way?     (2J213)

[11:47] anonymous morphed into Pavithra Kenjige     (2J214)

[11:48] Doug Foxvog: Mention of use of other standards. Are there mappings to EDI terms? ... either     (2J215)

X12, EDIFACT, SWIFT, ...?     (2J216)

[11:56] anonymous morphed into Gary Gannon     (2J217)

[12:02] Mike Bennett: @GaryBergCross for the most part, we took definitions in the corresponding data     (2J218)

standards e.g. ISO20022, adapted so they describe the thing rather than the data about the thing,     (2J219)

and then present this for review and validation. The main challenge is that people prefer to tell     (2J220)

you about new terms than to formally validate the existing ones.     (2J221)

[12:04] Mike Bennett: @DougFoxvog in the FIBO "Foundations" specification we have defined     (2J222)

abstractions which are necessarily outside of the financial industry, and tried to find standard     (2J223)

ontologies which cover the same ground (only a few so far). For the industry content, most terms     (2J224)

originate as a reverse engineering of logical (ISO 20022) or physical (e.g.FpML) model standard,     (2J225)

refactored to describe the actual thing. We hope to map to more standard ontologies in the future as     (2J226)

these emerge.     (2J227)

[12:04] anonymous morphed into Fabian Neuhaus     (2J228)

[12:06] Mike Bennett: For example when we model loans, we want to align with the MISMO standard for     (2J229)

loans, but that only deals with physical and logical data model components, so with their blessing     (2J230)

we aim to create the corresponding ontology - but where MISMO deals with terms about real estate, we     (2J231)

would expect to use formal ontologies developed in and by the real estate community of practice.     (2J232)

[12:08] Mike Bennett: For definitions, if there isn't a pre-existing industry data model standard, we     (2J233)

tend to use a wikipedia or Investopedia definition, as long as the subject matter experts agree on     (2J234)

the use of a given definition and source.     (2J235)

[12:10] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett did you run into situations where there was a conflict of     (2J236)

ontology quality, say a real taxonomy, vs. domain definitions that seemed to want it another way?     (2J237)

Did you ever have to resolve conflicts between 2 or more conflicting taxonomies from the various     (2J238)

[12:12] Doug Foxvog: @MikeBennett: SWIFT has been sending financial messages with formally defined     (2J240)

terms for over 40 years. X12 & EDIFACT have had such messages since the 1980s. These messages have     (2J241)

transferred 10s (100s? more?) of trillions of US dollars over the years. They are certainly used in     (2J242)

the financial industry     (2J243)

[12:14] Mike Bennett: Not as such, but we have had to work out what treatments to take on external     (2J244)

ontologies e.g. when to use a snapshot or when to refer to the ontology direct. Quality, and     (2J245)

knowledge of maintenance of other ontologies, is quite variable. In reality, we have only so far     (2J246)

make such reference to a small number of ontologies, and this sort of material is outside the scope     (2J247)

of the OMG submission, which is restricted to what is our own, stable set of terms and definitions.     (2J248)

So this is an aspect of the ontology that we can expect to develop further as time goes on.     (2J249)

[12:14] Gary Gannon: (responding to the moderator's verbal question) yes I am speaking     (2J250)

[12:14] Sylvia Spengler: you seem muted, Gary     (2J251)

[12:14] Ali Hashemi: Gary you're likely still muted.     (2J252)

[12:15] Mike Bennett: @DougFoxvog indeed. We made reference to the ISO 20022 FIBIM model component     (2J254)

(the remaining aspects of SWIFT are more in the transaction space, which we haven't modeled yet. At     (2J255)

the end of May, SWIFT (in their capacity as RA of ISO 20022) are releasing a new interface and more     (2J256)

semantic terms for their material - worth a look.     (2J257)

[12:15] Ali Hashemi: @MikeBennett, any work towards using Controlled English for the natural language     (2J258)

definitions?     (2J259)

[12:17] Mike Bennett: Not at this point, but we are considering in a future iteration, having a layer     (2J260)

of SBVR terminology, which is a sort of CNL. I'd like to look at more formal use of something like     (2J261)

ACE as well. This wouild be a different set of definitions to the industry ones, which are     (2J262)

deliberately intended to be the ones which business folks themselves are comfortable with.     (2J263)

[12:19] Ali Hashemi: Do you think there'll always be a divide b/w these languages? (in this context     (2J264)

at least)     (2J265)

[12:19] Ali Hashemi: )// always --> for a long time*     (2J266)

[12:16] Simon Spero: @AliHashemi: there was a quick look at ACE in the hackathon     (2J267)

[12:20] Symposium (SteveRay): All remote attendees: The audio bridge only lasts for 4 hours, so     (2J268)

please hang up your audio connection and dial back in at 3:30pm Eastern. Thanks!     (2J269)

[12:20] Simon Spero: Engineers, physicists, architects, and mathematicians demonstrate that all odd     (2J270)

numbers greater than 1 are prime:     (2J271)

[12:20] Simon Spero: Mathematician: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, and 7 is prime. By induction, all the odd     (2J272)

integers are prime.     (2J273)

[12:20] Simon Spero: Physicist: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is experimental error, 11 is     (2J274)

prime, 13 is prime, 15 is experimental error, 17 is prime, 19 is prime. The empirical evidence is     (2J275)

overwhelming     (2J276)

[12:21] Simon Spero: Engineer: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is a good approximation, 11 is     (2J277)

[12:21] Simon Spero: Architect: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, the engineers will figure out how     (2J279)

to make 9 prime, 11 is prime, ...     (2J280)

[12:29] Bobbin Teegarden: Thank you, Simon. ;0)     (2J281)

[12:31] Ali Hashemi: if people are speaking, the audio is not working properly     (2J282)

[12:33] Symposium (SteveRay): people ... please re-dial into the conf call again, the bridge is up     (2J284)

[12:33] Ali Hashemi: I could only hear Steve. If others are speaking, still only faint audio.     (2J286)

[12:34] Ali Hashemi: (ah nm)     (2J287)

[12:36] Ali Hashemi: no it's fine!     (2J288)

[12:37] Bruce Bray: that's better     (2J289)

[12:38] Symposium (SteveRay): == Track-C - Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - report     (2J290)

starting, Mike Bennett presenting     (2J291)

[12:46] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett Concepts can, and should, also be grounded in data. So if we are     (2J292)

talking about a contract, what data do we have on a contract.     (2J293)

[12:54] GaryBergCross: @SimonSpero This provides great intensive defs, but less of the type of     (2J296)

instance data that I was thinking of...     (2J297)

[12:55] Simon Spero: Scientific Warrant is close     (2J298)

[12:51] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett @DavidNewman another part of development would be the in the     (2J299)

integrating of ontology modules / ODPs from the Base as mentioned earlier.     (2J300)

[12:55] Peter P. Yim: == Track C - Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - session continues -     (2J301)

Matthew West posing questions to the participants     (2J302)

[12:55] Peter P. Yim: === Matthew: Q1. why have an ontology development methodology? [Symposium     (2J303)

(SteveRay) and Peter P. Yim capturing some of the verbal responses below ... ]     (2J304)

[12:56] Doug Foxvog: Why have an ontology development methodology? To ensure that the ontology is     (2J305)

consistent with itself, included ontologies, and to ensure the lack of large gaps.     (2J306)

[12:56] Symposium (SteveRay): Easier to teach people to develop ontologies     (2J307)

[12:56] Peter P. Yim: to develop a repeatable pattern     (2J308)

[12:56] Christian Hempelmann: If you don't know on what basis you're making choices, you can't     (2J309)

correct them in an informed manner.     (2J310)

[12:56] Bobbin Teegarden: Reuseability     (2J311)

[12:57] Jim Jacobs: Answer to Q1: "You need an ontology development methodology to "raise the quality     (2J312)

floor" of ontology work yielding a well-framed artifact."     (2J313)

[12:57] Terry Longstreth: re: Matthew West question 1 - requires first answering the question 'Why     (2J314)

have an ontology', the answer to that will guide the selection of (a) methodology     (2J315)

[12:57] Bob Schloss: Why have an ontology development methodology? - To not miss anything critical     (2J316)

and have visibility of where you are toward "Completion - Ready for Use" (so the methodology implies     (2J317)

a repeatable process in my mind)     (2J318)

[12:57] Peter P. Yim: making out current implicit methodology explicit, and therefore repeatable and     (2J319)

[12:57] Symposium (SteveRay): Makes collaboration between people much easier to develop the ontology     (2J321)

[12:58] Simon Spero: If you don't know have a methodology, you have no idea what you're going to do,     (2J322)

or if you've done it     (2J323)

[12:58] Steve Ray: For consistency in quality and design     (2J324)

[12:58] Jim Jacobs: 2nd answer to Q1: to embody and clarify development assumptions.     (2J325)

[12:58] Ali Hashemi: Q1 Answer: A development methodology is instrumental in providing insight into     (2J326)

whether the resulting ontology is appropriate, and how to best manage the ontology as a resource /     (2J327)

asset. Helps make ontologies more measurable, comparable and understandable.     (2J328)

[12:58] Symposium (SteveRay): Provides a framework for completeness and learning     (2J329)

[12:58] Amanda Vizedom: Sometimes to make ontology development effective quality-wise. Sometimes to     (2J330)

make team development possible.     (2J331)

[12:59] GaryBergCross: To help diverse people produce ontologies with similar, good     (2J332)

qualities...Ontologies become more reproducible.     (2J333)

[12:59] Symposium (SteveRay): === Matthew West: Q2. What should an ontology development methodology     (2J334)

[12:59] Jim Jacobs: Q2: The frame of analysis, the epistemology used, the intended purpose.     (2J336)

[13:00] Torsten Hahmann: second question: it should include milestones and activities     (2J337)

[13:00] Simon Spero: What should methodology cover: do you need an ontology,     (2J338)

[13:00] GaryBergCross: A development methodology would cover the class of tools and standards that     (2J339)

should help.     (2J340)

[13:01] GaryBergCross: Development methodology should include how phases of work are related.     (2J341)

[13:02] GaryBergCross: Development methodology should include guidance on how quality is gauged     (2J342)

during each phase.     (2J343)

[13:00] Ali Hashemi: Q2 Answer - Should offer a set of optional (but normative) best practices,     (2J344)

aggregating the collective wisdom of practitioners and lessons learned. Suggestions for different     (2J345)

methodologies depending on the intended usage.     (2J346)

[13:01] Ali Hashemi: Q2A addendum - ability to gauge and measure the ontology as it is being     (2J347)

developed.     (2J348)

[13:00] Sylvia Spengler: How about giving the online folks a chance to sound off? This feels like     (2J349)

sheep and goats..     (2J350)

[13:01] Torsten Hahmann: should offer criteria to track the progress of the development     (2J351)

[13:01] Peter P. Yim: ... from Hans Polzer: methodology should include techniques for how upper     (2J352)

ontologies can be used to analyze a domain to support development of a consistent domain ontology     (2J353)

[13:01] Doug Foxvog: An ontology development methodology should cover a technique for covering a     (2J354)

topic, what kinds of assertions are required for each class, individual, and relation defined in the     (2J355)

ontology, including documentation. It should include (how to select) which higher ontologies to     (2J356)

[13:01] Amanda Vizedom: Methodology should cover & guide development-time decisions, including how to     (2J358)

choose between logically equivalent solutions to a modeling problem (for consistency &     (2J359)

collaboration)     (2J360)

[13:01] Amanda Vizedom: How to scope (what to include and when to stop)     (2J361)

[13:02] Amanda Vizedom: A methodology should include specification of its own applicability     (2J362)

conditions.     (2J363)

[13:03] Doug Foxvog: @Amanda: +1     (2J364)

[13:04] Amanda Vizedom: Where, when, & how to test your work     (2J365)

[13:04] Symposium (SteveRay): Should use a process language to specify the kinds of tasks needed in     (2J366)

a development methodology     (2J367)

[13:05] Peter P. Yim: an improvement methodology to fix things when things don't work     (2J368)

[13:05] Simon Spero: Stand Up for SCRUM     (2J369)

[13:05] Amanda Vizedom: should be specified clearly enough to track - whether automatically or     (2J370)

[13:05] Doug Foxvog: An ontology development methodology should include a technique for analyzing     (2J372)

that no logically inconsistent assertions are made. Including inconsistency between assertions made     (2J373)

by different members of the development team.     (2J374)

[13:06] Doug Foxvog: I mean *automatic* analysis of assertions as made.     (2J375)

[13:05] Symposium (SteveRay): Need to distinguish between the tool-set and the methodology. Might     (2J376)

have a good methodology and bad tools.     (2J377)

[13:06] GaryBergCross: How to engineering an ontology from an existing vocabulary and/or data model.     (2J378)

[13:06] Symposium (SteveRay): Separately evaluate the tools against the methodology that is     (2J379)

separately defined.     (2J380)

[13:06] Peter P. Yim: === Matthew West: Q3. How do you know if an ontology development methodology is delivering?     (2J381)

[13:07] Ali Hashemi: Q3A: The intended uses and functionality of the ontology are satisfied with     (2J382)

"minimal" amount of (re)work.     (2J383)

[13:07] Peter P. Yim: if people are using your ontology     (2J384)

[13:07] Symposium (SteveRay): If it reduces the number of errors in an ontology     (2J385)

[13:07] Amanda Vizedom: should include acknowledgement of possible need to handle situations the     (2J386)

methodology doesn't cover, and enough rationale and principles to help figure out how to do so.     (2J387)

(still q2)     (2J388)

[13:07] Jim Jacobs: Q3: if it encourages ontology reuse, and endurance     (2J389)

[13:07] Symposium (SteveRay): Continuity - allows others to step in and pick up if one person leaves     (2J390)

[13:07] GaryBergCross: If you are asked to present at the Ontology summit     (2J392)

[13:07] Peter P. Yim: manageability, scalability, efficiency, repeatability,     (2J393)

[13:07] Symposium (SteveRay): Consistently good and useful ontologies on multiple projects.     (2J394)

[13:08] Amanda Vizedom: Q3: do the developers find that it guides their decision? do the results of     (2J395)

those decisions meet ontology requirements?     (2J396)

[13:08] Simon Spero: If the mission is achieved on time and within budget     (2J397)

[13:08] Symposium (SteveRay): Consistency the first time through     (2J398)

[13:09] GaryBergCross: If it subsumes, integrates and rationalizes other methods. If IT or Domain     (2J399)

people can work with it with modest help.     (2J400)

[13:09] GaryBergCross: If people start to build tools to support the method.     (2J401)

[13:09] Ram D. Sriram: go through the design literature ... can probably pick up a lot there     (2J402)

[13:09] Simon Spero: Ram D. Sriram: Fred Brooks (2010). The Design Of Design.     (2J403)

[13:09] Doug Foxvog: == Track D - Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Ken Baclawski presenting     (2J404)

[13:17] GaryBergCross: There is some possible overlap in the tools responded...CALORE for example     (2J405)

and OOR of which it is a part.     (2J406)

[ ... the OOR response is in reference to the OOR-sandbox instance. =ppy]     (2J407)

[13:18] anonymous morphed into Michael Barnett     (2J408)

[13:22] Peter P. Yim: see the software survey result summary at:     (2J409)

[13:19] Peter P. Yim: === soliciting answers from participants: Q1.     (2J411)

(1) What are the greatest barriers today to having     (2J413)

(i) system architects/designers, and     (2J414)

(ii) software engineers,     (2J415)

�� employ ontology in their work     (2J416)

[13:21] Peter P. Yim: again Symposium (SteveRay) and Peter P. Yim capturing some of the verbal the answers     (2J418)

from the participants     (2J419)

[13:20] GaryBergCross: Barrier for tools...lack of easy and effective training on the tool which     (2J420)

takes people thru the ontology lifecycle.     (2J421)

[13:22] GaryBergCross: Embed ontology tools and integrate them with traditional SW dev     (2J422)

tools/environments.     (2J423)

[13:20] Steve Ray: To answer the first question (slide 7) on Track D: We need tools where the UI is     (2J424)

designed for non-ontologists to use.     (2J425)

[13:21] Matthew Kaufman: @SteveRay can you describe some of the UI examples that you mean by     (2J426)

'non-ontologists'? What are some good application models or UI methodologies or IA (information     (2J427)

architectures) to model after?     (2J428)

[13:22] Matthew Kaufman: there is a lot of cross work between the W3C and the DOM in the structure     (2J429)

that looks to be pointing towards entity and ontological relations more so. I have not had time to     (2J430)

look completely but I like to model my frontends in XPath similarly to the ontological (I believe     (2J431)

imo) structure itself .     (2J432)

[13:24] Steve Ray: @MatthewKaufman: The UI would allow a user to pull down a pick-list for     (2J433)

constraining, say, the range of an association, which might be labelled "Values for this association     (2J434)

MUST be of type:" (rather than a user declaring a restriction class in the "subClassOf" attribute of     (2J435)

a class definition     (2J436)

[13:22] GaryBergCross: Lots of hands up out there!!!     (2J437)

[13:23] Peter P. Yim: ... have processes on incorporation of ontology built into their IDE or tools     (2J438)

[13:24] Peter P. Yim: ... better and more friendly user interfaces to the tools     (2J439)

[13:26] Peter P. Yim: ... Leo Obrst: training, formal training ...     (2J440)

[13:28] GaryBergCross: @LeoObrst Put more training online...     (2J441)

[13:29] Peter P. Yim: ... Dennis Wisnosky: tools like BPMN, DoD's DM2 ... tools are out there     (2J442)

[13:29] Jim Jacobs: Q2: strong need for clear examples of real-world threads of people using sound     (2J443)

ontology methodology.     (2J444)

[13:30] Peter P. Yim: ==== Q2: (2) what features need to be improved/added to software tools and IDE's to take down the above barriers     (2J445)

[13:30] Symposium (SteveRay): Interesting that CS graduates are expected to know the formal     (2J446)

mathematics behind their programs, but are not trained on the formal semantics of data     (2J447)

[13:30] Peter P. Yim: ... Matthew: documenting change     (2J448)

[13:31] Jim Jacobs: Q2: would be good to have tool support for the distinction between ontology as     (2J449)

the "worldview philosophy" of the system under development and the actual implementation level     (2J450)

knowledge representation ontology.     (2J451)

[13:31] Peter P. Yim: ... Michael Grüninger: traceability and provenance of ontology requirements     (2J452)

[13:31] GaryBergCross: MOOCs are Massive Open Online Courses. There are MOOCs for Computing for Data     (2J453)

Analysis (Coursera) Data Analysis (Coursera) Network Analysis in Systems Biology (Coursera)     (2J454)

Information Visualization (IU)     (2J455)

[13:35] GaryBergCross: Dr. Harald Sack ran a MOOC on Semantic Web Technologies is now in archive     (2J456)

mode. 5,692 learners were registered Duration: 6 weeks Course language: English     (2J457)

[13:32] Peter P. Yim: ... Mike Bennett: drag and drop UI, two views - UML-model and Conceptual-model     (2J459)

[13:38] Amanda Vizedom: The open world assumption just says that unknown/unprovable assertions should     (2J460)

not be assumed to be false. That's quite compatible with saying that modeling what you know, you     (2J461)

should aim for consistency and pay attention to what *is* entailed (according to your chosen     (2J462)

language & associated reasoning) by what you assert.     (2J463)

[13:44] Steve Ray: @AmandaVizedom: Of course I agree, otherwise what would be the use of tools to     (2J464)

check for "errors". I suppose what I should have said is that the tool should not PREVENT you from     (2J465)

doing bad things, but should let you know that you are doing bad things. Or perhaps there could be a     (2J466)

novice setting that does in fact constrain what could be valid but not-encouraged OWL     (2J467)

statements/patterns.     (2J468)

[13:50] Amanda Vizedom: @Steve, I guess what I meant is that distinguishing between unknown things     (2J469)

and things known to be false (which is what OWA does) does not mean that there aren't any inferrably     (2J470)

false things, or that inconsistencies won't lead to contradictions. It just rules out one particular     (2J471)

line of inference.     (2J472)

[13:39] GaryBergCross: The tools should allow leveraging existing ontologies an their parts in a     (2J473)

manageable way.     (2J474)

[13:42] GaryBergCross: For people's information there will be a "Semantics For Big Data" session at     (2J475)

AAAI Fall Symposium, Arlington, VA, November 15-17, 2013 Details:     (2J476)

[13:48] Simon Spero: Tools should not let you produce syntactically invalid OWL. like a certain     (2J478)

Library on Capitol Hill does     (2J479)

[13:46] Peter P. Yim: == Website team presentation is on - Ali Hashemi presenting (remotely)     (2J480)

[13:50] PavithraKenjige1 morphed into Pavithra Kenjige     (2J481)

[13:52] Steve Ray: @Ali: Very nice presentation. Where do I go to find out more about applying a     (2J482)

SPARQL query against the wiki?     (2J483)

[13:54] Ali Hashemi: Hi Steve, there are a number of different extensions. The SMW contains a lot of     (2J484)

pages and information about the different extensions, their development status and so on. A good     (2J485)

[13:53] Symposium (SteveRay): == Amanda Vizedom now presenting on the Community Library     (2J487)

[13:55] Ali Hashemi: Am I the only remote person who lost audio?     (2J488)

[13:56] Peter P. Yim: probably ... I am monitoring here, and I seem to be doing ok     (2J489)

[13:56] Peter P. Yim: anyone else having audio problems?     (2J490)

[13:57] Bruce Bray: audio is fine now     (2J491)

[13:57] Ali Hashemi: i had to dial back in. ok now.     (2J492)

[14:01] Jim Jacobs: Many thanks to all the support folk that enabled the remote participation. Cheers!     (2J493)

[13:58] Steve Ray: Hello to all the Bobbins.     (2J494)

[14:02] BobbinTeegarden13 morphed into Bobbin Teegarden     (2J495)

[14:03] Symposium (SteveRay): == the day-1 program is adjorned ... see you all tomorrow at 9:00am     (2J496)

[14:03] List of current members in the chat-room: Ali Hashemi, Barry Smith, Ben Bovee, Bobbin Teegarden,     (2J497)

-- end of chat session --     (2J501)

Fri 2013.05.03     (2J502)

(for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)     (2J504)

Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.     (2J505)

-- begin of chat session --     (2J506)

[05:45] Symposium (SteveRay): = Welcome to Day 2 of the Ontology Summit Symposium 2013 =     (2J507)

[05:26] anonymous morphed into Bruce Bray     (2J508)

[06:01] Sylvia Spengler: Must better sound today...thank you     (2J509)

[06:02] Steve Ray: Please move over to the May 3rd chat room. Just change the URL to end in 0503     (2J510)

instead of 0502. The rest of us are over there.     (2J511)

[06:04] Sylvia Spengler: sorry wasn't paying attention...thanks Steve     (2J512)

[06:04] Steve Ray: See you on the other side!     (2J513)

[06:00] == Olivier Bodenreider presenting Keynote-3     (2J514)

[06:05] Sylvia Spengler: could you remind the speaker about saying changed slide or its title..     (2J515)

[06:06] Symposium (SteveRay): Currently on slide 5     (2J516)

[06:22] GaryBergCross: It is interesting to see that under organizing principles there is no     (2J517)

hierarchical structure among the major concepts.     (2J518)

[06:25] anonymous morphed into Frank Olken     (2J519)

[06:26] Hans Polzer: Interesting that the assessment approach doesn't include anything about the     (2J520)

purpose of the assessment or the context/perspective from which the assessment is being made     (2J521)

[06:28] Terry Longstreth: Hans - sometimes it does, abstractly, as in chart 26     (2J522)

[06:40] GaryBergCross: Anatomy point seemed like a problem identifying parts vs. object in region of     (2J523)

[06:41] Steve Ray: [ref. slide #49] +1 to that.     (2J525)

[06:41] GaryBergCross: [ref. slide #50] @MikeDean Another use to test our Path ODP!!     (2J526)

[06:43] Steve Ray: [ref. slide #51] Intrinsic evaluation!     (2J527)

[06:45] Symposium (SteveRay): slide#55     (2J528)

[06:46] GaryBergCross: In a way these quality measures set Requirements" for the ontology     (2J529)

[06:47] Steve Ray: I think the heading should be Diabetic patients rather than Pediatric patients     (2J530)

[06:48] Sylvia Spengler: not according to the ages     (2J531)

[06:48] Bruce Bray: in this case it is diabetic pediatric patients     (2J532)

[06:49] GaryBergCross: @ Steve Does age 5-17 set this as pediatric?     (2J536)

[06:51] Bruce Bray: in this application the age specifies the denominator or cohort specification for     (2J538)

the measure (ie. eliminate very young children and adults)     (2J539)

[06:55] GaryBergCross: For me OlivierBodenreider's talk brings some of the quality discussion into     (2J540)

focus via real examples of what had been discussed generally.     (2J541)

[06:55] Terry Longstreth: Thought experiment - does updating their ontology periodically create new     (2J542)

ontologies every time? Are the ramifications of all changes communicated to all dependent     (2J543)

applications/users/uses?     (2J544)

[06:55] GaryBergCross: @Terry maybe it is just versioning.     (2J545)

[06:56] Steve Ray: @Gary: This underscores my belief that most benefit can be derived from the     (2J546)

simpler problems (i.e. "intrinsic" error checking), much of which can be automated.     (2J547)

[06:57] Mike Bennett: Change management in ontologies sounds like another very important aspect of     (2J548)

the ontology development lifecycle. We've considered the lifecycle for the initial development of     (2J549)

the thing, but with any engineering artifact, changes into subsequent versions is also part of the     (2J550)

process (and arguably the rationale for having a good process to begin with).     (2J551)

[06:57] Bruce Bray: @gary, I agree - it would be very interesting to apply some of the tools/methods     (2J552)

discussed in this summit to the biomed domain     (2J553)

[06:57] Steve Ray: The change management problem looks identical to the problem handled in code     (2J554)

development.     (2J555)

[06:57] Terry Longstreth: @Gary - whatever it's called, dependencies against the prior version are in     (2J556)

an unknown state after the changes are applied     (2J557)

[06:57] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett Since ontology development is never complete the versioning     (2J558)

problem is intrinsic to the effort.     (2J559)

[06:58] Amanda Vizedom: Very important thing to note, IMHO: The need to support changing codes that     (2J560)

Olivier just mentioned (and language use, in other cases) is among the reasons to observe discipline     (2J561)

in representing concept/entity structure centrally, and map to different code systems (i would     (2J562)

include NL terminologies among code systems, here). Updating mappings is very different that     (2J563)

updating concept/entity structure or names, and updating mappings is a much more manageable process.     (2J564)

[06:59] GaryBergCross: @Terry The relations need not be unknown, but in practice this quality may     (2J565)

not be realized because of lack of resources and standard methods and tools.     (2J566)

[07:01] Doug Foxvog: Change management should include policies for handling changed codes. Those     (2J567)

removed have recommendations for replacement codes (sometimes one replacement, sometimes more). KBs     (2J568)

need to be scanned for the changed codes and the recommendations for changes for specific assertions     (2J569)

need to be generated.     (2J570)

[07:01] anonymous morphed into Misha     (2J571)

[07:02] Amanda Vizedom: Another suggestion to support ease of updates *and* preserve interpretability     (2J572)

of older data: If code mapping include explicit naming of the code system *and version*, mapping to     (2J573)

new code systems can be added in new versions of the ontology in a way that facilitates detection     (2J574)

when out of date, tracking, etc.     (2J575)

[07:06] GaryBergCross: I wonder if anything analogous to regression testing makes sense and/or is     (2J576)

[07:07] Amanda Vizedom: @OlivierBodenreider - thank you for presenting this. It's an excellent     (2J578)

example of good, integrated evaluation practices that have concretely improved specific ontologies.     (2J579)

The detailed look is wonderful to have.     (2J580)

[07:08] Ali Hashemi / Amanda Vizedom: see the Communique at:     (2J582)

[07:09] Doug Foxvog: The date of assertions can provide a maximum version of the code set(s) used. A     (2J584)

KB that tracks the changes to codes could date the last time each code's meaning/properties is     (2J585)

[07:10] Amanda Vizedom: Remote participants: you may need to refresh the session page to see the link     (2J587)

to the slides.     (2J588)

[07:12] anonymous morphed into Clare Paul     (2J589)

[07:14] Amanda Vizedom: We are now on slide #7     (2J590)

[07:16] GaryBergCross: Should craftsmanship include good analysis as well as design?     (2J591)

[07:19] Matthew West: I think good analysis is what fidelity is about.     (2J592)

[07:22] GaryBergCross: @Matthew Yes, I can see that. But you might also have to design analysis     (2J593)

products to engage is discussion with domain experts such as conceptual viz.     (2J594)

[07:25] Matthew West: @Gary: I agree, but Craftsmanship is not a lifecycle phase, but something that     (2J595)

applies to artifacts of different lifecycle phases, and so is fidelity. So I would still consider     (2J596)

that good analysis is detected by a test of fidelity, where ever fidelity is important in the     (2J597)

various artifacts produced.     (2J598)

[07:26] Mike Bennett: @Gary the question there is what method is used for presenting content to     (2J599)

domain experts - do you design a one-off throwaway viz to show them, do you design an interface     (2J600)

which shows all or some of the actual model formalisms directly (do you limit what is expressed in     (2J601)

the ontology to what can be presented to this audience). Or do you use ACE etc. So once the answer     (2J602)

to this requirement is known, there will be design considerations for how that is handled.     (2J603)

[07:24] Amanda Vizedom: Please keep in mind, also, that this presentation is necessarily just an     (2J604)

outline or summary of the points in the Communique.     (2J605)

[07:25] GaryBergCross: @Amanda Will the slides be identified and available as background into to     (2J606)

help interpret the communique?     (2J607)

[07:26] Doug Foxvog: @Gary: Everything in the slides is already in the communique.     (2J608)

[07:27] GaryBergCross: @Doug yes, but this is like an outline that gives an overview and some focus     (2J609)

and some browsers might look here first and afterwards too.     (2J610)

[07:26] Bob Schloss: Two "artifacts" that Fabian doesn't call out in his slides are: Example Queries     (2J611)

(first expressed in natural language, later expressed in some semi-formal or precise query     (2J612)

language), (perhaps this is one case of a capability question), and Illustrative Sample Instances.     (2J613)

My experience is that we realize that our ontology has gaps or makes it too difficult to code and     (2J614)

execute the most critical queries is discovered when we use these against our intermediate designs.     (2J615)

[07:28] Bob Schloss: I think Matthew and I are both thinking about how tests of ontology adequacy are     (2J616)

performed. Mike points out that in many cases, a valid test involves domain experts who will have no     (2J617)

willingness or capacity to look at the representation of the ontology design which professional     (2J618)

ontologies or data modelers use.     (2J619)

[07:28] Matthew West: @Bob: Yes that is covered in the communique, at least at a high level. That's     (2J620)

one of the ways that requirements are determined.     (2J621)

[07:27] Amanda Vizedom: In the Communique, we had many, many hard choices to make regarding how much     (2J622)

detail to go into where. And even after we cut much that could have been said, the document is still     (2J623)

long... We tried to select with an eye toward making a strong and clear statement, and advocating     (2J624)

effectively in the direction in which consensus and understanding emerged...     (2J625)

[07:29] Doug Foxvog: @Amanda: I wouldn't say that the document is too long. It covers a lot of     (2J626)

material. If it were arbitrarily limited to 10 pages, it would be incomplete.     (2J627)

[07:30] Bob Schloss: @Amanda - I do not think the communique fails just because I would have written     (2J628)

somethings more specifically -- I'm just sharing my own experience with the people who are at this     (2J629)

meeting. (Yes, I know I'm bad for not writing things for you and Fabian weeks ago -- work is     (2J630)

incredibly busy!!)     (2J631)

[07:31] Amanda Vizedom: We hope that the Communique will encourage people to look further into the     (2J632)

supporting resources ...     (2J633)

[07:31] Mike Bennett: If the communique is anything like what Fabian is summarizing here, it sounds     (2J634)

to me like they have got to the heart of the important issues that have come out of these     (2J635)

discussions - not an easy task.     (2J636)

[07:31] Amanda Vizedom: *and* those resources should and will continue to evolve after today.     (2J637)

[07:32] Mike Bennett: Perhaps the communique can be followed up by a more referenced / academic white     (2J638)

paper covering this material - I think the specific things that have come out of this would merit     (2J639)

that (but it sounds like a lot of work for someone).     (2J640)

[07:34] Amanda Vizedom: To ToddSchneider's point (that there are tools available to augment the     (2J641)

development of requirements): We are not talking about generic software requirements tracking tools.     (2J642)

We are talking about tools that specifically are integrated into ontology development, management,     (2J643)

and evaluation tools.     (2J644)

[07:35] Bob Schloss: It would be an interesting exercise (but not something I am signing up to do) to     (2J645)

try to document this approach in some tool such as Rational Method Composer -     (2J646)

Then tooling to support an ontology development and release process, at least that based on Eclipse,     (2J648)

could actually have a sidebar with "What to do next?" for novice ontology developers. I think about     (2J649)

this because I am not sure that all commercial organizations have the budget to hire experienced     (2J650)

ontology designers so that their own staff can apprentice with these experienced and skilled people.     (2J651)

[07:37] Amanda Vizedom: To date: outside of a few, proprietary examples (e.g. Cyc), there are no true     (2J652)

Integrated Development Environments for ontology, as there are for software development.     (2J653)

[07:34] Steve Ray: All footnotes after #9 seem to have disappeared in the Google Doc.     (2J654)

[07:38] Amanda Vizedom: @Steve: I still have them showing...     (2J655)

[07:39] Amanda Vizedom: All: If you do not see all footnotes, you should be aware that we have     (2J656)

noticed a bit of bugginess in gdocs around this...     (2J657)

[07:41] Amanda Vizedom: Occasionally the footnotes seem to hide from people, possibly when using     (2J658)

browsers other than chrome.     (2J659)

[07:47] Steve Ray: @Amanda: Indeed footnotes don't seem to work in Safari but do work on my machine     (2J660)

in Chrome.     (2J661)

[07:42] Amanda Vizedom: We can produce a pdf download snapshot of it if needed.     (2J662)

[07:46] Peter P. Yim: @Amanda & Fabian - I have downloaded a version (from your google-doc) and is     (2J663)

versioning that as v1.0.0 dated 2013.05.03-10:30 which people are endorsing ... will post that pdf     (2J664)

on the wiki later too     (2J665)

[07:51] Amanda Vizedom: Thank you, Peter.     (2J666)

[07:58] GaryBergCross: I would just add to this discussion of "ontologies are part of systems" the     (2J667)

idea of ontologies as reference models (mentioned by Leo) and the type of use of ontology in Biomed     (2J668)

noted by Olivier. These seem one step removed from Apps by can be used there.     (2J669)

[08:05] anonymous morphed into Dan Carey     (2J670)

[08:06] Frank Olken: If Cyc has had an integrated ontology development environment for 15 years, then     (2J671)

it would be difficult for NSF/CISE/III to fund such a project as research - unless a case could be     (2J672)

made that the proposed ontology development environment was a substantial improvement over prior     (2J673)

art. It may be possible to fund an ODE via either Computer Research Infrastructure program, or via     (2J674)

the ACI (Advanced Computer Infrastructure) division's software tool development programs.     (2J675)

[08:31] Amanda Vizedom: @Frank: note that the Cyc environment is not in public domain, and is     (2J676)

customized for use with the CycL language, Cyc inference engine, and supporting infrastructure test     (2J677)

harness, test- and quality-related ontology, automated bookkeeping, inference tracing... To the best     (2J678)

of my knowledge (which I admit could be out of date), it is not usable outside of those conditions.     (2J679)

For example, it could not be used on ontologies in OWL or CLIF. And key pieces are not part of     (2J680)

OpenCyc (I believe because including it would allow too much, and too easy, reverse engineering of     (2J681)

the related proprietary Cyc technology)     (2J682)

[08:38] Amanda Vizedom: (continuing prior comment: so, it is a huge advantage for projects using     (2J683)

licensed, full Cyc. But unless the broader community using standard languages all start buying Cyc     (2J684)

licenses and working natively in CycL, it does not help the general ontology community, or     (2J685)

interoperability-oriented community using ontologies.     (2J686)

[08:43] Doug Foxvog: A significant subset of the Cyc environment *is* available through earlier     (2J689)

versions of OpenCyc (through 2.0). OpenCyc 4.0 makes it difficult to access the Cyc environment.     (2J690)

[08:34] Peter P. Yim: == session resuming (after the break) ...     (2J691)

[08:36] Peter P. Yim: == the Hackathon-Clinics overview on behalf of the co-champions of this group of     (2J692)

H-C Activities     (2J693)

[08:40] Peter P. Yim: === Ken Baclawski: comments and suggestions for the Hackathon-Clinics activities?     (2J694)

[08:41] Peter P. Yim: [consensus] we should do the Hackathons & Clinics again     (2J696)

[08:42] Ali Hashemi: the scope is sometimes too much for one session     (2J697)

[08:44] anonymous morphed into Evan Wallace     (2J698)

[08:45] Amanda Vizedom: My suggestion: (1) start earlier, (2) allow for the possibility of multiple     (2J699)

iterations. For example, 1 day intensive work, then a few weeks later, after time to think about it,     (2J700)

another 1 day intensive.     (2J701)

[08:46] Amanda Vizedom: Another thought: allow for the possibility of some *entirely* asynchronous     (2J702)

(any time of day) projects, within a limited time span (say a weekend). I imagine that this could     (2J703)

work well for highly parallelizable projects with a good idea of what they want to get done.     (2J704)

[08:46] anonymous morphed into Djoko Sayogo     (2J705)

[08:47] Terry Longstreth: I suggest we separate hackathons from the summit, and have them     (2J706)

independently scheduled and planned     (2J707)

[08:52] Amanda Vizedom: There is, though, a lot of benefit from the flow of ideas between the summit     (2J708)

activities and the hackathons. Benefit for both, I think, from the relatedness of focus.     (2J709)

[08:57] Terry Longstreth: Related but different topic - followup on this summit - add a hotlink in     (2J710)

footnotes to Communique for posthoc comments, observations, activities - in essence a 2013Summit     (2J711)

blog - which could also be a place for FOLLOWUP hackathons.     (2J712)

[08:50] Peter P. Yim: Doug Foxvog noted that we should not have scheduled the activities over the Easter     (2J713)

Weekend ... and the point was well taken     (2J714)

[08:49] Frank Olken: Catholic Easter or Orthodox Easter?     (2J715)

[08:57] Doug Foxvog: @Frank: commercial Easter. The one with Easter bunnies, eggs, and family     (2J716)

get-togethers (in the US). FWIW, Orthodox Easter has not been interfered with (which may be     (2J717)

important for the Russians) -- it occurs this coming weekend.     (2J718)

[08:51] anonymous morphed into NicolauDePaula     (2J719)

[08:54] Frank Olken: I am opposed to pushing the Ontology Summit into June. It would run into Semantic     (2J720)

Technology Conference in SF or possibly SIGMOD/PODS conference.     (2J721)

[08:54] == Joel Bender was unable to join us to present on the HC-01 project - Steve Ray made a few     (2J722)

remarks as a participant in that activity     (2J723)

[08:56] anonymous morphed into James Michaelis     (2J724)

[08:59] Frank Olken: Steve, I agree that ontologies would help tighten up many standards. I would     (2J725)

point to work of HL7 on HL7 version 3 which is based on a reference information model from which HL7     (2J726)

messages are derived as views on the underlying Reference Information Model.     (2J727)

[09:01] Mike Dean: I tried to comment on BACnet, but apparently only introduced echo     (2J728)

[09:02] Steve Ray: Sorry Mike     (2J729)

[09:02] Mike Dean: My main point is that ASN.1 describes messages, so there was a need to represent     (2J730)

messages as well as the domain model     (2J731)

[09:00] == HC-02 The General Ontology Evaluation Framework (GOEF) & the I-Choose Use Case -     (2J732)

James Michaelis presenting (remotely)     (2J733)

[09:03] BobbinTeegarden11 morphed into Bobbin Teegarden     (2J734)

[09:04] anonymous morphed into Jerry Smith     (2J735)

[09:05] Amanda Vizedom: @James, could you speak a tiny bit slower? It's a bit hard to understand at     (2J736)

[09:12] anonymous morphed into Dan Carey     (2J738)

[09:15] anonymous morphed into Ken Baclawski     (2J739)

[09:22] GaryBergCross: It is interesting to note in passing that they cite 3 different criteria     (2J740)

(from our 5) to evaluate the ontology - Correctness, Completeness, & Utility.     (2J741)

[09:27] Amanda Vizedom: @Gary - just to note, Joanne did present on GOEF during one of the summit     (2J742)

sessions. So the characteristics/requirements/etc mentioned as part of the GOEF framework were among     (2J743)

the many that we looked at, along with those from OntoQA, OQuaRE, OOPS!, other presentations, and     (2J744)

prior literature, that fed into the ongoing summit discussions -- which discussions ultimately led     (2J745)

to the clustering of in-scope potential requirements into the focal 5 we ended up with.     (2J746)

[09:20] == HC-03 Evaluation of OOPS! OQuaRE and OntoQA for FIBO Ontologies - Mike Bennett presenting     (2J747)

[09:32] anonymous morphed into Hans Polzer     (2J748)

[09:34] Bob Schloss: Listening to Mike talk about grounding FIBO concepts in legal, financial,     (2J749)

regulatory concepts, I am reminded that in the Intelligent Semantic Model Palette (for Smarter     (2J750)

Cities) that I have worked on with RosarioUcedaSosa and others, we adopted conventions to use     (2J751)

annotations so that for any concept in ISMP (which internally we call SCRIBE), its complete or     (2J752)

partial heritage or partial mapping to concepts in pre-existing representations, vocabularies or     (2J753)

data communication standards (such as Common Alerting Protocol, National Information Exchange Model,     (2J754)

DATEX II for transportation) is always specified. We think this may allow software developers     (2J755)

familiar with these standards to find the matching concepts in the ISMP ontology.     (2J756)

[09:40] GaryBergCross: @Amanda Is utility reflected in your 5 categories? deployability seems     (2J757)

closer, but is not quite it. I searched and the word 'utility' is not in the document.     (2J758)

[09:41] Amanda Vizedom: Gary, it is reflected, especially in fitness, but may require some unpacking     (2J759)

of implications to see...     (2J760)

[09:43] Amanda Vizedom: This comes under the heading of things we talked quite a lot about, that     (2J761)

provided important content to the Communique, but that may have a non-obvious terminological     (2J762)

alignment...     (2J763)

[09:44] Terry Longstreth: @Gary - I'm curious as to how one would measure utility empirically.     (2J764)

[09:45] GaryBergCross: @Amanda I can see that a bit, but the def doesn't easily lead me to think of     (2J765)

utility which is derived from it- Does the ontology accurately represent its domain? (Fidelity)     (2J766)

[09:45] Matthew West: @Gary: Utility is really a function of meeting requirements. If it isn't then     (2J767)

it means you did not get your requirements right.     (2J768)

[09:45] Amanda Vizedom: (I have particular hopes for the future work along the Ontology of Ontology     (2J769)

Evaluation lines to capture such alignments and relationships, including the work that Mike Bennett     (2J770)

just talked about.)     (2J771)

[09:45] Amanda Vizedom: (more on that after lunch)     (2J772)

[09:47] Symposium (SteveRay): == session adjourned for lunch ... reconvening in about 50 minutes     (2J773)

[09:48] Symposium (SteveRay): == all remote participants will need to dial-in to the conference     (2J774)

bridge again, after this lunch break. (Please dial-in a couple of minutes early if you can.)     (2J775)

[10:44] anonymous morphed into Dan Carey     (2J776)

[10:46] Peter P. Yim: please dial back into the conference bridge     (2J777)

[10:51] Symposium (SteveRay): == HC-04 Ontology Summit 2013 Content Hack: Leveraging Semantics on     (2J778)

[11:05] == HC-05 Hackathon: Ontology of Ontology Evaluation - Amanda Vizedom presenting     (2J780)

[11:09] Amanda Vizedom: Observation: that indirection in the ontology is actually a typical sign that     (2J781)

what you have is really not a standard ontology but a subject hierarchy / classification system. You     (2J782)

can either understand the subsumption relationship to be broader/narrower in the subject-headings     (2J783)

sense, or treat all of the class names as containing an elision of "information about..." (or "pages     (2J784)

about...," in this case.     (2J785)

[11:11] Mike Bennett: @Amanda that came up in some of the classification research we did with the     (2J786)

folks at UBC - for instance with books, French Grammar is not a kind of French, but a French Grammar     (2J787)

Book is a kind of Book about French. The "Thing" is the book / article etc. not the subject. Sounds     (2J788)

like like is applicable to wiki as well.     (2J789)

[11:16] GaryBergCross: I'd like to a see a Hackathon on converting some existing subject     (2J790)

classifications into a useful ontology!     (2J791)

[11:30] GaryBergCross: @Amanda This work is a good opportunity to integrate with some IT methods and     (2J792)

show Process diagram as well as an Object model both of which then get represented in an Ontology.     (2J793)

[11:33] Amanda Vizedom: @Gary, I like that idea.     (2J794)

[11:16] anonymous morphed into Dan Carey     (2J795)

[11:25] Hamizah Hamka: Amanda, did you consider the meta ontology proposed by AldoGangemi?     (2J796)

[11:32] Amanda Vizedom: @Hamizah, we did not look at that one during the hackathon day, though we do     (2J800)

have it in the collection of relevant references. Thanks for the reminder.     (2J801)

[11:33] Mike Bennett: @Gary in FIBO we used Occurrent Things partition to create process primitives     (2J802)

and so draw process flows that were also ontologies - a bit primitive, since then Dennis Wisnosky has     (2J803)

worked on something in OMG which maps BPMN to OWL.     (2J804)

[11:37] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett Yes , I was thinking of a simple Endurant / Occurent distinction     (2J805)

with these on a top level of the diagram so below things are sub-types of these 2.     (2J806)

[11:43] Bobbin Teegarden: @MikeBennett BPMN? But wouldn't a UML activity diagram be a richer     (2J807)

expression of the graph structure needed?     (2J808)

[11:44] Amanda Vizedom: @Gary, @Mike there are a number of fairly well-established ways to ontologize     (2J809)

the processes and process relationships, including scripts, subprocess hierarchies, specification of     (2J810)

participants and the role they play, etc.. Any of those could be applied in formally and shown in a     (2J811)

diagram which is itself quite understandable. I may have misunderstood Gary's first point; I took it     (2J812)

too me about the usefulness of having visual conventions (e.g., color, shape) for showing the     (2J813)

process and event things differently from, say, the actors and information objects.     (2J814)

[11:45] Bobbin Teegarden: @Amanda Shape, not color, my vote.     (2J815)

[11:48] Amanda Vizedom: @Bobbin - certainly color runs up against limits and perception variations     (2J816)

more quickly!     (2J817)

[11:49] Mike Bennett: @Amanda I'd like to look into that some more. I see potential for conceptual     (2J818)

modeling tooling which goes beyond ontology to business process, business rules etc., with     (2J819)

everything tied in to 1st order logic, math etc. - I like the idea of different appearances.     (2J820)

[11:49] GaryBergCross: @Amanda You understood what I was saying, which was to use a color or shape     (2J821)

code at this level, but that could be later formalized a bit by linking to DUL concepts.     (2J822)

[11:50] Mike Bennett: On appearances, there was a chap who presented at the last OMG meetings, on     (2J823)

taking a more scientific approach to appearances of things - tore into UML and the rest :)     (2J824)

[11:50] Mike Bennett: (for instance, use color as a way to help the eye differentiate things but not     (2J825)

as primary distinction which would be e.g. shape).     (2J826)

[11:53] Amanda Vizedom: @Bobbin - but good visualization and use of visual metaphors are areas in     (2J827)

which I tend to rely on the strengths and expertise of others -- I recognize them as important, and     (2J828)

also make a practice of attending to whether an intended audience (say, experts reviewing something)     (2J829)

can easily and correctly understand some presentation, or whether it needs to be modified for them.     (2J830)

In that (common) case, though, I often look for tools and/or metaphors that audience likes already,     (2J831)

or find someone who has more UI / visualization expertise to help solve it.     (2J832)

[11:53] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett Yes the older convention seemed to be sq for continuent-objects     (2J833)

and ovals for process-occurents.     (2J834)

[11:54] Amanda Vizedom: @Gary, Mike - increasingly crowded convention-space. Shape uses in different     (2J835)

diagramming practices can conflict.     (2J836)

[11:55] Mike Bennett: @Gary is that published somewhere? We have the opportunity now to rethink and     (2J837)

improve the business facing visuals in our work.     (2J838)

[11:56] Steve Ray: I would recommend turning to UI research such as the work of Ben Schneiderman for     (2J839)

some good principles.     (2J840)

[11:56] Bobbin Teegarden: @Amanda Agree that human sensory reaction important. Thought: color doesn't     (2J841)

print well, turns out it's important for model usage, I think.     (2J842)

[11:57] Amanda Vizedom: @Mike, during the USAF project, we had that specific issue: bridging BPMN and     (2J843)

OWL. Well, not only that; representing BPMN in OWL was useful but didn't solve our whole problem. We     (2J844)

  • really* wanted to bridge the work of Enterprise Architects and that of Ontologists, so that we     (2J845)

could have more continuity &integration of work and reuse of information gathering.     (2J846)

[11:58] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett Data Flow Diagrams The formal, structured analysis approach     (2J847)

employs the data-flow diagram (DFD) to assist in the functional decomposition process. I learned     (2J848)

structured analysis techniques from DeMarco [7], and those techniques are representative of present     (2J849)

conventions. To summarize, DFD's are comprised of four components: External interactors are     (2J850)

represented by a rectangle. Data stores are represented by an open rectangle (2 or 3 sides).     (2J851)

Processes are represented by any rounded object (a circle, oval, or square with rounded corners). A     (2J852)

DFD process may represent system function at one of various levels, atomic through aggregate. Data     (2J853)

flows are represented by arrows, with labels indicating their content.     (2J854)

[11:58] Mike Bennett: Turns out that UI chap is right here in Maryland http://www.cs.umd.edu/~ben/     (2J856)

[11:58] Mike Bennett: @Gary, ah yes, I remember those.     (2J857)

[11:59] Amanda Vizedom: E.g. EA often bottoms out at the exchange of information objects (e.g.,     (2J858)

reports, data artifacts). It doesn't go into the information content of those objects or that     (2J859)

exchange. That's where the ontologists on that project were picking up...     (2J860)

[12:00] Mike Bennett: @Amanda what I'd want to see is something where you draw the process flow in     (2J861)

front of the users, so it looks exactly like a Visio swimlanes diagram, but behind the scenes each     (2J862)

Process, Process Activity, Process Event etc. is given its 'is a' relationship to the kind of     (2J863)

occurrent thing it is a kind of. Then in drawing the process you draw the process ontology.     (2J864)

[12:00] Bob Schloss: If changes are being made to OntoHub, would the team consider adding social     (2J865)

media facilities -- such as where visitors can participate in a discussion forum, with questions,     (2J866)

answers, vetted answers-to-questions (FAQ), around each ontology registered with the Hub, as well as     (2J867)

perhaps discussion of the performance of different reasoners in different configurations with     (2J868)

different databases with the ontology, etc.     (2J869)

[12:00] GaryBergCross: @Amanda I guess, theoretically the Data Ref Models of EA were proposed to     (2J870)

cover the "content".     (2J871)

[12:00] Steve Ray: @Mike: Indeed, he's local. As I recall, for example, he invented the notion of     (2J872)

TreeMaps and space-filling maps, which are now very popular.     (2J873)

[12:01] Amanda Vizedom: And, of course, the processes provided context that was implicit in the data,     (2J874)

and which we wanted to make explicit in the ontology. Plus, some of the content was about processes!     (2J875)

[12:02] Bobbin Teegarden: @Gary @MikeBennett yes, we have used Data Flow Diagrams for initial     (2J876)

(unified domain) modeling, then broken it into UML process/structure(class) because of the need to     (2J877)

get to code. The DFD model is a good place to start with 'active ontologies', IMHO.     (2J878)

[12:02] Steve Ray: Golden Rules of Interface Design:     (2J879)

[12:02] GaryBergCross: On yes Ben Shneiderman. A guru in the field.     (2J881)

[12:03] anonymous morphed into Pete Nielsen     (2J882)

[12:04] Mike Bennett: @Bobbin the weird thing is that "pure" UML would not let you mix activity and     (2J883)

class diagrams, yet you need to talk about inputs / resources and products of process activities     (2J884)

(the Sparx EA tool lets you do hybrid diagrams for that). Vital for e.g. securities issuance process     (2J885)

and related reference data elements.     (2J886)

[12:04] Amanda Vizedom: @Mike - Robert Kahlert (Cycorp) and I envisioned and prototyped just such a     (2J887)

tool under the RKF project (circa 2003?). This in response to working with domain experts & trying     (2J888)

to enable them to directly create terrain analysis ontology. There's a paper draft from that kicking     (2J889)

around somewhere.     (2J890)

[11:25] == HC-06 ISO 15926 Reference Data Validation - Anatoly Levenchuk presenting (remotely)     (2J891)

[11:45] == HC-07 Ontohub-OOR-OOPS! Integration - Till Mossakowski presenting (remotely)     (2J892)

[12:06] Bob Schloss: On Slide 13, in the table, row 3, column 2, there is a typo (it says langauge.id     (2J893)

instead of language.id)     (2J894)

[12:07] Mike Bennett: This Federation API work would also be of interest in the OMG SIMF initiative     (2J895)

(semantics of information models for federation), I think. (current slides)     (2J896)

[12:07] Amanda Vizedom: Motivator was that the experts could easily call up and articulate their     (2J897)

expert knowledge while performing, simulating, or describing their terrain analysis processes, but     (2J898)

not outside of that. Without the process context, the pieces either made no sense to them or seemed     (2J899)

to be show-stoppingly subject to misunderstanding.     (2J900)

[12:10] Bobbin Teegarden: @MikeBennett MagicDraw let's you mix class with process in activity     (2J901)

diagrams, just fyi, as I use it for those 'DFD' diagrams.     (2J902)

[12:15] == Michael Grüninger announced that the winner of First IAOA Best Ontology Summit     (2J903)

Hackathon-Clinic Prize is the HC-03 team that worked on "Evaluation of OOPS! OQuaRE and OntoQA for     (2J904)

FIBO Ontologies"     (2J905)

[12:16] Amanda Vizedom: Congratulations to the HC-03 team!     (2J906)

[12:20] Mike Bennett: Thank you! Here's a big shout out to AstridSuqueRamos, MariaPovedaVillalon,     (2J907)

Samir Tartir and also the rest of the team - Simon, Amanda, Peter, the FIBO folks (Jacobus Geluk,     (2J908)

Derek LaSalle, Max Gillmore, Kevin Tyson and others), all of whom put in valuable ideas and     (2J909)

perspectives to the event.     (2J910)

[12:25] == Michael Grüninger and Matthew West: Discussing Next Steps and Conclusion     (2J911)

[12:25] GaryBergCross: (ref. the comment on less people coming to the symposium) Contributing Reason     (2J912)

Sequestation     (2J913)

[12:36] GaryBergCross: Suggestion Have a half day workshop preceding the Symposium for newbies who     (2J914)

might be shy about attending w/o more knowledge.     (2J915)

[12:30] Jerry Smith: Peter - How do people 'sign' the Communique electronically?     (2J916)

[12:36] Peter P. Yim: @Jerry & ALL - for those who are online (i.e. now, virtually), you can just type     (2J917)

in "I endorse the communique") for those who are not around, we will be posting a solicitation for     (2J918)

endorsement to the [ontology-summit] mailing list shortly!) - ref.     (2J919)

[12:41] Mike Bennett: We would expect to build on the HC-03 hackathon work by building on the     (2J921)

Ontology of Ontology Evaluation as a formal basis for structuring this work.     (2J922)

[12:41] Evan Wallace: @MikeBennett Some of the folks involved with Ontohub were initially involved in     (2J923)

SIMF submission development. But I haven't noticed much involvement from those people in SIMF in     (2J924)

recent months. I can think of many different reasons for that. SIMF was a great idea, but I doubt it     (2J925)

will live up to its potential (if it results in anything at all).     (2J926)

[12:44] Mike Bennett: @Evan I'd forgotten there was some overlap. I'd like to have been more involved     (2J927)

but we're an OMG Domain Mamber and so no eligible to participate. Been thinking of some deep     (2J928)

meta-metamodel ideas, which reflects a small part of what I saw in those slides today.     (2J929)

[12:42] anonymous morphed into Dan Carey     (2J930)

[12:45] Frank Olken: Lots of distortion on the Skype audio channel now.     (2J931)

[12:46] == Michael Grüninger: join us on 23-May-2013 Thu (normal virtual session time; was 16-May     (2J932)

when Michael announced this, date subsequently changed) for the Ontology Summit 2013 Post Mortem     (2J933)

[12:46] == Michael Grüninger: participants welcome to stay for the "Birds of a Feather (BOF) meeting     (2J935)

about follow-up work on the "Ontology of Ontology Evaluation" (HC-05) work     (2J936)

[12:47] Frank Olken: Maybe....     (2J937)

[12:47] Ali Hashemi: briefly though.     (2J938)

[12:47] Bobbin Teegarden: Yes, staying.     (2J939)

[12:50] Jerry Smith: CONGRATULATIONS! Each Summit gets better and better. The outstanding success of     (2J940)

this one tops all of the others. Great job all!!!     (2J941)

[12:51] vnc: == the Ontology Summit 2013 Symposium is now adjourned     (2J942)

Symposium (SteveRay), Terry Longstreth, Till Mossakowski, anonymous, anonymous1, vnc, vnc2     (2J948)

[12:52] vnc: === we are resuming in 8 minutes for the informal BOF on "Ontology of Ontology     (2J949)

Evaluation" session     (2J950)

[12:52] Amanda Vizedom: 10 minute break, then Birds of a Feather session re: continuing work on     (2J951)

ontology of ontology evaluation     (2J952)

[13:03] Peter P. Yim: == Birds of a Feather (BOF) meeting re: continuing work on ontology of ontology     (2J953)

evaluation ... is now in session     (2J954)

[13:06] Ali Hashemi: Ali committing to provide an English description of the informal model.     (2J955)

[13:06] Ali Hashemi: Make the Hackathon page or a new Ontology of Ontology Evaluation page as     (2J956)

centralized starting point.     (2J957)

[13:07] Mike Dean: I don't think you can hear me. I'm interest in continuing to work on and update     (2J959)

the OWL formalization.     (2J960)

[13:07] Mike Dean: s/interest/interested/     (2J961)

[13:13] Amanda Vizedom: subcollections of     (2J962)

[13:13] Peter P. Yim: the HC-05: "Ontology of Ontology Evaluation" Project Homepage is at:     (2J964)

[13:14] Peter P. Yim: shared-files (artifacts) are under:     (2J967)

[13:15] Amanda Vizedom: I am interested in continuing to grapple the graphical informal model. The     (2J970)

final informal model will be submitted for team review, but in between I would love help, tool     (2J971)

suggestions, etc.     (2J972)

[13:17] vnc: the shadowed HC-05 project homepage at the OntologPSMW -     (2J973)

[13:19] Amanda Vizedom: Vote yes if you want to be involved and included in communication about     (2J975)

continuing activity on this project. Then email me and tell me what email to use for that.     (2J976)

(firstname.lastname@gmail.com) (1) Yes (2) No This is a single choice vote.     (2J977)

[13:20] Ali Hashemi: Ali Hashemi voted for: Yes     (2J979)

[13:20] Mike Bennett: Mike Bennett voted for: Yes     (2J980)

[13:21] DougFoxvog1: Yes     (2J981)

[13:21] DougFoxvog1 morphed into Doug Foxvog     (2J982)

[13:21] Peter P. Yim: Peter P. Yim voted for: Yes     (2J983)

[13:21] Mike Dean: Mike Dean voted for: Yes - mdean [at] bbn.com     (2J984)

[13:22] GaryBergCross: GaryBergCross voted for: Yes - gbergcross [at] gmail.com     (2J985)

[13:22] Mike Bennett: Use mikehypercube [at] gmail.com     (2J986)

[13:23] Frank Olken: There is a lot of work going on in the provenance community. Some of it in W3C     (2J988)

working group.     (2J989)

[13:24] KenBaclawski1: KenBaclawski1 voted for: Yes - I can help with ICOM at least     (2J990)

[13:24] GaryBergCross: Qood grid: A metaontology-based framework for ontology evaluation and     (2J991)

[13:24] Peter P. Yim: I suggest we volunteer Michael Grüninger on work related to OMV (as he leads the     (2J993)

metadata effort for OOR too)     (2J994)

[13:25] Ali Hashemi: Use Case Description Ontology -     (2J996)

[13:28] KenBaclawski1: We should also include the Use Case Description Ontology (UCDO)     (2J998)

[13:29] Terry Longstreth: Time to go find a beer...     (2J999)

[13:29] Terry Longstreth: Bye all; Thanks for a great Summit!!     (2J1000)

[13:30] Ali Hashemi: Great summit, congrats to all. Bye!     (2J)

[13:31] Peter P. Yim: the has been marvelous! ... bye everyone ... talk to you all again on May-16, if     (2K)

not sooner!     (2L)

[13:31] Amanda Vizedom: Thank you all!     (2M)

-- end of chat session --     (2N)

Audio Recording of the Workshop Sessions     (3)

  • edited and post-processed audio segment will be posted against the corresponding agenda items above later ...(coming!)     (3A)
  • the unedited, original recordings can be found here     (3B)
  • suggestions:     (3C)
    • its best that you listen to the session while having the respective [ presentations (slides) ] opened in front of you. You'll be prompted to advance slides by the speaker.     (3C1)
    • Take a look, also, at the rich body of knowledge that this community has built together, over the years, by going through the archives of noteworthy past Ontolog events. (References on how to subscribe to our podcast can also be found there.)     (3C2)

For the records ...     (3D)

How To Join Remotely (while the session is in progress)     (4)

Session Details     (4D)

  • Discussions and Q & A:     (4D6)
    • Nominally, when a presentation is in progress, the moderator will mute everyone, except for the speaker.     (4D6A)
    • To un-mute, press "*7" ... To mute, press "*6" (please mute your phone, especially if you are in a noisy surrounding, or if you are introducing noise, echoes, etc. into the conference line.)     (4D6B)
    • we will usually save all questions and discussions till after all presentations are through. You are encouraged to jot down questions onto the chat-area in the mean time (that way, they get documented; and you might even get some answers in the interim, through the chat.)     (4D6C)
    • During the Q&A / discussion segment (when everyone is muted), If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please raise your hand (virtually) by clicking on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the session moderator (again, press "*7" on your phone to un-mute). Test your voice and introduce yourself first before proceeding with your remarks, please. (Please remember to click on the "hand button" again (to lower your hand) and press "*6" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)     (4D6D)
  • For those who cannot join us, or who have further questions or remarks on the summit topic and content, please post them to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv so that everyone in the community can benefit from the discourse.     (4D7)
  • Please note that this session may be recorded, and if so, the audio/video 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.     (4D10)

Ram��s NIST Admin Asst: Janet Madison, 301-975-8616     (4D13)



This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (4D14)