From OntologPSMW

Revision as of 01:22, 9 January 2016 by KennethBaclawski (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]

Contents

Joint OpenOntologyRepository-OntologySummit2008 Panel Discussion Session - Thu 3-April-2008     (1)

  • Subject: An Open Ontology Repository: Rationale, Expectations & Requirements - Session-2     (1A)
  • Panelists:     (1C)
  • Dr. DougLenat (Cycorp) - "Is OpenCyc doomed to be the new Esperanto, or is OOR doomed to be the new Electronic Data Interchange, or -- even worse -- both!"     (1D)
  • Mr. DekeSmith (NBIS) - "National Building Information Modeling Standard"     (1E)
  • Professor MarciaZeng (Kent State U) - "Issues in reusing and sharing the content of thesauri and taxonomies in OOR"     (1F)
  • Dr. DeniseBedford (WorldBank) - "Practical Requirements for Every Day Ontology Management and Use"     (1G)
  • Dr. PatHayes (IHMC) - "Describing Concept Relationships"     (1H)
  • Ms. MalaMehrotra (Pragati) - "Exposing and Capturing Mapping Relationships across OOR resources"     (1I)
  • Dr. RobRaskin (NASA/JPL) - "SWEET 2.0 Ontology"     (1J)

  • Shared-screen support (VNC session) will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/     (1L5)
    • view-only password: "ontolog"     (1L5A)
    • if you plan to be logging into this shared-screen option (which the speaker may be navigating), and you are not familiar with the process, please try to call in 5 minutes before the start of the session so that we can work out the connection logistics. Help on this will generally not be available once the presentation starts.     (1L5B)
    • people behind corporate firewalls may have difficulty accessing this. If that is the case, please download the slides below and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.     (1L5C)
  • Please note that this session will be recorded, and the audio archive, along with the entire proceedings of the session, are expected to be made available as open content to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.     (1L10)

Attendees     (1M)

Background     (1O)

Two parallel initiatives are ongoing in the community, revolving around the theme of "Open Ontology Repository". On the one hand, a working group under the auspices of the OpenOntologyRepository Initiative, and on the other, the discourse (and essentially a discussion group that culminates in a two-day workshop) conducted as the main focus for OntologySummit2008.     (1O1)

It is at the intersection of these two initiatives that this panel discussion session is being held. The OpenOntologyRepository team is taking the opportunity to have some of its members who are bringing technology and infrastructure to the table to present them side-by-side, and to discuss how these can all fit nicely together. The Ontology Summit 2008 folks, on the other hand would want to take the opportunity to survey (at least a subset of) the technology & infrastructure landscape to gain insight into the state-of-art in Ontology Registry and Repository.     (1O2)

Besides hearing from the panelists, we are setting aside ample time after their briefings, for some good Q&A and discussions among all who are participating in this session.     (1O3)

Agenda & Proceedings     (1P)

  • This is the second of two panel discussion sessions on "Open Ontology Repository: Rationale, Expectations & Requirements." We are attemptig to bring together some of the world's top ontological content custodians and researchers, to participate in this panel discussion sessions. Besides hearing from the panelists, we are setting aside ample time (~45 minutes) after their briefings, for some good Q&A and discussions among all who will be participating in this sessions.     (1P1)
  • Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call.     (1P2)

Title: An Open Ontology Repository: Rationale, Expectations & Requirements     (1Q)

Abstracts:     (1Q1)

  • Panelists - "Title" and Remarks     (1Q2)
    • DougLenat - "Is OpenCyc doomed to be the new Esperanto, or is OOR doomed to be the new Electronic Data Interchange, or -- even worse -- both!"     (1Q2A)
    • DekeSmith - "National Building Information Modeling Standard"     (1Q2B)
    • MarciaZeng - "Issues in reusing and sharing the content of thesauri and     (1Q2C)

taxonomies in OOR"     (1Q3)

      • 1. Introduce some terminology services (products and research projects)     (1Q4A1)
      • 2. Bring up major issues in reusing and sharing the content of thesauri and taxonomies.     (1Q4A2)
    • DeniseBedford - "Practical Requirements for Every Day Ontology Management and Use"     (1Q4B)
    • PatHayes - "Describing Concept Relationships"     (1Q4C)
    • MalaMehrotra - "Exposing and Capturing Mapping Relationships across OOR resources"     (1Q4D)
      • here are the top two questions I will be addressing for the panel discussion:     (1Q4D1)
        • What are the various types of relationships that would be useful to discover across resources in OOR?     (1Q4D1A)
        • What do we need in our knowledge representation formalisms to capture such relationships?     (1Q4D1B)
    • RobRaskin - "SWEET 2.0 Ontology"     (1Q4E)

Resources     (1Q5)

  • this session is a continuation from session-1, details of which can be found at: ConferenceCall_2008_03_27     (1Q5A)

Questions, Answers & Discourse     (1Q6)

  • (Unless the conference host has already muted everyone) Please mute your phone, by pressing "*2" on your phone keypad, when the talk is in progress. To un-mute, press "*3"     (1Q6A)
  • If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please "raise your hand (virtually)" by pressing "11" on your phone keypad. You may speak when acknowledged by the speaker or the session moderator. Test your voice and introduce yourself first before proceeding with your remarks, please.     (1Q6B)
  • You can also type in your questions or comments through the browser based chat session by:     (1Q6C)
  • For those who have further questions or remarks on the topic, please post them to the [ontology-summit] forum so that everyone in the community can benefit from the discourse. (One needs to be subscribed to this archived mailing list first before posting. See subscription details here.)     (1Q6D)

Questions and Discussion captured from the chat session     (1Q7)

VNC2: Welcome to the: Joint OpenOntologyRepository-OntologySummit2008 Panel Discussion Session     (1Q7A)

Subject: An Open Ontology Repository: Rationale, Expectations & Requirements - Session-2     (1Q7B)

Peter P. Yim: to all the "anonymous' participants, Please change your name from 'anonymous' using     (1Q7C)

the Settings button to your real name (in WikiWord format)     (1Q7D)

Peter Benson: At the 3rd IEEE Conference on Standardization held on October 24, 2003     (1Q7E)

Timothy Schoechle from the International Center for Standards Research at     (1Q7F)

the University of Colorado, Boulder presented an interesting paper titled     (1Q7G)

Digital Enclosure: The Privatization of Standards and Standardization, in which     (1Q7H)

he made the following statement:     (1Q7I)

In the field of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) such standards     (1Q7J)

specify everything from the prongs on plugs and cables to the software protocols     (1Q7K)

that make the Internet work. Historically, these standards have been set largely     (1Q7L)

by volunteer participants in committees that operate within a wide range of     (1Q7M)

environments, institutional rules and social practices; but in general they have     (1Q7N)

espoused a traditional commitment to general principles of democratic deliberation,     (1Q7O)

consensus, public accessibility and balanced stakeholder representation.     (1Q7P)

The historical practice is now being challenged by newer, more private organizations     (1Q7Q)

that do not necessarily have a commitment to the same principles.     (1Q7R)

we must be careful that the OOR clearly highlights any restrictions on the use of     (1Q7S)

any ontology included in the OOR.     (1Q7T)

Ravi Sharma: Dr. Doug Lenat Is there an attempt in OpenCyc or ResearchCyc to categorise the type     (1Q7U)

and complexity of relationships that improve the usability of the millions of     (1Q7V)

assertions, any analysis done?     (1Q7W)

Doug Lenat: Answer to Ravi: Yes, we actually chose the OpenCyc relations to be the most useful ones     (1Q7X)

from full Cyc. And we would be happy to revisit that and add more as other people     (1Q7Y)

point out useful ones from Cyc that we haven't included.     (1Q7Z)

Leo Obrst: Question to Doug: Given Cyc's long experience with such matters, can you provide the     (1Q7AA)

OOR group with what you would suggest as a "small set of inter-ontology alignment relations"?     (1Q7AB)

Which are necessary and which are desirable?     (1Q7AC)

Doug Lenat: Response to Leo: Yes, I would be happy to provide the set of (surprisingly few) predicates     (1Q7AD)

we use to state those inter-ontology correspondences. I will send that out and/or post it     (1Q7AE)

today or tomorrow.     (1Q7AF)

Bill Bug: Dr. Lenat - I strongly agree with your identifying the need for synonymy mapping.     (1Q7AG)

A few questions -     (1Q7AH)

(1) given Dr. Zeng's presentation, do you think SKOS works for this purpose?     (1Q7AI)

(2) Should SKOS be used in OWL, where SKOS would essentially provide an orthogonal     (1Q7AJ)

semantics for managing an ontology lexicon?     (1Q7AK)

(3) Should an OOR adopt a particular standard for providing these synonymous mappings?     (1Q7AL)

Doug Lenat: Response to Bill Bug: Take a look at what I just promised for Leo, and then see if     (1Q7AM)

that answers your question. I was pleased to see what SKOS does in this particular     (1Q7AN)

area, and need to look at it in more detail. We need e.g. to represent cases where     (1Q7AO)

one concept is merely strongly related to one in another ontology, not equivalent     (1Q7AP)

to it, and if you're not careful there is a slippery slope where you end up wanting     (1Q7AQ)

all of the predicates you use WITHIN your ontology because after all those are the     (1Q7AR)

predicates you deemed worthy/important to interrelate the terms in your ontology,     (1Q7AS)

so it only makes sense that you might want to use them among ontologies.     (1Q7AT)

Somewhere between that (everything) and n=1 (equivalentConceptInOntology) is the     (1Q7AU)

sweet spot of the curve.     (1Q7AV)

Pat Hayes: Doug: please include me in that inter-ontology mailing, thanks.     (1Q7AW)

Peter P. Yim: to Dr. Lenat: do you see enough differentiation even for the OOR team implementation     (1Q7AY)

effort (note, not the Ontology Summit 2008 intelectual pursuit) to exists. If so, how     (1Q7AZ)

should this effort line up with the LarKC     (1Q7AAA)

Rex Brooks: Question for Deke: Are you aware of the City GML effort?     (1Q7AAB)

Leo Obrst: Question for Deke: The NBIMS (slide 8, for example) seems to consist of multiple taxonomies,     (1Q7AAC)

is that right? Do you need relations among the nodes too?     (1Q7AAD)

Pat Hayes: Question for Marcia: Can you enlarge on the point on your slide 18? What do you mean by     (1Q7AAE)

'non-symmetrical' here?     (1Q7AAF)

Marcia Zeng: Pat, for example, under 'tax', the sub-classes or narrower terms in different versions     (1Q7AAG)

from different countries are different even they all fit in the same multi-lingual thesaurus.     (1Q7AAH)

Pat Hayes: Thanks, Marcia.     (1Q7AAI)

Ravi Sharma: Dr. Marcia Zeng - What would happen to the content of current ontologies if we were to     (1Q7AAJ)

exclude relationships associated with Thesauri and Taxonomies (the natural language     (1Q7AAK)

free flow usage e.g. less logic based). How much would be left? Further, is there a     (1Q7AAL)

value chain concept of Information content from complexity or concatenation of relationships?     (1Q7AAM)

Further many times I get a feeling that knowledge and understanding floodgates would open     (1Q7AAN)

if we could transform (transliterate or map) concepts and understanding from major cultural     (1Q7AAO)

and lingual groups alone?     (1Q7AAP)

1. I think even though the relationships are not consistently logic and highly structured,     (1Q7AAR)

many hierarchical relationships best presented in the domain which do not have a     (1Q7AAS)

widely accepted 'taxonomy' like in biology. So, if you only want to use the work for     (1Q7AAT)

controlling synonyms and disambiguate terms, you may miss lots of good hierarchical structures.     (1Q7AAU)

2. Yes, it is difficult to map among the multilingual and multi-cultural vocabularies,     (1Q7AAV)

e.g., about traditional medicine or even geographic regions.     (1Q7AAW)

Pat Hayes: Question for Denise: can you enlarge on your distinction between metadata and metainformation?     (1Q7AAX)

I'm not familiar with the second term.     (1Q7AAY)

Ravi Sharma: Ms. Mala Mehrotra As we have in astrophysical coordinate systems, or in translating     (1Q7AAZ)

among different inertial and other reference coordinate systems, are solvers and translators     (1Q7AAAA)

similarly being conceptualized among different ontology representations of TIME or     (1Q7AAAB)

INTERVAL or DURATION?     (1Q7AAAC)

Ravi Sharma: Ms. Mala Mehrotra - Further, is the value of human collaboration in terms of enriching     (1Q7AAAD)

the value of domain based relationships for future automated processing and is there a     (1Q7AAAE)

roadmap for the same with use cases?     (1Q7AAAF)

Ravi Sharma: Dr. Rob Raskin Is slide 5 a hierarchical relationship among ontologies or is it taxonomy     (1Q7AAAG)

of science disciplines? Especially since the type of relationships are not indicated among them?     (1Q7AAAH)

Leo Obrst: Question to Rob: Is the "Data Ontology" the same as the SWEET ontologies, or is the former part     (1Q7AAAI)

of SWEET? And do you find you need "rules"?     (1Q7AAAJ)

Leo Obrst: Question to Rob: What kind of methodology did you use in the creation of the SWEET ontologies,     (1Q7AAAK)

i.e., requirements-driven (competency questions?) and then what kind of review process, and     (1Q7AAAL)

gateway/quality criteria?     (1Q7AAAM)

Peter P. Yim: to Dr. Raskin ... given your prevailing work in SWEET and PlanetOnt.org (which is an OOR in     (1Q7AAAN)

its own right), I would like to invite you to join us in the OOR-team (which is cast as an     (1Q7AAAO)

implementation effort, independent of the Ontology Summit 2008 effort, which focuses in the     (1Q7AAAP)

intellectual discussion of the Open Ontology Repository & Resgistry subject matter.) see:     (1Q7AAAQ)

Peter P. Yim: the same invitation goes to anyone else who want to contribute to the OOR-implementation effort     (1Q7AAAS)

Leo Obrst: Question to Marcia: I think you are saying that the OOR will need both terminological resources     (1Q7AAAT)

and ontologies/conceptual resources? Do you think SKOS can provide a terminological framework     (1Q7AAAU)

for term taxonomies/thesari and perhaps a term->concept indexing into ontologies?     (1Q7AAAV)

Marcia Zeng: Leo: yes I think the terminological resources could be part of the conceptual resources.     (1Q7AAAW)

Some 'ontologies' claimed on the Web are no better than a taxonomy.     (1Q7AAAX)

Marcia Zeng: Leo: SKOS probably can handle well thesauri, but, for how to present mapping results,     (1Q7AAAY)

SKOS may not be perfect so far. It is working on that direction.     (1Q7AAAZ)

Todd Schneider: Pat, Moving towards 'truth' should be seen as the 'to-be' that an OOR will evolve too.     (1Q7AAAAA)

Pat Hayes: Todd, I think that many of us would strongly disagree. Which was exactly my main point.     (1Q7AAAAB)

Michelle Raymond: Panelists - It was noted that the Architecture for an Ontology Repository may differ     (1Q7AAAAC)

depending on the Ontologies held (and? the relationships between held Ontologies).     (1Q7AAAAD)

If this is so, I suspect this is not simply based on the complexity of the Ontologies     (1Q7AAAAE)

(dictionary, taxonomy, relational data map, ontology, ontologies with guiding upper     (1Q7AAAAF)

ontology...) A) Can we have one Arch. approach? If the statement before is accepted,     (1Q7AAAAG)

what are the characteristics that direct you toward selection of the Architecture     (1Q7AAAAH)

structure? Examples?     (1Q7AAAAI)

Pat Hayes: Michelle: depends what you mean by 'architecture'. As far as management/metadata issues go,     (1Q7AAAAJ)

I think there can be a common uniform framework. But if that means all using the same ontology     (1Q7AAAAK)

language, for example, then I'd say no, for an open ontology.     (1Q7AAAAL)

Todd Schneider: Can we use the TOGAF notion of 'architecture'?     (1Q7AAAAM)

Michelle Raymond: Reply to Todd re TOGAF - My understanding of TOGAF is only at the higher level of     (1Q7AAAAN)

different "layers" for enterprise level structures and rules, data structuring and     (1Q7AAAAO)

storage, components and application availability and connectivity and ? I think the     (1Q7AAAAP)

"network" level. These are important and part of the framework for any architecture.     (1Q7AAAAQ)

Where a thread might help is in describing the notation of TOGAF and suggestions as     (1Q7AAAAR)

to its usefulness. Does the TOGAF force a specific direction of centralized,     (1Q7AAAAS)

decentralized, federated or other core concept for architecture data locations and     (1Q7AAAAT)

management practices?     (1Q7AAAAU)

Todd Schneider: Leo, Would it be possible to extend your list of requirements by culling the presentations     (1Q7AAAAV)

from these last two meetings?     (1Q7AAAAW)

Peter P. Yim: to Todd, answering your question for Leo ... YES, of course (this is what these panel discussion     (1Q7AAAAX)

sessions were designed for)     (1Q7AAAAY)

Michelle Raymond: Reply to ToddSchneider's question to Leo - Absolutely, the Content Committee is culling     (1Q7AAAAZ)

these presentations and question threads. However, it is very helpful for individuals to     (1Q7AAAAAA)

push forward their personal favorite Ah-ha's and questions as new discussion threads on the     (1Q7AAAAAB)

Ken Baclawski: Leo asked at the last session if the panelists could prioritize their requirements.     (1Q7AAAAAD)

Specifically he asked about the top three services of an OOR.     (1Q7AAAAAE)

Doug Lenat: See my slide 9: the 4 things we would want from a good host     (1Q7AAAAAF)

Doug Lenat: Commons (not GNU) license; provenance kept; agreement on at least a few key relations;     (1Q7AAAAAG)

agreement on inter-ontology relations.     (1Q7AAAAAH)

Pat Hayes: doug: why not the GNU licence? Too "open" ??     (1Q7AAAAAI)

Audio Recording of this Session     (1R)

Join us at the next OOR-Panel Discussion - see: ConferenceCall_2008_04_10     (1R7)


This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (1R7A)