Actions

Ontolog Forum

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

OntologyBasedStandards Mini-series Planning Session - Thu 2013-07-18

Session Co-chairs: MichaelGruninger (IAOA; U of Toronto) & ElisaKendall (OMG; Thematix)

Topic: OntologyBasedStandards mini-series community brainstorm and program planning session

To be Covered today:

  • OntologyBasedStandards Mini-series Planning - Opening (co-chairs) ... intro slides
  • I. Open Discussion on programs and topics of interest
    • Ongoing topics/programs to coordinate and build synergies out of ...
    • Candidate Topics of interest/importance to the community ...
    • Coordinating current & new programs ...
  • II. How can we best frame the discussion and organize the effort
    • how can we best partition and organize the pursuit ... ?
    • Who will champion these activities ... ?
  • III. Events & Action Plans
    • Candidate Speakers the community would want to invite ...
    • Short / medium term event plans

Archives

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Thursday, 18-Jul-2013
  • Start Time: 9:30am PDT / 12:30pm EDT / 6:30pm CEST / 5:30pm BST / 16:30 UTC
  • Expected Call Duration: 1.5~2.0 hours
  • Dial-in:
    • Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... (long distance cost may apply)
      • ... [ backup nbr: (415) 671-4335 ]
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
    • Skype: joinconference (i.e. make a skype call to the contact with skypeID="joinconference") ... (generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer ... ref.)
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
      • Unfamiliar with how to do this on Skype? ...
        • Add the contact "joinconference" to your skype contact list first. To participate in the teleconference, make a skype call to "joinconference", then open the dial pad (see platform-specific instructions below) and enter the Conference ID: 141184# when prompted.
      • Can't find Skype Dial pad? ...
        • for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
        • for Linux Skype users: please note that the dial-pad is only available on v4.1 (or later; or on the earlier Skype versions 2.x,) if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. ... (ref.)
  • Shared-screen support (VNC session), if applicable, will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/
    • view-only password: "ontolog"
    • 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.
    • people behind corporate firewalls may have difficulty accessing this. If that is the case, please download the slides above (where applicable) and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.
  • In-session chat-room url: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontolog_20130718
    • instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field from "anonymous" to your real name, like "JaneDoe").
    • You can indicate that you want to ask a question verbally by clicking on the "hand" button, and wait for the moderator to call on you; or, type and send your question into the chat window at the bottom of the screen.
    • thanks to the soaphub.org folks, one can now use a jabber/xmpp client (e.g. gtalk) to join this chatroom. Just add the room as a buddy - (in our case here) ontolog_20130718@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!
  • Discussions and Q & A:
    • Nominally, when a presentation is in progress, the moderator will mute everyone, except for the speaker.
    • 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.)
    • 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.)
    • 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.)
  • RSVP to peter.yim@cim3.com appreciated, ... or simply just by adding yourself to the "Expected Attendee" list below (if you are a member of the team.)
  • Please note that this session may be recorded, and if so, the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content, along with the proceedings of the call to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.

Attendees

  • Expecting:
    • ...
    • (please add yourself to the list above if you are a member of the community, or, rsvp to <peter.yim@cim3.com> with the event title/date and your name and affiliation)

Abstract

OntologyBasedStandards mini-series community brainstorm and program planning session ... [ intro slides ]

This session is a continuation from (a) the ONTOLOG Community Event Planning session of 2013.06.13, and (b) the kick-off sessions of the Joint OntologyBasedStandards mini-series we had late last year on 2012.10.25 and 2012.11.08.

We intend to make this a brainstorming session to collect ideas on ongoing standards development programs we can coordinate and build synergies out of, find out what topics are of interest/importance to the community; based upon which, we can design our short-to-medium term Ontology-based Standards panel session program and/or other related activities.

The plan is to lay out the options, have members of the community chime in on how best to frame and partition the program, decide on what events/activities will be featured, and who will be championing them. If you have an interest in OntologyBasedStandards and want to influence how we will move forward and design the upcoming program, please make sure you come join us at this session.

Please also refer to the OntologyBasedStandards mini-series homepage.

Agenda Ideas

Some of the things that came to mind, include ...

  • Ongoing topics/programs to coordinate and build synergies out of ...
  • Candidate Topics of interest to the community ...
  • Coordinating current & new programs ...
  • How can we best frame the discussion ...
  • Event Planning ...
  • ... etc.

... send us your ideas too (post above, and identify yourself for follow-up purposes, or email that to the co-chairs so we can include them into the agenda!

  • Laurent Liscia (OASIS): we are interested in (i) examining the growing role of ontologies in standards and lessons learned from QUOMOS; (ii)

can a practical "ontology road map" be defined for standards professionals, with clearly articulated benefits in terms of machine-readability but also perhaps in terms of increased interoperability?

  • Eric Chan (ICOM): Ken Baclawski and I are planning to define social network object model in ICOM V2. There are several consortiums defining social networks connect services and platforms (see the attached paper). The data model, including Wallpaper, Activity Streams, various Relations among people and things, and Privacy and Access Policy that are defined in terms of friend circles, are buried in these services. As far as I know, the social networks data has not been explicitly modeled in UML and OWL. ... ICOM V2 will involve distilling and unifying the concepts from Open Social and Open Graph platforms. I believe there will be more interests in ICOM V2 among the Ontolog community because of the novelty of the social networks domain. Perhaps we can brainstorm a bit about this and solicit participation by individuals from Ontolog community in the ICOM TC for V2 work.

Agenda

OntologyBasedStandards Community Brainstorm and Planning

  • Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call
  • 2. Open discussion-I: Brainstorm on programs and topics of interest - ALL (30 min.) ... (refer to process above)
  • 3. Open discussion-II: Framing the issues and organizing to tackle them effectively - ALL (20 min.)
  • 4. Open discussion-III: narrowing down to specific events plans - mini-series topics, champions, speakers, dates - ALL (20 min.)

Proceedings

Please refer to the above

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session

see raw transcript here.

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

Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.

-- begin in-session chat-transcript --

Chat transcript from room: ontolog_20130718

2013-07-18 GMT-08:00 [PDT]

[09:18] Peter P. Yim: Welcome to the

OntologyBasedStandards Mini-series Planning Session - Thu 2013-07-18

Session Co-chairs: Michael Grüninger (IAOA; U of Toronto) & Elisa Kendall (OMG; Thematix)

Topic: OntologyBasedStandards mini-series community brainstorm and program planning session

To be Covered today:

OntologyBasedStandards Mini-series Planning - Opening (co-chairs)

I. Open Discussion on programs and topics of interest

  • Ongoing topics/programs to coordinate and build synergies out of ...
  • Candidate Topics of interest/importance to the community ...
  • Coordinating current & new programs ...

II. How can we best frame the discussion and organize the effort

  • how can we best partition and organize the pursuit ... ?
  • Who will champion these activities ... ?

III. Events & Action Plans

  • Candidate Speakers the community would want to invite ...
  • Short / medium term event plans

Logistics:

  • (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName
  • Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute
  • Can't find Skype Dial pad?
    • for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
    • for Linux Skype users: please stay with (or downgrade to) Skype version 2.x for now

(as a Dial pad seems to be missing on Linux-based Skype v4.x for skype-calls.)

Chat-room attendees: Michael Grüninger (co-chair), Elisa Kendall (co-chair), Adrian Paschke,

BillMcCarthy, Bob Young, Bobbin Teegarden, Daniel Kless, ElieAbiLahoud, Eric Chan, Frank Olken,

JeffersonBraswell, John Bottoms, Ken Baclawski, Laurent Liscia, Max Gillmore, Mark Johnson, MartinEast,

Michael Denny, Mike Bennett, PeterBloniarz, Peter P. Yim, Ralph Hodgson, Ray Martin, Richard Martin, Roy Bell,

Simon Spero, Tara Athan, Terry Longstreth

Proceedings:

[7:29] anonymous morphed into Daniel Kless

[8:24] anonymous morphed into Laurent Liscia

[9:29] anonymous1 morphed into Bob Young

[9:29] anonymous1 morphed into Adrian Paschke

[9:29] anonymous morphed into ElieAbiLahoud

[9:30] anonymous morphed into Richard Martin

[9:32] anonymous morphed into Ralph Hodgson

[9:33] anonymous morphed into Elisa Kendall

[9:34] anonymous1 morphed into Ray Martin

[9:35] anonymous morphed into Roy Bell

[9:36] anonymous1 morphed into PeterBloniarz

[9:36] anonymous1 morphed into Michael Denny

[9:37] Peter P. Yim: == session starts ...

[9:37] anonymous morphed into MartinEast

[9:40] anonymous morphed into John Bottoms

[9:41] anonymous morphed into Simon Spero

[9:40] Tara Athan: I don't see the OGC (http://www.opengeospatial.org/) represented in the list of players.

[9:41] Laurent Liscia: I'm equally surprised to see that the OASIS QUOMOS (Quantities and Units of

Measure Ontology Standard) TC is not represented in this list:

[9:41] Laurent Liscia: Overview

The OASIS Quantities and Units of Measure Ontology Standard (QUOMOS) Technical Committee works to

develop an ontology to specify the basic concepts of quantities, systems of quantities, and systems

of measurement units and scales, various base dimensions and units of the SI system, metric prefixes

(nano-, micro-, milli-, kilo-, ...), rules for constructing various derived units, and designations

of the most common derived units (joules, watts, ...) for use across multiple industries.

[9:42] Laurent Liscia: I'm wondering why? I'm also wondering what lessons can be learned from QUOMOS

in this mini-series?

[9:42] Laurent Liscia: Also RuleML has been mentioned, and this is finding direct application in

OASIS LegalXML. Are there lessons to be learned there?

[9:42] BillMcCarthy: another ontology standard is ISO 15944-4 -- economic and accounting ontology

[9:45] Elisa Kendall: The goal for the slides was simply to provide a starting point for discussion,

not to be exhaustive - apologies if we left anything off

[9:46] anonymous morphed into Bobbin Teegarden

[9:47] Simon Spero: Something that might be interesting to build on might be the FIBO Hackathon from

the Ontology summit - Link: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Hackathon_Clinics_FIBO_OOPS_OQuaRE

[9:51] Peter P. Yim: extending from the "anonymous" [x:42] message and ElisaKendall's response ... we do

want to hear, and collect information, on standards projects that are related to Ontology here ...

ALL: please type them in here (we'll collate later)

[9:52] Mike Bennett: FIBO

[9:52] Terry Longstreth: http://www.metadata-standards.org/ ... a reference point for standards

development on a closely related area

[11:08] Michael Grüninger / Peter P. Yim: [action] start a wiki page to collect listings of relevant

"ontology-based standards"" and related work

[9:48] Ralph Hodgson: I would like to have an initial discussion on what kinds of standards are being

thought about - for example: machine/human/regulatory/subject areas/meta-standard?

[9:49] Ralph Hodgson: In other words what do we think about when we say ""standard""? On a polarity of

schema (types) to content (instances) what are people thinking?

[9:50] Tara Athan: standards = official standards union defacto standards

[9:53] Adrian Paschke: ISO/IEC Guide 2:2004: A standard is a document, established by consensus and

approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or

characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of

order in a given context.

[9:53] Ralph Hodgson: linkedmodel.org has some vocabs for industry classifications - not a standards

effort just a gift from TopQuadrant

[9:54] Adrian Paschke: Side remark here - standards should be based on the consolidated results of

science, technology and experience, and aimed at the promotion of optimum community benefits

[9:54] JeffersonBraswell: Yes, considering that there are standards for such diverse areas as the

mechanics and syntax of codification (and the issue of different types of capabilities -- or lack of

capability compatibility among different forms of expressing ontological content -- at what level

should ""standards"" be aimed at ? Future capabilities that do not yet exist, or are 'cutting edge',

or trying to standardize at the more common level of expressive degrees of freedom ? (Apologies for

the Goedel-esque question)

[9:55] JeffersonBraswell: (for examples, differences between OWL and, say, SUMO )

[9:57] JeffersonBraswell: And how one distinguishes rules and behavior from more static capture of 'meaning'

[10:49] Peter P. Yim: Michael Grüninger: check out the OntologySummit2009 ""Toward Ontology-based

Standards"" proceedings - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit#nid21PY

[9:47] Michael Grüninger: Possible session on ontologies for units of measure

[9:56] Michael Grüninger: Do we want to have sessions that focus on particular domains? e.g.

accounting, law, geospatial, ...

[9:57] Michael Grüninger: Mike Bennett: the role of upper ontologies in standards harmonization

[9:57] Peter P. Yim: a few of us are trying to re-initiate the QUOMOS effort ... besides getting other

government agencies to write to the NIST Director, in support of having NIST's support and

involvement, I will also be putting together a similarly directed letter on behalf of the ""ontology

community"" as well. Input and suggestions welcome!

[9:58] Bob Young: I'd be very interested in any sessions related to the manufacturing domain

especially reference ontologies for manufacture

[9:58] Ralph Hodgson: I did some work on ontologies for political systems (what is a democracy) -

posted this at oegov.us some years ago - even an ontology of the US Constitution :-) Now think that

an ontology of political systems would be an interesting project to revitalize.

[9:59] Laurent Liscia: Thank you for taking onto consideration our observations. We look forward to

hearing the discussion on units of measure. We're also interested in hearing about how we can

educate standards practitioners on ontology and better demonstrate the benefits. Reaching out to

"vertical" communities is a great idea, but given the breadth, time and resources might be better

spent educating standards professionals. If they don't think ontologies will help them, that's an issue.

[10:00] Adrian Paschke: @LaurentLiscia, regarding your question about OASIS LegalRuleML - yes there

are interesting things to report here, e.g. about the ontological metamodel approach for the

specification of the LegalRuleML language and the use of external legal ontologies such FBRL, LKIF,

... in the LegalRuleML (typed) language

[10:00] Mike Bennett: the importance of communities of practice in defining meaning, along with well

referenced academic work - this is where the meaning is. Focus on semantics not syntax in relating

these to one another and having / identifying common reusable meaningful concepts which can be cross

referenced to one another per JohnSowa's ISS methodology as per previous summit outcomes, i.e. use

of underspecified upper ontology partitions to frame the meanings.

[10:01] Laurent Liscia: Echoing Simon's view: ontologies should probably be built on expert knowledge

to clarify fundamental concepts. But adopting the ontology frame of mind has to happen in the

standards community.

[10:04] Simon Spero: @LaurentLiscia : I agree - I include SMEs as part of the standards community

(especially if they're voting members :)

[10:01] Laurent Liscia: Thanks.

[10:02] Mike Bennett: A good point from Simon - part of the requirement for having ontologies where

the semantics is anchored in communities of practice, is being able to present and curate ontologies

in a form which business practitioners can comprehend. Huge gap in tooling to date.

[10:01] Ralph Hodgson: Peter - QUDT is undergoing formal NASA review at NASA HQ - then subject matter

expert review within NASA. Because QUDT release 2 is significantly larger than release 1 - the

process requires the kind of governance that NASA standards efforts entails. I will keep this group

informed of process. QUDT adoption is growing and release 2 will be released at some level soon.

[10:03] Ralph Hodgson: NASA and NIST are in communication about QUDT

[10:04] Ralph Hodgson: OpenPHACTS also moving QUDT forward

[10:02] Peter P. Yim: ref. QUOMOS and related efforts - see : http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM

[10:03] Laurent Liscia: Thanks, Peter, have to drop off.

[10:06] Mike Bennett: Do we need a roadmap: what are the concepts which concepts in other industries

are drawn from (contracts, law, accounting spring to mind); and what are the concepts which concepts

in other industries need to make reference to (units of measure, date/time). Form a consensus on

these, develop common abstractions which everyone can agree on and which enable the common

representation of otherwise disparate terms. Start there.

[10:07] JeffersonBraswell: One metaphor that comes to mind, Mike, is how the capabilities and

expressiveness of a programming language have a significant effect on the nature (and robustness) on

what can be created, expressed, and implemented with the language ( Turing's machine notwithstanding ).

For example, COBOL versus C versus Go versus Occam , etc . Does not the syntax of abstract

specification, definition and manipulation have a material effect on the size and scope of ""meaning "

that can be manifested ?

[10:08] Mike Bennett: Good point Jeff. I think that's why we were able to relate terms from different

standards and initiatives, because we had very atomic, archetypical concepts. Many of these are so

abstract that they are well outside the comfort zone of many technical people, which is a challenge

as soon as one starts to work on the more syntactical considerations of technical ontology development.

[10:09] Terry Longstreth: does the QUOMOS effort involve international collaboration, particularly

with respect to UNECE recommendation 20 and their Units of Measure: Code elements?

[10:11] Frank Olken: Yes.

[10:12] Ray Martin: QUDT is an excellent effort. I am looking for something similar in ontology for

Goals, Actions, Perception - distinctly and separately - and in unison and combination.

[10:12] Richard Martin: Mike and Simon - doing this "semantics is anchored in communities of

practice" is the essence of a standard. In the doing we introduce variety of meaning to express

community evolution of practice. One problem I encounter is the disconnect between an existing

standard and that evolving practice. One part of the community depends upon the standard for

commercial reasons and another part of the community needs the standard to change in support of an

evolving practice. A critical need is to better understand the evolution of semantics in a diverging

community of practice.

[10:13] Mike Bennett: @RichardMartin very good point.

[10:12] Mike Bennett: Very interesting point from Ralph Hodgson - the subject matter in units of

measure is dimensional. Substantial body of business knowledge - IMHO this will require a different

mindset than what many of us on the tech side are comfortable with - need to partition review

efforts between the community of practice that has the knowledge, versus the technical side.

[10:13] JeffersonBraswell: Yes, Mike -- not only are the levels of abstraction challenging for

technical folks, but for subject matter experts as well -- requiring a bit of a Rashomon-capable

meta-expert to bridge the gap -- a rare breed. (One of the issues with the

tool/parallelization/bandwidth challenge )

[10:20] Mike Bennett: @Jeff this is very true - domain experts tend to describe their terms in their

context and one has to unravel that. Working with a mix of academics and industry folks on the mid

level abstractions seemed to yield some pretty good results I think.

[10:13] Tara Athan: Observation and Measurement

[10:20] Simon Spero: Highfleet ECLIF is an extension of Common Logic

[10:20] Simon Spero: But sort of a simplification of IKL

[10:20] Simon Spero: (IIR)

[10:23] Ralph Hodgson: http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/

[10:20] Michael Grüninger: Bob Young: The interaction between the ontologies within standardization

and the different ontology representation languages and software environments

[10:24] Mike Denny: My interest is in the use of ontologies to bolster national & international

standard terminologies work, both as one form of expression (design-time and/or output form for

promulgation) and also as a harmonization (mapping) tool. It sounded as if Michael Grüninger already

has this aspect well covered so that's good. This use could be particularly applicable in the

healthcare domain.

[10:28] Ken Baclawski: I suggest that there be a meeting in this series to deal with social

networking ontologies and standards. The current situation involves large sites that have various

industrial standards for data models. Interoperability and harmonization would be beneficial, but

the main players have not expressed a lot of interest in interoperability.

[10:25] JeffersonBraswell: Interesting topic: social networking ontology: How would "social

networking" be differentiated from either "society" or "networks" ( or some combination thereof)?

[10:32] Peter P. Yim: +1 to @KenBaclawski [10:28]

[10:25] Mike Bennett: Social networking would be a good example of a business space where the

abstractions needed for a real ontology should be more general e.g. terms about people, places,

virtual places, digital works. All those would have broader communities of practice / research areas

which can pin down the meanings.

[10:26] JeffersonBraswell: Agree, Mike

[10:26] Simon Spero: Social Networking: the main players in general don't seem to be to interested in

open standards; they tend to want to pull people in to their walled gardens

[10:27] Simon Spero: Social Networking: where they play open, it's to allow them to pull data in

[10:29] JeffersonBraswell: The main players wish to keep their informational assets close to their

(large) vest

[10:42] Eric Chan: For an overview of social network connect services, please see

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5551044&contentType=Journals+%26+Magazines&sortType%3Dasc_p_Sequence%26filter%3DAND(p_IS_Number%3A5551033)

[10:46] Eric Chan: A good opportunity to apply ontology to distill and unify the model for Wallpaper,

Activity Stream, Time Line, etc., buried in the social web platforms

[10:26] Richard Martin: Another problem I encounter has to do with the translation of standards from

English to other languages for use by practitioners in various nations. While standards are now

published almost exclusively in English, their use as intended by the authors is often difficult for

non-English speakers or even different English speaking regions because of the variety of meaning

individual words have in combination with other words in particular contexts. Translation engines

presume common usage but standards address uncommon usage.

[10:26] Daniel Kless: I would like to indicate my interest in initiating a general standard/guide for

developing and maintaining ontologies. Topics of interest in such guide/standard: defining the

meaning of terms and concepts in an ontology, choice of a top-level ontology, choice of a logical

language, common pitfalls of using a specific logical language, labeling entities in an ontology,

involvement of experts in the development, validation of ontologies, presentation of ontologies to

users, ontology maintenance and management, why each of the aforementioned steps in the development

of ontologies? Which sequence of steps?

[10:28] Adrian Paschke: @DanielKless: the questions you post are addressing ontology engineering

[10:29] Peter P. Yim: @DanielKless - Michael Grüninger: see - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit#nid3IJQ

[10:29] Tara Athan: In the geospatial community, there are approaches to working with metadata about

observations with location (not the geographical coordinates, but the properties associated with

that location e.g air temperature) that superficially look like ontologies, but on deeper

examination have ontological inconsistencies.

[10:40] Tara Athan: please specialize: Geospatial -> Geospatial Metadata

[10:32] Ralph Hodgson: If we go meta on this subject we might discuss on ontology of a standard - I

did one some years ago and represented a number of standards with it - RFC standards for example. Of

course this is an ontology "about" standards not "of" a standard. Interesting if the work of this

group is to offer the world away to evaluate standards.

[10:35] Terry Longstreth: @RalphHodgson - ISO 24706 - metadata for standards - would be a source of

relevant concepts

[10:36] Ralph Hodgson: @TerryLongstreth - thx

[10:34] Peter P. Yim: suggest those who are doing Ontology-based Standards to put their standard

ontologies into the Open Ontology Repository (OOR) - ref. http://oor.net

[10:35] Peter P. Yim: ... following that, we can discuss what we can do with/about these standard now

that they are logically in one place

[10:35] Mike Bennett: [suggestion] Synthesis of those ontologies that are either more atomic or

universally reusable, as a session.

[10:36] Michael Grüninger: Mike Bennett: The miniseries consists of sessions on domains such as

Quantities / Units of Measure, Geospatial, Accounting, Manufacturing. The final session will try to

synthesize, harmonize, and identify common ontologies

[10:37] BillMcCarthy: Does anybody have any experience or familiarity with ontologies whose

categorization schemes are being grounded specifically in the refereed research literature of a

particular domain? For example, ISO 15944-4 is being reflected in an AAA monograph. Are there

others?

[10:40] Simon Spero: @BillMcCarthy: That's referred to in Information Science / Knowledge Organization

as "Literary Warrant" or "Scientific Warrant"

[10:40] Simon Spero: @ BillMcCarthy : See: http://www.iva.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/literary_warrant.htm

[10:29] Bobbin Teegarden: @MikeBennett re upper organization: were you suggesting an uber-onto of

ontos? and if so, might it work to follow Steiner's lead of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, doing

something like an uber-ontology that recapitulates 'ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny'? Too dense? A

natural order to use?

[10:40] Mike Bennett: @BobbinTeegarden ontogeny v phylogeny - I think this encapsulates how we've

always considered that OWL should be used, i.e. set theoretic abstractions, which more or less

drives you into wanting to find reusable general concepts. An uber ontology would firstly identify

these concepts and secondly use high level partitions to reference one to another in a common

framework (JohnSowa's ISS slides - underspecified upper ontology partitions). Is that what you meant?

[10:43] Bobbin Teegarden: @MikeBennett Yes. Is there a natural, or fractal, order at the upper levels

for a framework, like JohnSowa's lattice of theories?

[10:40] Ralph Hodgson: @MarkJohnson [ref. Mark's verbal remarks about going from prose to a formal

(ontology) language] this is what we did for the NASA QUDT Handbook - prose is in the ontologies -

PDF document is generated from the ontologies ( Semantic Web Pages, SWP, was used to generate LaTeX) 

also ref. Discussion below starting with [10:50] Mark Johnson: ...

[10:43] Ralph Hodgson: ref. SWP (SPARQL Web Pages framework ) - http://uispin.org/ui.html

[10:45] Ralph Hodgson: To learn more on how the NASA QUDT Handbook was generated - slide 31 (I think)

of the NASA QUDT presentation at http://www.scribd.com/RalphHodgsontq

[10:41] Richard Martin: In ISO TC184/SC5/WG1 we have been working on a concept for model-based

standards authoring that applies Object-process methodology to the creation of a standard with dual

mode representation - text and corresponding graphical model - with a formal language basis.

[10:43] Elisa Kendall: At OMG, we generate the body of our specifications from the models that

specify them, including for ontologies - we're doing this for FIBO in fact.

[10:48] Peter P. Yim: @MarkJohnson - you might be interested in the "Extracting Ontologies from

Standards: Experiences and Issues" work Ken Baclawski, Eric Chan et al. presented in an earlier

session - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_10_25#nid3GES

[10:44] Michael Grüninger: Peter Yim: [suggested topic] How ontologies can help with the formal

specification of the natural language standards

[10:42] Mike Bennett: Moving away from physics based standards: see John Searle on how humanly

constructed "things" are still based in physics via language acts - covers legal constructs,

financial constructs etc., which are themselves the building blocks of human commerce and business.

[10:45] Mike Bennett: That's the question. The work with FIBO and REA (several of the folks on that

team are on this call), identified things like "aspect" that could be framed in the upper ontology

partitions (aspect is a relative thing), and be used to relate terms defined in the round in one

standard, to terms defined from a party context in another standard.

[10:50] Mark Johnson: The SRI effort started as an attempt to address interoperability of DoD

Training and Testing Systems (for example, how radio-based training instrumentation can exchange

messages). This is a very hard problem, far from solved, and it drove us to an ontological approach

to developing standards, requirements and specifications. We have become very interested in best

practices for linking informative prose standards suitable for most stakeholders and normative

OWL/ontological content.

[10:56] Bob Young: @MarkJohnson, we have done some work using ontologies to specify manufacturing

system requirements with some success. A PhD thesis should be available in a couple of months

[10:57] Peter P. Yim: the "natural language prose to ontology language" bridge, besides useful in

helping us with standards, could be useful to regulations and statutes (as indicated by the FIBO

folks recently)

[10:58] Mike Bennett: @PeterYim agreed. The Controlled NL bridge works both ways, e.g. in presenting

ontology content to subject matters, you need the full range of forms they can understand: diagrams,

spreadsheets and natural language statements.

[10:59] Michael Grüninger: Possible session topics (proposed so far):

1. Ontology-based Standards in the area of Quantities and Units of Measure

2. Ontology-based Standards in Geospatial Domains

3. Ontology-based Standards in Manufacturing

4. Ontology-based Financial Standards (e.g. ISO 15944, FIBO)

5. Standards and Ontology Metadata

6. Ontologies for Social Networks

7. How ontologies can help with the formal specification of the natural language standards

8. Synthesis and harmonization of the ontologies and standards presented in the miniseries

[10:59] Elisa Kendall: SBVR is an OMG standard, and is used primarily in the EU at the moment for

representing business policies. While the intent is for logical precision, it has no underlying

model theory. Having said this, quite a bit of work in SBVR is focused on terminology, and has been

done through joint research in ISO TC 37, who are well recognized terminologists. The mapping that

Mark Linehan and I created from SBVR to OWL allows one to reason over the terminologies developed in

SBVR, although it's somewhat lossy.

[10:58] Terry Longstreth: @SimonSpero - [referring to Simon's verbal remarks] can you feed us a URL

for the Tobias Kuhn summary?

[10:59] Simon Spero: @TerryLongstreth: http://attempto.ifi.uzh.ch/site/pubs/papers/kuhn2013cl.pdf

[11:00] Adrian Paschke: @SimonSpero: you might take a look at the outcome of the European network of

excellence REWERSE ACE http://rewerse.net/ and the RuleML Human Rules task force. There was a

session about this at RuleML 2013: http://wiki.ruleml.org/index.php/Human-Rules

[11:00] Simon Spero: To appear in "Computational Linguistics"

[11:00] Mike Bennett: Geospatial: what about geopolitical as well? and the common concepts of place

(real and virtual); addressing and the like?

[11:00] Simon Spero: Adrian Paschke: REWERSE was one of the things I was thinking of :)

[11:01] Adrian Paschke: The human rules track papers of RuleML 2013 where published in CEUR

proceedings: http://2013.ruleml.org/content/program-and-accepted-papers

[11:02] Adrian Paschke: maybe there are some interesting for you. SBVR was also addressed in several

presentations

[11:03] Simon Spero: @AdrianPaschke: I really wanted to submit to that, alas

[11:03] Frank Olken: @AdrianPaschke, were any of the RuleML sessions taped.

[11:03] Simon Spero: I'd be willing to try and pull people together for a CNL (controlled natural

language) session

[11:03] Mike Bennett: I'd be happy to co-champion 4 but would love to share this with BillMcCarthy if

you're up for it Bill. And anyone else in the accounting / XBRL space as well.

[11:03] BillMcCarthy: I would be happy to work with Mike Bennett on topic 4 (financial standards)

[11:02] Bobbin Teegarden: What happened to standards in ontology visualization? Any interest?

[11:03] Michael Grüninger: Potential Champions:

(1) Peter P. Yim

(2) GaryBergCross?

(3) Bob Young, Michael Grüninger

(4) Mike Bennett, BillMcCarthy

(5) Elisa Kendall

(6) Ken Baclawski

(7) Simon Spero

(8) ???

[11:03] Mark Johnson: need to drop off ... another meeting...

[11:04] Tara Athan: Add me to #2 please

[11:05] Terry Longstreth: I'd like to support Elisa on #5

[11:05] Richard Martin: I can help with 3 and 7.

[11:07] ElieAbiLahoud: I could help on 4 if needed

[11:07] Mike Bennett: @ ElieAbiLahoud yes please!

[11:--] Michael Grüninger / Peter P. Yim: re-iterating ...

1. Ontology-based Standards in the area of Quantities and Units of Measure [PeterYim, FrankOlken?]

2. Ontology-based Standards in Geospatial Domains [TaraAthan, Gary Berg-Cross?]

3. Ontology-based Standards in Manufacturing [BobYoung, Michael Grüninger, RichardMartin]

4. Ontology-based Financial Standards (e.g. ISO 15944, FIBO) [MikeBennett, BillMcCarthy, ElieAbiLahoud]

5. Standards and Ontology Metadata [ElisaKendall, TerryLongstreth]

6. Ontologies for Social Networks [KenBaclawski, EricChan]

7. How ontologies can help with the formal specification of the natural language standards [SimonSpero, Richard Martin, Mark Johnson, KenBaclawski]

8. Synthesis and harmonization of the ontologies and standards presented in the miniseries [???]

[11:07] Simon Spero: I still believe that ontologies include rules!

[11:08] Simon Spero: so Adrian++

[11:05] Ralph Hodgson: @ElisaKendall - maybe you could look at VAEM and VOAG for metadata? VAEM -

Vocabulary About Essential Metadata, VOAG - Vocabulary Of Attribuiton and Governance (includes

licensing)

[11:07] Ralph Hodgson: VAEM - http://linkedmodel.org/doc/vaem/1.2/

[11:07] Ralph Hodgson: VOAG - http://linkedmodel.org/doc/voag/1.0/

[11:09] Elisa Kendall: @RalphHodgson - thank you for the links - we definitely have not done anything

around licensing, and most of the metadata we've incorporated to date has been specific to the OMG

process, as I mentioned.

[11:09] Ralph Hodgson: @ElisaKendall - see

http://spinservices.org:8080/spin/doc.swp?baseURI=http://voag.linkedmodel.org/1.0/schema/voag for

licenses covered - scroll down page

[11:10] Ralph Hodgson: @ElisaKendall - you need to go to License Model under Governed Object

[11:11] Elisa Kendall: @RalphHodgson - thanks again!

[11:13] Adrian Paschke: bye

[11:13] Simon Spero: bye!

[11:15] Peter P. Yim: Attn: All co-champions - we will try to plan out the individual sessions within

the next couple of weeks, so that they will be rolled-out between Sep through mid-Dec, 2013 [...

given to understand that there will be no events in Aug-2013, and then Jan~Apr-2014 event slots will

almost be fully taken up by the Ontology Summit]

[11:05] Adrian Paschke: @SimonSpero: RuleML 2014 will again have a human rules track. It will be in

Prague, Czech republic collocated with ECAI 2014, http://2014.ruleml.org

[11:10] Adrian Paschke: standards addressing the combination of rules and ontologies, e.g. W3C

RIF/OWL which share OWL RL or SBVR which combines business rules and business vocabularies.

[11:10] Adrian Paschke: RuleML with SWRL, etc.

[11:00] Peter P. Yim: join us again, same time next Thursday Jul-25, for the "RulesReasoningLP:

Ontology-Rules-Reasoning-LogicProgramming-Applications" mini-series planning session -

Chair: Leo Obrst - Panelists: Benjamin Grosof, Harold Boley, Henson Graves, John F. Sowa

- http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_07_25

[11:16] Peter P. Yim: -- session ended: 11:13am PDT --

-- end of in-session chat-transcript --

Additional Resources

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)



Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2013_07_18&oldid=3012"