Actions

ConferenceCall 2015 02 26 and ConferenceCall 2015 03 05: Difference between pages

Ontolog Forum

(Difference between pages)
imported>KennethBaclawski
(Fix PurpleMediaWiki references)
 
imported>KennethBaclawski
(Fix PurpleMediaWiki references)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
= [[OntologySummit2015]] Track D Session - Thu 2015-02-26  =


Session Co-chairs: '''[[MarkUnderwood]]''' 
= [[OntologySummit2015]] Track B: Beyond Semantic Sensor Network Ontologies-II - Thu 2015-03-05  =


* '''[[#Abstract|Abstract]]''' <br>The existence of standards, both official and de facto, can dramatically influence the software development life cycle for ontology projects. This is especially for greenfield efforts, which can peg existing vocabulary, interoperability settings, test harnesses and verification processes to new projects. Standards may be essential for domain-specific data quality assurance. Standards also have a sociotechnical purpose. Communities of Interest (CoI) behind a standards effort can supersede a standard by concentrating expertise and collecting artifacts related to the standard. Because the world of "things" is by definition vast, standards can facilitate connecting software to devices by offering abstractions that impact domain-specific knowledge of the devices. This is helpful for building ontologies. That said, software development is a deregulated engineering process, and many successful software ventures have succeeded by ignoring or incorporating bits and pieces of unacknowledged standards work, sometimes creating new de facto standards in the process. The purpose of this track is to help potential IoT ontology developers understand the standards landscape, both official and de facto.
* Summit Theme: '''[[OntologySummit2015]]: Internet of Things: Toward Smart Networked Systems and Societies'''


'''Approach'''
* Session Topic: '''[[OntologySummit2015]] Beyond Semantic Sensor Network Ontologies'''  


* Survey "official" IoT standards
* Session Co-chairs: [[GaryBergCross|Gary Berg-Cross]] and [[TorstenHahmann|Torsten Hahmann]]
* Identify de facto standards
* Identify related standards, projects, bodies not officially designed as IoT or WoT
* Highlight domains where ontology efforts:
** (1) are most needed;
** (2) have harmonious partnership opportunities;
** (3) available subcomponents
* Discuss Challenges: Power mgmt., security, signal post-processing, provenance, signal quality, discovery, metadata, network issues, Big Data
* Related work: Modsim (e.g., Yang Song, et al. 2012, Sensor Fusion, Linked Open Data, augmented reality, Software Defined Networks (SDN)
* Lessons from history: middleware, intelligent agents, CEP, embedded systems, [[DoD]] fusion
* Retrospective: Related Lessons from Ontology Big Data 2014


== [[#Agenda|Agenda]] ==
== Introduction ==
Sensors are the front end of and play a big part of IoT.  Sensor-generated data have Big Data challenges like heterogeneity etc.
Because misunderstanding the data can result in invalid or misrepresented analyses semantic technologies, such as the Semantic Sensor Network ontology (SSN) ontology and associated reasoning, represent a seed area for the IoT.
We think this is a source of useful work relevant to IoT and an opportunity for good semantic development.
The Sensor network focus and efforts to go beyond the original model allows discussion of some the major challenges in utilizing semantic technologies for the IoT.
For example there is the issue of data processing after sensing is completed and networking and data processing needs to be coordinated. There is consideration on non-sensing devices such as actuators and concentrators.
And there is the inherent IoT heterogeneity issue with its multiple Techs, Standards, & different Information types.


=== Session 2 - Participant Q and A===
== Agenda ==
* Q1. What does an ontology "sprint" designed to integrate with an IoT standard look like?
* Q2. You've been asked to add surveillance video to an existing IoT project that only incorporates ground sensors designed for a municipal parking system.
** (a) What features in a video stream standard would facilitate integration?
** (b) How should the original parking system ontology have been designed to facilitate this later upgrade?
* Q3. [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2015/2015-02-12_OntologySummit2015_Decision-Making-in-Different-Domains-1/Track-C_Process-Ontologies-for-Smart-Objects-in-Manufacturing--MichaelGruninger_20150212.pdf Gruninger's presentation] demonstrated a project that relied upon the Process Specification Language (ISO 18629). Given that most ERP systems have extensive (ERD?) data models but do not "implement" the standard, what approach would you recommend to a team that wishes to integrate a new generation of factory floor sensors for a discrete manufacturer?
* Q4.  Miller's presentation discussed how the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP, RFC 7252) can be used to web-enable low level devices like switches and valves. Does this suggest a "layer" for ontologies?
* Q5. What design patterns seem to be "curated" by standards organizations (using language from Track C "Engineering Bottlenecks" conversation in the 2014 Summit)?
* Q6. Should standards organizations consider sub- or micro-ontologies to accompany their taxonomies? E.g., NIST working groups often produce taxonomies to support documents like the Cloud Security Standards and the Big Data Public Working Group, but not ontologies. Should that work be left to others, or does the absence of ontology ingredients handicap wider adoption?
* Q7. One of the concerns expressed about standards like AllJoyn, originally started by Qualcomm's Connected Experiences group, is that it's not vendor-neutral. To what extent can an ontology standard mitigate or simply inherit these problems?
* Q8. If one or more standards set forth alerting mechanisms, such as the alerting in OGC SensorML 2.0 and the Oasis Common Alerting Protocol used in NIEM and elsewhere, how can ontologies address the problem of alert fatigue? Are there cross-cutting principles from KR that can be applied to  guide user interfaces, Big Data variety, information aggregation / concentrators and outputs from predictive analytics?
* Q9. A topic touched upon (Hodges, "semantic workflow") but not fully addressed is standardization of workflow and orchestration. In a Big Data, M2M, IoT, sensor-rich world powered by DevOps, what role should an IoT ontology play in marshalling, monitoring, managing IoT resources -- perhaps including (as Ram Sriram suggests) roles performed by human agents? Should ontologies be designed for IoT subsystems following the ontology-oriented design pattern for BPEL suggested by Nitzsche et al (2007) and Aslam et al (2006)?
* Q10. Should ontology efforts be focused on "meta" or "global" problems, or more modest, predictable challenges? For instance, an ontology that models the behavior of a class of sensors and cultivates developer attention to device reliability, error recovery and resilience might have greater value than something more ambitious. ([http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/Special:Search?search=uncertainty Consider the previous summit commentaries about uncertainty.])
* Q11. What should the role of an ontology (and an ontologist) be when a new generation of sensor devices is introduced -- resulting in not only a mix of sensor streams, but a mix of decision processes, data models and predictability?
* Q12. Can a "hard-coded" system (one in which knowledge representation elements are embedded by a developer oblivious to ontologies), be "Ontology Light"-enabled by connecting to various levels or connectors specified by an IoT standard?
* Q13. How is an ontology for decentralized (edge-aggregated or preprocessed streams) different from a centralized one? Should the ontology itself be distributed to the edge? How does this affect software engineering for distributed nodes?
* Q14. How can the use of IoT ontologies enhance device provenance ([http://knoesis.org/ssn2014/paper_9.pdf Compton, Corsar, Taylor 2014]) through standardized audit, query, metadata or configuration management? Given short device life cycle for smart devices (e.g., smart phones, wearables), what needs to be in place for ontologies to co-evolve?
* Q15. [http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/22/bioinformatics.btr375.full.pdf The ontoCAT integration with R] (Kurbatova et al., 2011) for bioinformatics and the rOntorion R package suggest possible collaborations for IoT analytics, perhaps machine learning through R. Microsoft hosted a 2014 conference on machine learning in which a [http://blogs.microsoft.com/iot/2014/12/09/machine-learning-adding-impact-to-iot/ Microsoft blog post] argued that "some of the most exciting work being done to reap value from the Internet of Things (IoT) involves taking data insights to the next level using machine learning (ML)." What role should ontologies play in this arena?
* Q16. Would the presence of a readily usable ontology for a class of IoT devices facilitate white hat / black hat IoT attacks, penetration testing?
* Q17. Are there principles from the 2008 Ontology Summit [http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2008/Ontology_Of_Ontologies_Draft_Review Metadata for Ontologies discussion] that should be reinvigorated for IoT settings?


== Prepared presentation material ==
Speakers
Prepared presentation material (slides) can be accessed by clicking on each of these links:
* Charles Vardeman, II: Computational Observations Hackathon idea
** One of the potential foundational pieces of the Internet of Things (IoT) is the work done by the W3C Incubator Group on semantic sensor networks. A core component that was resultant of the groups work was the Sensor Stimulus Observation Ontology Design Pattern that captures the concept of observation in a quantifiable and qualifiable representation including the provenance necessary to understand the context of an observation. The DASPOS project in collaboration with a group from the SoCOP DC Geovocamp 2014 (http://vocamp.org/wiki/GeoVoCampSOCoP2014) have started development of an analogous Ontology Design Pattern for Computational Observations where the observation is the result of some computational model. As part of the Ontology Summit, we are looking for feedback on the model with respect to potential applications to the IoT.
* Ingo Simonis: OGC Sensor Web & Semantics
** The OGC Sensor Web Enablement initiative started in 2001 with the goal to make sensors and sensor data connected to the Internet available at well defined interfaces using standardized information models and serializations. For over a decade,  attempts to add Semantic Web technologies and techniques failed to break into the market. Just the latest developments around JSON-LD with additional pushes coming from the Internet of Things domain seem to become more successful.
* Konstantinos Kostis: Managing unknown IoT entities by uncovering and aligning their semantics
** The talk will focus on research work at VTT (semantic interoperability in IoT) and also in current and future plans related to semantic interoperability for Cyber-Physical big data-intensive systems.
* Jean-Paul Calbimonte: Ontology-based Access to Sensor Data Stream
** Sensor networks are increasingly becoming one of the main sources of Big Data on the Web. However, the observations that they produce are made available using heterogeneous schemas, vocabularies and data formats, making it difficult to share and reuse these data for other purposes than those for which they were originally set up. In this thesis we address these challenges, considering how we can transform streaming raw data to rich ontology-based information that is accessible through continuous queries for streaming data. Our main contribution is an ontology-based approach for providing data access and query capabilities to streaming data sources, allowing users to express their needs at a conceptual level, independent of implementation and language-specific details.
* Torsten Hahmann, Silvia Nittel: Understanding Group Activities from Movement Sensor Data
** We will present ongoing work on utilizing narrow application ontologies to inject semantics into sensor data, helping us to identify and describe human-comprehensible concepts from sensor data. This is demonstrated using trajectory information about people moving between rooms in buildings for identifying group activities such as different kinds of meetings.
* Barry Smith: Ontology of Sensors: Some Examples from Biology
** I will sketch how two ontologies, the Ontology for General Medical Science ([https://code.google.com/p/ogms/ OGMS]) and the Ontology for Biomedical Investigations ([http://obi-ontology.org/page/Main_Page OBI]), represent the roles played by biotic and abiotic sensors in biomedical research.


* see [[#Session_2_-_Participant_Q_and_A|above]]
== Resources ==
 
* Prepared presentation material (slides) can be accessed by clicking on each of these links:  [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2015/2015-03-05_OntologySummit2015_Beyond-Semantic-Sensor-Network-Ontologies-2/Track-B_OntologySummit2015_CharlesVardemann_2015-03-05.pdf Charles Vardemann], [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2015/2015-03-05_OntologySummit2015_Beyond-Semantic-Sensor-Network-Ontologies-2/Track-B_OntologySummit2015_KonstantinosKotis_2015-03-05.pdf Konstantinos Kotis], [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2015/2015-03-05_OntologySummit2015_Beyond-Semantic-Sensor-Network-Ontologies-2/Track-B_OntologySummit2015_IngoSimonis_2015-03-05.pdf Ingo Simonis], [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2015/2015-03-05_OntologySummit2015_Beyond-Semantic-Sensor-Network-Ontologies-2/Track-B_OntologySummit2015_JeanPaulCalbimonte_2015-03-05.pdf Jean-Paul Calbimonte], [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2015/2015-03-05_OntologySummit2015_Beyond-Semantic-Sensor-Network-Ontologies-2/Track-B_OntologySummit2015_HahmannNittel_2015-03-05.pdf Torsten Hahmann & Silvia Nittel], [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2015/2015-03-05_OntologySummit2015_Beyond-Semantic-Sensor-Network-Ontologies-2/Track-B_OntologySummit2015_BarrySmith_2015-03-05.pdf Barry Smith]
== Additional Resources ==
* Additional Resources: [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2015/2015-03-05_OntologySummit2015_Beyond-Semantic-Sensor-Network-Ontologies-2/Track-B_Beyond-Semantic-Sensor-Network-Ontologies_OntologySummit2015_audio_20150305.mp3 Audio Recording]
* [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2015/2015-02-26_OntologySummit2015_Related-Standards-and-Synergies-for-Emerging-IoT-Ontologies-2/Track-D_Related-Standards-and-Synergies-for-Emerging-IoT-Ontologies_OntologySummit2015_audio_20150226.mp3 Audio Recording]


== [[MeetingsCalls|Conference Call]] Details  ==
== [[MeetingsCalls|Conference Call]] Details  ==


* [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2015/2015-02-26_OntologySummit2015_Related-Standards-and-Synergies-for-Emerging-IoT-Ontologies-1/Joint_Ontology_Summit_2015_on_Smart_Networked_Systems__IoT_Track_D_Session_1.ics iCalendar]
* Date: '''Thursday, 05-Mar-2015'''  
* Date: '''Thursday, 26-Feb-2015'''  
* Start Time: 9:30am PST / 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm CEST / 5:30pm BST / 1730 UTC  
* Start Time: 9:30am PST / 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm CEST / 5:30pm BST / 1730 UTC  
** ref: [http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=02&day=26&year=2015&hour=12&min=30&sec=0&p1=179 World Clock]  
** ref: [http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=03&day=05&year=2015&hour=12&min=30&sec=0&p1=179 World Clock]  
* Expected Call Duration: ~2.0 hours  
* Expected Call Duration: ~2.0 hours  


Line 70: Line 55:
**** 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. ...  ([[VirtualSpeakerSessionTips|ref.]])   
**** 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. ...  ([[VirtualSpeakerSessionTips|ref.]])   


* '''In-session chat'''-room url: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/summit_20150226
* '''In-session chat'''-room url: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/summit_20150305
** 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]]").  
** 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.  
** 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) summit_20150226@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!  
** 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) summit_20150305@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!  


* '''Discussions and Q & A:'''  
* '''Discussions and Q & A:'''  
Line 83: Line 68:
* Please review our Virtual Session Tips and Ground Rules - see: [[VirtualSpeakerSessionTips]]  
* Please review our Virtual Session Tips and Ground Rules - see: [[VirtualSpeakerSessionTips]]  


* '''RSVP''' '' to [mailto:mark.underwood@kryptonbrothers.com mark.underwood@kryptonbrothers.com] with your affiliation appreciated,'' ... or simply just by adding yourself to the "Expected Attendee" list below (if you are a member of the community already.)  
* '''RSVP''' '' to [mailto:gbergcross@gmail.com gbergcross@gmail.com] with your affiliation appreciated,'' ... or simply just by adding yourself to the "Expected Attendee" list below (if you are a member of the community already.)  


* This session, like all other Ontolog events, is open to the public. Information relating to this session is shared on this wiki page: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/ConferenceCall_2015_02_26
* This session, like all other Ontolog events, is open to the public. Information relating to this session is shared on this wiki page: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/ConferenceCall_2015_03_05


* 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 [[WikiHomePage#Intellectual_Property_Rights_.28IPR.29_Policy|our prevailing open IPR policy]].
* 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 [[WikiHomePage#Intellectual_Property_Rights_.28IPR.29_Policy|our prevailing open IPR policy]].
== Attendees  ==
* Adrian Paschke
* Allyson
* [[AmandaVizedom]]
* Anantha Narayanan
* Antoine Gerardin
* Asiyah Yu Lin
* [[BobbinTeegarden]]
* Carl Neilson
* [[ChristopherSpottiswoode]]
* [[ConradBeaulieu]]
* Dan Romascanu
* David Lechevalier
* David Tinsley
* [[EvanWallace]]
* Frederic de Vaulx (NIST Associate)
* Gary Berg-Cross
* [[JoelBender]]
* John Morris
* [[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]]
* [[LeoObrst]]
* Liana Kiff
* [[MarcelaVegetti]]
* Mark Underwood
* [[MatthewWest]]
* [[MichaelGruninger]]
* Mike
* Bobak
* Nicolas Seydoux
* [[PeterYim]]
* Ram D. Sriram
* [[RaviSharma]]
* Spencer Breiner
* SriS
* [[SteveRay]]
* Sudarsan Rachuri
* [[TaraAthan]]
* Tom Tinsley
* uri shani


== Chat Transcript ==
== Chat Transcript ==
[09:24] Mark Underwood: Questions for our Q&A session today are on the session page: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/ConferenceCall_2015_02_26 (refresh for
latest Qs)
[09:30] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: is there presentation material link for download?
[09:32] Mark Underwood: @Ravi, the questions for discussion are inline on the session page
[09:34] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: May I suggest muting all now, to lessen background noise on recording?
[09:38] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: Two clarification questions re Q1: (1) Are you asking about an ontology sprint generally, or specifically and IOT standard integration
sprint? (2) Are you asking about strictly-agile sprints only, or agile-influenced sprints?
[09:39] Liana Kiff: My reaction is that the ontology is no different than any other piece of code,
[09:40] Mark Underwood: Michael: ambiguity detection / mapping incompleteness
[09:41] John Morris: The question of an ontology sprint says to me "proof of concept" -- and that means all the things you need for a POC.
[09:41] John Morris: Such as "sponsor", "business need", "decision criteria" etc.
[09:42] John Morris: Projects fail typically not for technical reasons, but because there isn't senior exec sponsorship and real business need. OK "business
pain" as much as "opportunity".
[09:44] Liana Kiff: Ontologies are equally likely be over-engineered as other elements of a software architecture, and Agile engineering can help to focus
the teams on the most critical end-to-end features the ontology must support.
[09:46] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: Is the short agile sprint to facilitate integration only or is it to develop that part of overall ontology of IOT?
[09:49] [[BobbinTeegarden|Bobbin Teegarden]]: The problem with SCRUM/sprints and agile is that the methodology works off 'requirements', and those end up usually trying to fix a
current problem in the current environment, and do not incorporate thinking about what 'could be', or making BIG changes in current systems. If the IoT is
really a paradigm change, the 'requirements' would entail systemic vision of big changes. Doesn't that beg a more system architecture approach to systemic
change?
[09:49] Mark Underwood: @Michael stds may have implicit ontologies
[09:50] John Morris: Interesting counterpoint to @Liana - and with acknowledgement that there is often over-engineering in various domains -- but agile is
often underengineered -- consider the question of "data modeling", which is often done badly and even disparaged. Data modeling is a close as most get to any
kind of systematic conceptual model, which ultimately is an ontology. So "ontology could be considered the ideal complement to the typical challenges of
agile". With ontology, agile will have a sound foundation.
[09:50] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: Summarizing what I said on the call: (Defining sprint loosely, and assuming the availability of test harness, device for testing,
etc., as Mark posited) my answer is that an #IOT ontology standard integration sprint looks very much like a ontology sprint in other contexts in which
development is focused on building/improving a device or system with specific functioning... (cnt'd)
[09:51] Mark Underwood: @adrian - LIfe cycle mgmt is a major issue on smaller devices, can build a less expressive ontology
[09:51] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: If we want to design an ontology that is correct wrt to a given IoT standard, what are the IoT standards that would have the
highest impact in terms of providing it with an ontology?
[09:51] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: I would think it would be as analogy to databases (ODBC JDBC) a more universal interface such as for SCADA and DAS because even for
wearable medical devices, there might be multiplexing and datastream concept to support installed or future installable devices.
[09:52] Adrian Paschke: from my point of view the support for life cycle management is important. In particular, automated extraction of submodules,
automated testing of the submodule within the constraints of the devices, automated download from repositories and deployment into the IoT sensors / devices
[09:52] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: ^^ == Q1. What does an ontology "sprint" designed to integrate with an IoT standard look like?
[09:52] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: [[MarkUnderwood|Mark Underwood]]: == Q2. You've been asked to add surveillance video to an existing IoT project that only incorporates ground sensors designed
for a municipal parking system. (a) What features in a video stream standard would facilitate integration? (b) How should the original parking system
ontology have been designed to facilitate this later upgrade?
[09:54] [[EvanWallace|Evan Wallace]]: @Liana: In my experience, ontologies are likely to be either over-engineered or under-engineered, and probably more often over.
[09:55] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: ...(continuing from [09:50]) Specifically, it would start with definition and clarification of the capabilities to be developed,
sufficiently so that tests can be written for them. Then it would move into focused ontology development, making whatever additions, changes, mappings, etc.,
are needed to integrate the standard, where that is understood operationally as "to make the system pass those tests". The availability of frequent testing
gives continual feedback during the sprint, and all on the team understand that at the end of the sprint, just that much should be accomplished if the sprint
is to be a success... (ctnd)
[09:55] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: Also Mark it would help if not only format but metadata about the video are also incorporated in the stream?
[09:56] Adrian Paschke: for fine grained semantic annotation of video streams, identifiable temporal and spatial media fragments are needed
[09:56] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: On Q2 you have to invoke the "No Magic" principle. If you did not plan for something, there is no reason why you should be able to add
it later.
[09:58] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: [[MarkUnderwood|Mark Underwood]]: == Q3. Gruninger's presentation demonstrated a project that relied upon the Process Specification Language (ISO 18629).
Given that most ERP systems have extensive (ERD?) data models but do not "implement" the standard, what approach would you recommend to a team that wishes to
integrate a new generation of factory floor sensors for a discrete manufacturer? ... ref.
http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/w/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2015_02_26&oldid=15492#hid1H
[09:58] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: Q3 ERP to IoT one of aspects would be to interject CRM or user experience history as part of increasing usage of IOT in ERP
[09:59] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: ... (cntd from [09:55]) Also, as Mark commented or elicited after my first comment: There is likely to be a welcome need for
cross-functional interaction here. The ontology team will be better integrated into the overall engineering team than is often the case. And at the end of
the sprint, system test might address whether the device can now communicate what it senses in such a way that any standard-compliant (or standard-aware)
consuming system can correctly interpret it.
[10:00] Ram D. Sriram: Since we are talking about humans also being integrated into the system we should talk about "social sensors," which could be patterns
from social interactions. For example, consider the chat from the Boston Marathon bombers incident. "Social sensors" could have recognized certain patterns
that could have foreseen this event. Also, photos are an important part and linking these in a standard manner would be useful. Ramesh Jain was going to talk
about this on March 12, but he has requested that his talk be rescheduled.
[10:01] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: Q3 another aspect would be links to not only ERD but ERD data models in the context of Big Data
[10:01] Liana Kiff: @Evan over-engineering is even more likely if the ontology isn't being exercised for a real-world use case. So the deep integration and
co-development with the solution, is likely to make both the ontology and the solution more effective.
[10:01] Adrian Paschke: the question here is, if the ontology is addressing the operational execution level of ERP, such as workflow execution, or the
tactical and strategic decision layer of enterprise resource planning.
[10:01] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: Q3: The need here is for bridge ontologies between the ERP concepts and the IoT concepts
[10:03] Mark Underwood: @Michael - Interop may be the design pattern best recognized by IoT integrators
[10:04] Mark Underwood: Q4. Miller's presentation discussed how the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP, RFC 7252) can be used to web-enable low level
devices like switches and valves. Does this suggest a "layer" for ontologies?
[10:04] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Bobbin [09:49] - I'm speaking from an agile-influenced, but not strictly agile perspective. With that caveat, I think you're right
that the architectural and forward-looking perspectives are important. But it's actually extremely useful for such big goals to be divided into smaller bits,
for which corresponding milestones and sprints can be defined. IME everyone is happier, and the results are better, when this can be accomplished. It's very
effective at mitigating the tendency to spend a year or more working before rubber and road meet, at which point resources and will might not be available
for major course corrections.
[10:04] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: these sensors fill the repository very fast.
[10:05] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: [[MarkUnderwood|Mark Underwood]]: == Q4. Miller's presentation discussed how the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP, RFC 7252) can be used to web-enable
low level devices like switches and valves. Does this suggest a "layer" for ontologies? ... ref.
http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/w/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2015_02_26&oldid=15493#hid1L1D
[10:05] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: Q4: Is this an issue of granularity or abstraction?
[10:06] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: or architecture layer? in terms such as middleware?
[10:07] [[ChristopherSpottiswoode|Christopher Spottiswoode]]: Matthew, is that layers or modules?


[10:08] Liana Kiff: Our experience so far is that a layered approach is desirable. Separating protocols from meaning, for example. S
[09:16] Mark Underwood: Slide decks for today's session downloadable from "Prepared Presentation Material" on
http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/ConferenceCall_2015_03_05


[10:09] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: [OT] @MarkUnderwoood - I updated your session page and took out all html tagging in your question section ... (in general, please avoid
[09:17] Gary Berg-Cross: Hello Chuck!!
html tagging, and leave the wiki text in pure text, so the system can automatically generate [[PurpleNumber|Purple Number]] tagging for the content.)


[10:09] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @LianaKiff and @EvanWallace -- I strongly agree that over-engineering is a frequent problem and exacerbated when there is a lack of
[09:17] Charles Vardeman: Greetings!
real-world use case and corresponding tests. I'd add that under-engineering and just flat out bad engineering are similarly a problem and simliarly mitigated
by applying practices such as requirements-based, testable milestones, and frequent testing.


[10:10] Ram D. Sriram: @Mathew: Time is another important aspect of IoT. Events are key to IoT. We should be thinking about event ontologies and related
[09:26] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: Hi everyone!
standards.


[10:10] [[BobbinTeegarden|Bobbin Teegarden]]: @Amanda Yes, nicely put. As long as the vision of what could be is big (or creative) enough, and as long as the vision is adjusted
[09:28] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: I won't be able to participate during the session, but I will be starting and ending a recording of the session
and the 'bits' are tuned, including widening based on emergent patterns. As [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] said above (paraphrase), if you don't plan, you might not be able to
make adptations and BIG changes later based on what you're seeing emerge.


[10:11] Sudarsan Rachuri: I would like to put few points. 1) How to filter signal from noise from all the devices including humans as devices 2) How do we
[09:39] Konstantinos: Hi Gary, all
understand the uncertainty both in measurement and also in the model of the system, 3) How do we incorporate "learning" and Bayesian learning for ontology


[10:12] [[ChristopherSpottiswoode|Christopher Spottiswoode]]: Yes Matthew, you are right, Does it matter? But the underlying assumption is still a component architecture facilitating
[09:40] Gary Berg-Cross: Welcome Konstantinos. You are scheduled as our 3rd speaker.
reuse but recognizing granularities and precisions.


[10:12] Mark Underwood: Q5. What design patterns seem to be "curated" by standards organizations (using language from Track C "Engineering Bottlenecks"
[09:46] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: @Konstantinos - please see: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/w/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2015_03_05&oldid=15537#hid1G4B3
conversation in the 2014 Summit)?


[10:12] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: We have two thoughts going in parallel - ontology the embeds different IoT or ontology tagged to one device or sensorgroup? any pro-cons?
[09:46] Torsten Hahmann: In my Skype version (6.2) there is a big "Plus symbol" right next to the red "hang up" symbol to add the dialpad. It is only visible
when the call is in progress.


[10:12] Adrian Paschke: yes, typically indirect event-based communication
[09:48] [[TaraAthan|Tara Athan]]: A critical component of the description of a computational model about the real world are the regime of validity, which could be expressed
either negatively (the model is not valid if the temperature is less than X) or positively (the model assumes the material is at thermal equilibrium). I have
long hoped that very expressive KR languages (e.g. Common Logic) could be used to capture this "metadata".


[10:14] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Adrian - in what context?
[09:50] Konstantinos: I am in! Thanks a lot


[10:15] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: Q5: What are the lists and/or working groups that we can send this question to?
[09:51] Charles Vardeman: @TaraAthan Yes that is my hope. One of the inspirations for the pattern was my experience in working with students who were doing
simulations that probably were not valid given their choice of input parameters (temperature is less than X and the model was not parameterized for those
conditions).


[10:15] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: I'm not sure I understand Q5, really.
[09:52] Gary Berg-Cross: @Konstantinos Great. You will be the next speaker. We didn't have chance to test your mike so we will try that first and let you
know if we can hear you.


[10:16] Mark Underwood: Q6. Should standards organizations consider sub- or micro-ontologies to accompany their taxonomies? E.g., NIST working groups often
[09:54] [[TaraAthan|Tara Athan]]: @Charles Do you have a particular approach in mind for capturing model regime of validity or assumptions?
produce taxonomies to support documents like the Cloud Security Standards and the Big Data Public Working Group, but not ontologies. Should that work be left
to others, or does the absence of ontology ingredients handicap wider adoption?


[10:16] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: I had in previous Summits mentioned the need for developing standards ontology that would make us aware of how they integrate or overlap
[09:54] Gary Berg-Cross: Welcome Barry. You are our last speaker which should be around 2.
or convert?


[10:17] Ram D. Sriram: There is a newly formed T ISO/IEC JTC 1 Working Group 10 for IoT. The first kickoff meeting was held on January 27-29, 2015 in Berlin,
[09:57] [[JoshLieberman|Josh Lieberman]]: so UML in slide 9 should be GML ?
Germany and one my group members, Eric Simmons, attended this. I am sure he will be glad to brief you all on this.


[10:17] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: Q6 We all know that we miss out the relational or predicates power in heirarchies?
[09:58] Gary Berg-Cross: Simon Cox presented last year, or so, on this O & M work as part of an Ontolog series on Earth Science. You can get his slides
there.


[10:18] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: Q6: Again, what bridges do we need to build between the IoT working groups and the Applied Ontology community
[09:59] Charles Vardeman: @TaraAthan I have some rough thoughts based on some toy models (inclined plane) and some work that we did at a recent RDA workshop.
We were playing with using value restrictions based on the model and the algorithm. The issue is that there are sets of conceptual and mathematical
assumptions built into the computational model as well as assumptions that are built into the algorithmic implementation. One of the issues we need to
explore is the relationship between what we call parameter type (algorithm) and AttributeType which is a property of the model.


[10:18] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: Many standards groups develop information models, so one question is whether you would consider a UML model a form of ontology?
[09:59] [[JoshLieberman|Josh Lieberman]]: Familiar with Simon's work, just not the point being made by Ingo.


[10:18] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: Yes. Data models can be a type of ontology.
[10:06] [[TaraAthan|Tara Athan]]: @charles - one issue with value restrictions has to do with what is the required accuracy of the results. Supposing "h" represents a
neglected effect, and the error due to neglecting it is bounded by some k * h^n, it could be possible to derive the value restrictions based on the users
accuracy requirements.


[10:19] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Matthew: I agree, in which case there are lots of ontologies being developed by standards groups.
[10:06] Mark Underwood: Listeners can download @Konstantinos deck at http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2015/2015-03-05_OntologySummit2015_Beyond-Semantic-Sensor-Network-Ontologies-2/Track-B_OntologySummit2015_KonstantinosKotis_2015-03-05.pdf


[10:19] Sudarsan Rachuri: You may be familiar with http://www.industrialinternetconsortium.org/
[10:12] [[TaraAthan|Tara Athan]]: Does anyone have a link for RDF streams?


[10:19] [[TaraAthan|Tara Athan]]: There is new work on giving UML (particularly fUML) formal semantics. This is happening in the [[OntoIOp]] committee (OMG).
[10:13] Mark Underwood: @Tara - Not sure. . . The W3C group is https://www.w3.org/community/rsp/


[10:19] Adrian Paschke: Standards for Complex Event Processing and Reaction Rules http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-24908-2_17
[10:15] Charles Vardeman: @TaraAthan I agree. We know in many cases how the errors associated with a model are propagated by the algorithm. As I alluded to,
I think the computational model sub-pattern may have patterns that capture error associated with a model associating that the model has been captured to
sufficient fidelity. I also have a notion that the model could also just be an information object that points to a publication that captures the model which
would still be useful.


[10:20] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: @Steve: Yes there are plenty.
[10:18] Liana Kiff: What are the performance characteristics of retrieving and processing RDF streams?


[10:21] John Morris: When I asked I have shared that ontologies are "scientific conceptual models" -- or depending on how correct one wants to be, one could
[10:18] [[TaraAthan|Tara Athan]]: The theory of monads (from category theory and functional programming) may be useful in dealing with streams of axioms such as RDF
say "scientific data models". Better software can be expected on the basis of better foundations. Building software not on an ontology is like building a
streams, since Stream is a particular kind of monad.
bridge without calculus. It might not fall down, but it's better with science.


[10:21] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Amanda - request your comment on - data models allow one type of relationships such as PK FK Constraint etc, while ontologies are richer
[10:18] Gary Berg-Cross: @jean-Paul People might like some references on the work that you cite.
than Data models because they can address multiple types of relationship (attributes and types)?


[10:22] Liana Kiff: http://linkedbuildingdata.net.previewdns.com/resources/IFC4_ADD1.ttl has been published to formalize the representation of IFC/BIM. But
[10:23] Mark Underwood: @Jean-Paul - Should one hold out hope for interop with CEP standards to add event, query models?
they have left out the annotation from their very rich HTML documentation.


[10:26] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Amanda -you also mean ontology that relates metadata about data-sets, obviously downstream to sensors and IOT?
[10:24] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Jean-Paul - great especially CEP. Do you or can you use timestamp on data for streaming? Also very useful for CEP? How does it relate to
SBVR and time and calendaring efforts including OMGs?


[10:27] Adrian Paschke: ... standardizing the APIs for KBs deployed in distributed IoT environments
[10:25] Gary Berg-Cross: @Jean-Paul Does the mapping from data to stream create an identity issue? If the data form has an ID does the stream have a new ID
but point back to the original ID?


[10:29] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @ Tara - OMG Ontology definition metamodel describes how UML is to be profiles and related to RDF OWL.
[10:27] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Tara please send me references as well.


[10:32] Mark Underwood: Q7. One of the concerns expressed about standards like AllJoyn, originally started by Qualcomm's Connected Experiences group, is that
[10:35] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: Wolfram Research has made a good start at a semantic registry of IoT devices at http://devices.wolfram.com/
it's not vendor-neutral. To what extent can an ontology standard mitigate or simply inherit these problems?


[10:32] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Tara - you are describing post ODM activity I think?
[10:39] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Konstantin - Source of data if on Internet or referenced to Internet is equivalent to big data but big data need not have IoT
relationship? Let us know why the two are same?


[10:34] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Mark - Q7 we deal with public ontologies but I guess there could be private vendor implementations that are not open source?
[10:44] Konstantinos: @SteveRay that is cool, thanks


[10:34] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: Q7: Ideally, ontologies should be used to mediate and understand differences, rather than to impose semantics
[10:46] Dennis Wisnosky: did she say woof woof


[10:34] Mark Underwood: Q8. If one or more standards set forth alerting mechanisms, such as the alerting in OGC SensorML 2.0 and the Oasis Common Alerting
[10:47] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Nittel - we need to distinguish between entities related to physical objects and then you say dinner, it is a plate with things and also
Protocol used in NIEM and elsewhere, how can ontologies address the problem of alert fatigue? Are there cross-cutting principles from KR that can be applied
a process? How do we deal this - in prior Knowledge Base?
to guide user interfaces, Big Data variety, information aggregation / concentrators and outputs from predictive analytics?


[10:35] Gary Berg-Cross: @Tara the last date on the Semantics Of A Foundational Subset For Executable UML Models (FUML), V1.1 seems to be in 2013. Is there
[10:48] [[TaraAthan|Tara Athan]]: Re Streams and Monads: https://patternsinfp.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/stream-monad/
any activity with this we should know about?


[10:36] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: Q7: Do you mean that the semantics of some concepts within a standard is hidden from users?
[10:49] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: Sorry I meant Silvia Nittel


[10:37] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: My answer to Q6 is Yes. While the standards groups put a lot of work into producing those taxonomies, etc., those products don't
[10:53] Mark Underwood: @Dennis That's how my parser heard it, unless it was a hidden reference to a highly supportive collaborator
capture well enough the understanding the group may arrive at. Ontologies can capture standards with less ambiguity (thanks to the grounding of logic/set
theory/ formal semantics), and in a form ready for machine-interpretation and action. I offer this answer based on experience enhancing the discoverability,
and accurate identifiability, of research data sets for NASA; part of this process is, in fact, ontologizing standards to which some data sets are known to
conform (I gave the example of the CFMetadata Standards (Climate and Forecast). Without the support of machine reasoning across the ontologized standards and
the ontologized data products, it's very hard, and less accurate, for a researcher to find data they can use, even if they know what standard it should
conform to. I see a similar dynamic for IoT. If there is a sudden application for, e.g., background radiation measurements that are already being gathered by
devices in people's homes and web-accessible, a researcher or emergency responder with use for that data will be greatly helped by such an abstraction layer.


[10:39] Liana Kiff: Agree with that last comment about alerts. The value of the alert is specific to the person being asked to take action, how, and when.
[10:54] Dennis Wisnosky1: My favorite collaborator talks that language.


[10:39] [[TaraAthan|Tara Athan]]: OMG has published in the past an attempt at a formal semantics for fUML using Common Logic <http://www.omg.org/spec/FUML/> There are known
[10:55] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Torsten, we have webinars as a category?
flaws in what has been published so far, and there is an ongoing effort to fix that in the [[OntoIOp]] group <http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntoIOp>
The problem with put a formal semantics onto a UML model after the fact is that the semantics may not capture what the model developers intended. It is
especially important to distinguish between UML models for information objects, which typically correspond to a closed world assumption, and the transference
of such a model to the real-world subject of the information object. Consider the case of a model of real-world events versus a data model for an information
object that is an event observation. "The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon."


[10:40] John Morris: In answer to Q on alarm fatigue, I would say there's a big role for ontologies. Modeling systems states can be complex; for example we
[10:56] [[JoshLieberman|Josh Lieberman]]: So the activity characterizations come from a combination of prior reasoning and machine learning classification of signals...
have a "normal" state where alarms are published to consumers -- but then a degraded or emergency state, which creates "alarm flood", which will overload (as
current speaker is saying) humans. I agree with current speaker that programmers or designers can't deal with it. And yes -- "requirements" -- but ontology
in and of itself provides the conceptual tool kit for modeling and programming a solution.


[10:40] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: Q8: I agree that ontology *on its own* won't solve this problem. But it can be very helpful, for example by providing a granular,
[10:57] SIlvia Nittel: yes, we say there has to be some sensor data synthesis and fusion to come up with the "observed entity signal"
declarative, flexible layer in which dependencies and conditions can be specified, changed, and made sensitive to other information.


[10:41] Gary Berg-Cross: There are real ontologists involved in semantic sensor network (as you'd expect) and follow ons,but I don't have a sense of which of
[10:58] Torsten Hahmann: @Ravi: we should, but currently we don't ... The sensor signals underlying the trajectory data has no video/audio - so there are
these other standards efforts being dicussed in passing have ontologists involved. Mark are the ones you involved in have such people and if so who?
only limited things we can infer from it. But one could envision adding a "video conference sensor" to take care of this


[10:41] John Morris: [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]] said it more succinctly. : )
[10:59] [[ChristiKapp|Christi Kapp]]: @Torsten Are you looking at using any statistical clustering algorithms to interpret the event data and correlate location events into
meetings?


[10:41] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: Q8 - the alerts can be generated and validated but in terms of making them reach the desired or affected audience, NIEM like standards
[11:00] Torsten Hahmann: @Christi: Not right now - we hope to get by with logical axioms/assertions right now. But we are thinking about using statistics to
would be good facilitators, of course secure and validated alerts only to be shared across communities.
describe different kinds of meeting in more detail (after classification)


[10:41] John Morris: The failure to manage requirements (which is partly a failure of project management and investment) is a problem separate from ontology.
[11:02] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: Do the activity descriptions come from an existing ontology? If the events, and the sensor data
descriptions come from the same ontology (something comprehensive, as one extracted from Wikipedia), there are no alignment problems. ... (please identify
yourself, and post to the field on the left of the "send button")


[10:42] Mark Underwood: Q9. A topic touched upon (Hodges, "semantic workflow") but not fully addressed is standardization of workflow and orchestration. In a
[11:02] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Barry - how mature are ontology interfaces or use from domain to mid level such as healthcare?
Big Data, M2M, IoT, sensor-rich world powered by DevOps, what role should an IoT ontology play in marshalling, monitoring, managing IoT resources -- perhaps
including (as Ram Sriram suggests) roles performed by human agents? Should ontologies be designed for IoT subsystems following the ontology-oriented design
pattern for BPEL suggested by Nitzsche et al (2007) and Aslam et al (2006)?


[10:42] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: reverse 911 is a case where a spill notifies the affected community.
[11:02] Gary Berg-Cross: Q from audience Do the activity descriptions come from an existing ontology? If the events, and the sensor data descriptions come
from the same ontology (something comprehensive, as one extracted from Wikipedia), there are no alignment problems.


[10:42] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @JohnMorris - Thanks, that's not among the things I hear most frequently. ;-)
[11:07] Mark Underwood: Is he lexicalizing "biotic" ?


[10:43] [[TaraAthan|Tara Athan]]: As to putting [[OntoIOp]] onto a list of contacts - you might consider two sublists, one for standards directly to IoT and another for
[11:12] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Barry - how would you categorize Phantom sensation (pain) and squeezed nerves that prevent sensing of downstream pain, even though there
standards about supporting technologies. [[OntoIOp]] would fit in the second sublist.
are secondary nerve networks? I am hinting at correlation between primary and backup sensing? depiction in ontology?


[10:44] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: Q9: Where are the full references to Nitzsche et al (2007) and Aslam et al (2006)?
[11:17] Jean-Paul Calbimonte: @Barry: for references, please refer to the RDF Stream processing group wiki, we have lots of resources there:
https://www.w3.org/community/rsp/wiki/Main_Page


[10:44] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: Ontology and BPEL can be related for executable ontologies but the mapping is not vewry clear? for Mark
[11:17] Jean-Paul Calbimonte: sorry, meant @Gary


[10:44] Ram D. Sriram: We definitely need an executive level ontology to deal with the "semantic workflow."
[11:18] Jean-Paul Calbimonte: @Mark: yes CEP interop is key. In fact some of the systems I mentioned already do. For example EP-SPARQL. or Our SPARQL stream
approach, can use a CEP such as Esper behind the scenes


[10:45] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @ram - yes
[11:19] Jean-Paul Calbimonte: @Ravi: yes, one way is to add timestamps to triples. But we found lately that it might be better to create RDF graphs and
annotate them with timestamps


[10:45] [[BobbinTeegarden|Bobbin Teegarden]]: @ram -- yes!
[11:20] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Josh, is the 'secondary' signal just another measurement(process)?


[10:46] [[BobbinTeegarden|Bobbin Teegarden]]: @ram, maybe not just an executive level ontology, but actual executable resources integrated INTO ontologies.
[11:20] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Barry - thanks for answers.


[10:46] John Morris: It's worth noting what apparently are the limitations of BPEL as a graph -- it isn't. If you want freedom to do a process in any
[11:20] Jean-Paul Calbimonte: @Gary: the mappings should provide these new URIs you mention. What we think is that PROV relationships should be used to link
arbitrary way, BPEL may not be that model.
the original streams with the derived ones. But this should be formalized


[10:47] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: Sorry I have to go.
[11:21] Gary Berg-Cross: @Jean-Paul Thanks for this connection to Prov and the references.


[10:47] Mark Underwood: ciao Matthew
[11:22] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Barry, can the use of statistical analyzes be represented as processes?


[10:48] Adrian Paschke: @John: yes, BPEL is basically orchestration. In IoT it is often choreography style coordination.
[11:22] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Barry, can statistical analyzes be represented as processes?


[10:48] [[BobbinTeegarden|Bobbin Teegarden]]: RE: executable ontologies, what is SPARQL added an E (for execute) the the CRUD is currently does -- CRUDE? -- could you then
[11:22] [[JoshLieberman|Josh Lieberman]]: Unanticipated relationship between a previously configured signal and a new measurement
'execute' an ontology?


[10:49] Mark Underwood: @Adrian - maybe BPEL isn't the best framework; that's an issue in Big Data orchestration certainly
[11:26] Konstantinos: I really need to leave the chat now, please forward any questions at kotis@aegean.gr and I will be glad to answer. Thank you for
listening.


[10:49] [[TaraAthan|Tara Athan]]: Another group working on supporting technology is API4KB (another OMG RFP) <http://www.omgwiki.org/API4KB/doku.php> We are working on
[11:26] Mark Underwood: Thanks for presenting, Konstantinos
incorporating IoT usecases into this effort (thanks to this summit). We are developing an (OWL) ontology as our metamodel = abstract syntax.


[10:52] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: Bobbin and Tara - does OWL allow executable concepts, UML certinly relates to BPMN and thereby worflow but executable?
[11:26] Gary Berg-Cross: @Konstantinos thanks very much for an interesting talk and for staying up late...


[10:52] Ram D. Sriram: Here is what I mean by executive level ontologies. For example, take the traffic situation in any of the major cities. Someone needs
[11:26] Konstantinos: Thank you for your attention!
to take the sensor data from smart phones, along with the social network information, to make decisions, such as rerouting. One can develop a primitive set
of ontologies for this purpose (and this can be used across several domains)


[10:53] Adrian Paschke: communication in IoT often uses indirect communication. event producers (publishers) and event consumers are decoupled in space and
[11:26] Konstantinos: and support!
time and communicate via intermediaries such as publish subscribe middlewares. The subscription languages and the event routing mechanisms can make use of
ontologies for intelligent routing and more expressive filter operators


[10:54] Mark Underwood: Q11. What should the role of an ontology (and an ontologist) be when a new generation of sensor devices is introduced -- resulting in
[11:27] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: @SilviaNittel: we do model meetings as events in our ontologies because we need such. They can be complex, with many participants in
not only a mix of sensor streams, but a mix of decision processes, data models and predictability?
different roles, and with predecessor and successor events and states.


[10:54] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: MarkUnderwoood: == Q11. What should the role of an ontology (and an ontologist) be when a new generation of sensor devices is introduced --
[11:28] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Ravi, what about the physical manifestation(s) of a process?
resulting in not only a mix of sensor streams, but a mix of decision processes, data models and predictability?


[10:55] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: It seems to me that the abstraction layer of ontology should make this easier.
[11:31] Mark Underwood: John - possible topic for the F2F meeting


[10:55] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: Need to leave now; the recording will continue ...
[11:32] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Todd - winds cause loss of houses in tornadoes? so cause effect relations but often as Barry explained process is effect of entities of
first kind.


[10:56] John Morris: And a budgeting challenge for hospital administrators . . . someone has to fund this episodic cost . . . unless the business model is
[11:32] Mark Underwood: Rich set of presentations - Thanks to all the presenters
subscription based, in which case it might work.


[10:56] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: Q11 is similar to ERP in wider context, ontologies can be version or change controlled so that we do not introduce ontology for each
[11:32] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: thanks
attribute such as Change anagement, compatibility of Internet explorer is an example of coexistence.


[10:57] [[ConradBeaulieu|Conrad Beaulieu]]: I am very interested in evolutionary ontology development with forward and backward compatbility. It seems natural to think that an
[11:33] Charles Vardeman: Thanks!
ontology approach would facilitate this.


[10:57] [[ChristopherSpottiswoode|Christopher Spottiswoode]]: Conrad: 100%!
[11:33] Jean-Paul Calbimonte: thanks to all


[10:58] Mark Underwood: PDM is involved in this
[11:33] [[JoshLieberman|Josh Lieberman]]: Thanks.


[10:58] [[BobbinTeegarden|Bobbin Teegarden]]: Doesn't change management in an ontology environment drop to the resource, and associated context, level?
[11:33] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: Big THANK YOU to the co-chairs for organizing this great session. ... Thanks to each and every speaker for their well prepared and rich
presentations!


[10:59] [[TaraAthan|Tara Athan]]: @Ravi and @Bobbin - I have never been completely clear on the terminology regarding "executable ontologies". How is it different from
[11:33] Torsten Hahmann: Thanks everyone!
logic programming?


[11:00] Mark Underwood: Q12. Can a "hard-coded" system (one in which knowledge representation elements are embedded by a developer oblivious to ontologies),
[11:33] John Graybeal: Question about how these ontologies become used: Some may be intended simply for the research communities, but getting practical
be "Ontology Light"-enabled by connecting to various levels or connectors specified by an IoT standard?
ontologies adopted in operational systems seems to be a big hurdle. Do we have thoughts and/or conclusions about how to make this take place?


[11:00] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Tara -Static versus dynamic actions based on data or decision rule.
[11:33] Charles Vardeman: Bye!


[11:02] [[ConradBeaulieu|Conrad Beaulieu]]: Data-driven programming adjusted for ontology interpretation and action. Encoding data schema, process / workflow and execution
[11:33] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: Thanks, all!
signatures into an ontology format.


[11:02] Liana Kiff: Hard-coded systems are dependent upon the stability or the evolutionary capacity of the ontologies that they are "referencing."
[11:33] [[MarcelaVegetti|Marcela Vegetti]]: Great Session!


[11:03] [[TaraAthan|Tara Athan]]: @Ravi - Would an ECA Rule system be consider an executable ontology? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_condition_action>
== Attendees ==


[11:04] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: once hard coded data exist the process of reverse enginnering schema abstraction etc might help undo the damage and then integrate with
Alex Mirzaoff
ontology to remove hard coding disadvantages.


[11:04] Mark Underwood: Use csae - Wordpress ecosystem for "events"
Allyson


[11:05] Mark Underwood: Q13. How is an ontology for decentralized (edge-aggregated or preprocessed streams) different from a centralized one? Should the
[[AndreaWesterinen]]
ontology itself be distributed to the edge? How does this affect software engineering for distributed nodes?


[11:06] [[ChristopherSpottiswoode|Christopher Spottiswoode]]: Mark, isn't edge or decentralized a relative matter?
Barry Smith


[11:06] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Tara - studying the link content in the meantime does the event condition consider all "things" and relations to be called ontology?
Bobbin Teegarden


[11:07] John Morris: The question of ontology or "semantic distribution" is certainly a technical/performance issue (around bandwidth, CPU power, storage
[[BruceBray ]]
etc.), but also becomes an issue of legal responsibility for data security and business responsibility for service level agreement, at edge, at local area
and at enterprise or cloud level.


[11:08] [[ChristopherSpottiswoode|Christopher Spottiswoode]]: Yes, ideally they should be relativized.
Carl Neilson


[11:08] Mark Underwood: Q15. The ontoCAT integration with R (Kurbatova et al., 2011) for bioinformatics and the rOntorion R package suggest possible
Charles Vardeman
collaborations for IoT analytics, perhaps machine learning through R. Microsoft hosted a 2014 conference on machine learning in which a Microsoft blog post
argued that "some of the most exciting work being done to reap value from the Internet of Things (IoT) involves taking data insights to the next level using
machine learning (ML)." What role should ontologies play in this arena?


[11:09] Mark Underwood: Adrian - you can enrich a data stream as a producer if you "know" / annotate the consumer's "needs"
[[ChristiKapp]]


[11:09] [[ConradBeaulieu|Conrad Beaulieu]]: As much of the ontology as possible should be pushed to the edge - even if it is used for higher level devices to reference about the
[[ChristopherSpottiswoode]]
device. Subseting the ontology for device specific definitions which can be stored in cheap memory - even in small devices. Binary annotation can be mapped
to the ontology definition.


[11:09] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Tara - YES Link is good example - It can be executable ontology related to our earlier determination of Ontology and BPEL or excutable,
[[ConradBeaulieu]]
this is very relevant example.


[11:10] Mark Underwood: Q - What is our Ontology at the Edge history?
Dennis Wisnosky


[11:10] Mark Underwood: Q16. Would the presence of a readily usable ontology for a class of IoT devices facilitate white hat / black hat IoT attacks,
[[DennisPierson]]
penetration testing?


[11:10] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: you mean Netcentric DOD edge?
Frederic de Vaulx (NIST Associate)


[11:11] Ram D. Sriram: Here is something that came to my attention today:
Gary Berg-Cross
http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/the-internet-of-things-an-identity-theft-goldmine-for-terrorists-and-criminals--1285863


[11:11] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @MarkUnderwood -- I could have missed it, but I don't recall much if any our discussions being framed specifically in terms of the
[[IngoSimonis]]
"the edge" (DoD sense or otherwise).


[11:12] [[ChristopherSpottiswoode|Christopher Spottiswoode]]: Q16: Certainly, Access Control ontologies should be available for reuse.
Jean-Paul Calbimonte


[11:12] [[TaraAthan|Tara Athan]]: @Ravi - so taking "ontology" in a general sense (not just OWL), ECA Rules would be an executable ontology that focuses on rules, while
[[JoeKopena]]
other executable ontology languages might have a different emphasis. OWL itself can be used to model and describe events, conditions and actions, but not to
execute them.


[11:13] Mark Underwood: Q17. Are there principles from the 2008 Ontology Summit Metadata for Ontologies discussion that should be reinvigorated for IoT
[[JoelBender]]
settings?


[11:14] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Tara - but your link prescribes execution conditions, can OWL incroporate this as something similar to UML Profile with action
John Graybeal
attribute?


[11:15] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @mark - Yes
[[JoshLieberman]]


[11:15] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: on Q17, yes
Judith Gelernter


[11:16] [[ChristopherSpottiswoode|Christopher Spottiswoode]]: The role of standards? Subsidiary to component architecture and integrated reuse tools.
[[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]]


[11:16] [[TaraAthan|Tara Athan]]: @Ravi - OWL has a fixed model-theoretic semantics. It is inherently passive.
Konstantinos


[11:19] [[ChristopherSpottiswoode|Christopher Spottiswoode]]: Re my answer above re standards, component architecture must encompass metadata.
[[LeoObrst]]


[11:20] Adrian Paschke: @Ravi: in general there is a difference between active execution of events and actions and reasoning about the effects of
Liana Kiff
events/actions.


[11:20] [[ChristopherSpottiswoode|Christopher Spottiswoode]]: Yes Mark, it's very key!
Malek


[11:21] Adrian Paschke: OWL is monotonic
[[MarcelaVegetti]]


[11:21] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: @Tara - then using OWL to UML2 with BPMN and I am hoping BPEL route can provide an action option in ontology context?
Mark Underwood


[11:22] [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]: We want to thank Mark for great interaction opportunity.
[[MichaelGruninger]]


[11:22] John Morris: Nice moderation in a dynamic environment!
Nicolas Seydoux


[11:22] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: good session, Mark ... thank you for organizing this!
[[PeterYim]]


[11:22] Liana Kiff: Thanks, Mark!
[[RalphSchaefermeier]]


[11:22] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: -- session adjourned --
Ram D. Sriram


[11:22] [[ChristopherSpottiswoode|Christopher Spottiswoode]]: Mark, very well handled session - thanks!!
[[RaviSharma]]


[11:24] Mark Underwood: Link to Ontocat for "R" package for ontology traversal and search
Richard Beatch
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/22/bioinformatics.btr375.full.pdf


[11:25] Mark Underwood: Link to Microsoft's blog post on IoT and analytics: http://blogs.microsoft.com/iot/2014/12/09/machine-learning-adding-impact-to-iot/
Richard Martin


[11:26] Mark Underwood: Link to the 2008 Summit discussion http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2008/Ontology_Of_Ontologies_Draft_Review
SIlvia Nittel


[11:26] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: Re: whether there is a session next week: Summit Sessions are among the events listed on the Ontolog Events calendar
[[SteveRay]]
https://www.google.com/calendar/render?cid=Y2RqMWxia241ZzFyN2dpMWwxZmZkMm1rZWNAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ


[11:26] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: ... and answer is yes, There is a Track B Session. :-)
[[TaraAthan]]


[11:28] Mark Underwood: Nitzsche - BPEL for Semantic Web Services http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-76888-3_37#page-1
[[TerryLongstreth]]


[11:29] Mark Underwood: Aslam et al on Expressing Business Process Model as OWL-S Ontologies http://ro.uow.edu.au/infopapers/439/
[[ToddSchneider]]


[11:30] Mark Underwood: Compton et al - Sensor Data Provenance SSNO and PROV-O http://knoesis.org/ssn2014/paper_9.pdf
Tom Tinsley


[11:33] Mark Underwood: Thanks, all
Torsten Hahmann


[[Category:OntologySummit]]
[[Category:OntologySummit]]
[[Category:OntologySummit2015]]
[[Category:OntologySummit2015]]

Latest revision as of 06:51, 9 January 2016

OntologySummit2015 Track B: Beyond Semantic Sensor Network Ontologies-II - Thu 2015-03-05

  • Summit Theme: OntologySummit2015: Internet of Things: Toward Smart Networked Systems and Societies

Introduction

Sensors are the front end of and play a big part of IoT. Sensor-generated data have Big Data challenges like heterogeneity etc. Because misunderstanding the data can result in invalid or misrepresented analyses semantic technologies, such as the Semantic Sensor Network ontology (SSN) ontology and associated reasoning, represent a seed area for the IoT. We think this is a source of useful work relevant to IoT and an opportunity for good semantic development. The Sensor network focus and efforts to go beyond the original model allows discussion of some the major challenges in utilizing semantic technologies for the IoT. For example there is the issue of data processing after sensing is completed and networking and data processing needs to be coordinated. There is consideration on non-sensing devices such as actuators and concentrators. And there is the inherent IoT heterogeneity issue with its multiple Techs, Standards, & different Information types.

Agenda

Speakers

  • Charles Vardeman, II: Computational Observations Hackathon idea
    • One of the potential foundational pieces of the Internet of Things (IoT) is the work done by the W3C Incubator Group on semantic sensor networks. A core component that was resultant of the groups work was the Sensor Stimulus Observation Ontology Design Pattern that captures the concept of observation in a quantifiable and qualifiable representation including the provenance necessary to understand the context of an observation. The DASPOS project in collaboration with a group from the SoCOP DC Geovocamp 2014 (http://vocamp.org/wiki/GeoVoCampSOCoP2014) have started development of an analogous Ontology Design Pattern for Computational Observations where the observation is the result of some computational model. As part of the Ontology Summit, we are looking for feedback on the model with respect to potential applications to the IoT.
  • Ingo Simonis: OGC Sensor Web & Semantics
    • The OGC Sensor Web Enablement initiative started in 2001 with the goal to make sensors and sensor data connected to the Internet available at well defined interfaces using standardized information models and serializations. For over a decade, attempts to add Semantic Web technologies and techniques failed to break into the market. Just the latest developments around JSON-LD with additional pushes coming from the Internet of Things domain seem to become more successful.
  • Konstantinos Kostis: Managing unknown IoT entities by uncovering and aligning their semantics
    • The talk will focus on research work at VTT (semantic interoperability in IoT) and also in current and future plans related to semantic interoperability for Cyber-Physical big data-intensive systems.
  • Jean-Paul Calbimonte: Ontology-based Access to Sensor Data Stream
    • Sensor networks are increasingly becoming one of the main sources of Big Data on the Web. However, the observations that they produce are made available using heterogeneous schemas, vocabularies and data formats, making it difficult to share and reuse these data for other purposes than those for which they were originally set up. In this thesis we address these challenges, considering how we can transform streaming raw data to rich ontology-based information that is accessible through continuous queries for streaming data. Our main contribution is an ontology-based approach for providing data access and query capabilities to streaming data sources, allowing users to express their needs at a conceptual level, independent of implementation and language-specific details.
  • Torsten Hahmann, Silvia Nittel: Understanding Group Activities from Movement Sensor Data
    • We will present ongoing work on utilizing narrow application ontologies to inject semantics into sensor data, helping us to identify and describe human-comprehensible concepts from sensor data. This is demonstrated using trajectory information about people moving between rooms in buildings for identifying group activities such as different kinds of meetings.
  • Barry Smith: Ontology of Sensors: Some Examples from Biology
    • I will sketch how two ontologies, the Ontology for General Medical Science (OGMS) and the Ontology for Biomedical Investigations (OBI), represent the roles played by biotic and abiotic sensors in biomedical research.

Resources

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Thursday, 05-Mar-2015
  • Start Time: 9:30am PST / 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm CEST / 5:30pm BST / 1730 UTC
  • Expected Call Duration: ~2.0 hours
  • Dial-in:
    • Phone (US): +1 (425) 440-5100 ... (long distance cost may apply)
      • ... [ backup nbr: (315) 401-3279 ]
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758#
    • Skype: join.conference (i.e. make a skype call to the contact with skypeID="join.conference") ... (generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer ... ref.)
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758#
      • Unfamiliar with how to do this on Skype? ...
        • Add the contact "join.conference" to your skype contact list first. To participate in the teleconference, make a skype call to "join.conference", then open the dial pad (see platform-specific instructions below) and enter the Conference ID: 843758# 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.)
  • In-session chat-room url: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/summit_20150305
    • 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) summit_20150305@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 gbergcross@gmail.com with your affiliation appreciated, ... or simply just by adding yourself to the "Expected Attendee" list below (if you are a member of the community already.)
  • 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.

Chat Transcript

[09:16] Mark Underwood: Slide decks for today's session downloadable from "Prepared Presentation Material" on http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/ConferenceCall_2015_03_05

[09:17] Gary Berg-Cross: Hello Chuck!!

[09:17] Charles Vardeman: Greetings!

[09:26] Peter P. Yim: Hi everyone!

[09:28] Michael Grüninger: I won't be able to participate during the session, but I will be starting and ending a recording of the session

[09:39] Konstantinos: Hi Gary, all

[09:40] Gary Berg-Cross: Welcome Konstantinos. You are scheduled as our 3rd speaker.

[09:46] Peter P. Yim: @Konstantinos - please see: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/w/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2015_03_05&oldid=15537#hid1G4B3

[09:46] Torsten Hahmann: In my Skype version (6.2) there is a big "Plus symbol" right next to the red "hang up" symbol to add the dialpad. It is only visible when the call is in progress.

[09:48] Tara Athan: A critical component of the description of a computational model about the real world are the regime of validity, which could be expressed either negatively (the model is not valid if the temperature is less than X) or positively (the model assumes the material is at thermal equilibrium). I have long hoped that very expressive KR languages (e.g. Common Logic) could be used to capture this "metadata".

[09:50] Konstantinos: I am in! Thanks a lot

[09:51] Charles Vardeman: @TaraAthan Yes that is my hope. One of the inspirations for the pattern was my experience in working with students who were doing simulations that probably were not valid given their choice of input parameters (temperature is less than X and the model was not parameterized for those conditions).

[09:52] Gary Berg-Cross: @Konstantinos Great. You will be the next speaker. We didn't have chance to test your mike so we will try that first and let you know if we can hear you.

[09:54] Tara Athan: @Charles Do you have a particular approach in mind for capturing model regime of validity or assumptions?

[09:54] Gary Berg-Cross: Welcome Barry. You are our last speaker which should be around 2.

[09:57] Josh Lieberman: so UML in slide 9 should be GML ?

[09:58] Gary Berg-Cross: Simon Cox presented last year, or so, on this O & M work as part of an Ontolog series on Earth Science. You can get his slides there.

[09:59] Charles Vardeman: @TaraAthan I have some rough thoughts based on some toy models (inclined plane) and some work that we did at a recent RDA workshop. We were playing with using value restrictions based on the model and the algorithm. The issue is that there are sets of conceptual and mathematical assumptions built into the computational model as well as assumptions that are built into the algorithmic implementation. One of the issues we need to explore is the relationship between what we call parameter type (algorithm) and AttributeType which is a property of the model.

[09:59] Josh Lieberman: Familiar with Simon's work, just not the point being made by Ingo.

[10:06] Tara Athan: @charles - one issue with value restrictions has to do with what is the required accuracy of the results. Supposing "h" represents a neglected effect, and the error due to neglecting it is bounded by some k * h^n, it could be possible to derive the value restrictions based on the users accuracy requirements.

[10:06] Mark Underwood: Listeners can download @Konstantinos deck at http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2015/2015-03-05_OntologySummit2015_Beyond-Semantic-Sensor-Network-Ontologies-2/Track-B_OntologySummit2015_KonstantinosKotis_2015-03-05.pdf

[10:12] Tara Athan: Does anyone have a link for RDF streams?

[10:13] Mark Underwood: @Tara - Not sure. . . The W3C group is https://www.w3.org/community/rsp/

[10:15] Charles Vardeman: @TaraAthan I agree. We know in many cases how the errors associated with a model are propagated by the algorithm. As I alluded to, I think the computational model sub-pattern may have patterns that capture error associated with a model associating that the model has been captured to sufficient fidelity. I also have a notion that the model could also just be an information object that points to a publication that captures the model which would still be useful.

[10:18] Liana Kiff: What are the performance characteristics of retrieving and processing RDF streams?

[10:18] Tara Athan: The theory of monads (from category theory and functional programming) may be useful in dealing with streams of axioms such as RDF streams, since Stream is a particular kind of monad.

[10:18] Gary Berg-Cross: @jean-Paul People might like some references on the work that you cite.

[10:23] Mark Underwood: @Jean-Paul - Should one hold out hope for interop with CEP standards to add event, query models?

[10:24] Ravi Sharma: @Jean-Paul - great especially CEP. Do you or can you use timestamp on data for streaming? Also very useful for CEP? How does it relate to SBVR and time and calendaring efforts including OMGs?

[10:25] Gary Berg-Cross: @Jean-Paul Does the mapping from data to stream create an identity issue? If the data form has an ID does the stream have a new ID but point back to the original ID?

[10:27] Ravi Sharma: @Tara please send me references as well.

[10:35] Steve Ray: Wolfram Research has made a good start at a semantic registry of IoT devices at http://devices.wolfram.com/

[10:39] Ravi Sharma: @Konstantin - Source of data if on Internet or referenced to Internet is equivalent to big data but big data need not have IoT relationship? Let us know why the two are same?

[10:44] Konstantinos: @SteveRay that is cool, thanks

[10:46] Dennis Wisnosky: did she say woof woof

[10:47] Ravi Sharma: @Nittel - we need to distinguish between entities related to physical objects and then you say dinner, it is a plate with things and also a process? How do we deal this - in prior Knowledge Base?

[10:48] Tara Athan: Re Streams and Monads: https://patternsinfp.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/stream-monad/

[10:49] Ravi Sharma: Sorry I meant Silvia Nittel

[10:53] Mark Underwood: @Dennis That's how my parser heard it, unless it was a hidden reference to a highly supportive collaborator

[10:54] Dennis Wisnosky1: My favorite collaborator talks that language.

[10:55] Ravi Sharma: @Torsten, we have webinars as a category?

[10:56] Josh Lieberman: So the activity characterizations come from a combination of prior reasoning and machine learning classification of signals...

[10:57] SIlvia Nittel: yes, we say there has to be some sensor data synthesis and fusion to come up with the "observed entity signal"

[10:58] Torsten Hahmann: @Ravi: we should, but currently we don't ... The sensor signals underlying the trajectory data has no video/audio - so there are only limited things we can infer from it. But one could envision adding a "video conference sensor" to take care of this

[10:59] Christi Kapp: @Torsten Are you looking at using any statistical clustering algorithms to interpret the event data and correlate location events into meetings?

[11:00] Torsten Hahmann: @Christi: Not right now - we hope to get by with logical axioms/assertions right now. But we are thinking about using statistics to describe different kinds of meeting in more detail (after classification)

[11:02] Peter P. Yim: Do the activity descriptions come from an existing ontology? If the events, and the sensor data descriptions come from the same ontology (something comprehensive, as one extracted from Wikipedia), there are no alignment problems. ... (please identify yourself, and post to the field on the left of the "send button")

[11:02] Ravi Sharma: @Barry - how mature are ontology interfaces or use from domain to mid level such as healthcare?

[11:02] Gary Berg-Cross: Q from audience Do the activity descriptions come from an existing ontology? If the events, and the sensor data descriptions come from the same ontology (something comprehensive, as one extracted from Wikipedia), there are no alignment problems.

[11:07] Mark Underwood: Is he lexicalizing "biotic" ?

[11:12] Ravi Sharma: @Barry - how would you categorize Phantom sensation (pain) and squeezed nerves that prevent sensing of downstream pain, even though there are secondary nerve networks? I am hinting at correlation between primary and backup sensing? depiction in ontology?

[11:17] Jean-Paul Calbimonte: @Barry: for references, please refer to the RDF Stream processing group wiki, we have lots of resources there: https://www.w3.org/community/rsp/wiki/Main_Page

[11:17] Jean-Paul Calbimonte: sorry, meant @Gary

[11:18] Jean-Paul Calbimonte: @Mark: yes CEP interop is key. In fact some of the systems I mentioned already do. For example EP-SPARQL. or Our SPARQL stream approach, can use a CEP such as Esper behind the scenes

[11:19] Jean-Paul Calbimonte: @Ravi: yes, one way is to add timestamps to triples. But we found lately that it might be better to create RDF graphs and annotate them with timestamps

[11:20] Todd Schneider: Josh, is the 'secondary' signal just another measurement(process)?

[11:20] Ravi Sharma: @Barry - thanks for answers.

[11:20] Jean-Paul Calbimonte: @Gary: the mappings should provide these new URIs you mention. What we think is that PROV relationships should be used to link the original streams with the derived ones. But this should be formalized

[11:21] Gary Berg-Cross: @Jean-Paul Thanks for this connection to Prov and the references.

[11:22] Todd Schneider: Barry, can the use of statistical analyzes be represented as processes?

[11:22] Todd Schneider: Barry, can statistical analyzes be represented as processes?

[11:22] Josh Lieberman: Unanticipated relationship between a previously configured signal and a new measurement

[11:26] Konstantinos: I really need to leave the chat now, please forward any questions at kotis@aegean.gr and I will be glad to answer. Thank you for listening.

[11:26] Mark Underwood: Thanks for presenting, Konstantinos

[11:26] Gary Berg-Cross: @Konstantinos thanks very much for an interesting talk and for staying up late...

[11:26] Konstantinos: Thank you for your attention!

[11:26] Konstantinos: and support!

[11:27] Leo Obrst: @SilviaNittel: we do model meetings as events in our ontologies because we need such. They can be complex, with many participants in different roles, and with predecessor and successor events and states.

[11:28] Todd Schneider: Ravi, what about the physical manifestation(s) of a process?

[11:31] Mark Underwood: John - possible topic for the F2F meeting

[11:32] Ravi Sharma: @Todd - winds cause loss of houses in tornadoes? so cause effect relations but often as Barry explained process is effect of entities of first kind.

[11:32] Mark Underwood: Rich set of presentations - Thanks to all the presenters

[11:32] Ravi Sharma: thanks

[11:33] Charles Vardeman: Thanks!

[11:33] Jean-Paul Calbimonte: thanks to all

[11:33] Josh Lieberman: Thanks.

[11:33] Peter P. Yim: Big THANK YOU to the co-chairs for organizing this great session. ... Thanks to each and every speaker for their well prepared and rich presentations!

[11:33] Torsten Hahmann: Thanks everyone!

[11:33] John Graybeal: Question about how these ontologies become used: Some may be intended simply for the research communities, but getting practical ontologies adopted in operational systems seems to be a big hurdle. Do we have thoughts and/or conclusions about how to make this take place?

[11:33] Charles Vardeman: Bye!

[11:33] Leo Obrst: Thanks, all!

[11:33] Marcela Vegetti: Great Session!

Attendees

Alex Mirzaoff

Allyson

AndreaWesterinen

Barry Smith

Bobbin Teegarden

BruceBray

Carl Neilson

Charles Vardeman

ChristiKapp

ChristopherSpottiswoode

ConradBeaulieu

Dennis Wisnosky

DennisPierson

Frederic de Vaulx (NIST Associate)

Gary Berg-Cross

IngoSimonis

Jean-Paul Calbimonte

JoeKopena

JoelBender

John Graybeal

JoshLieberman

Judith Gelernter

Ken Baclawski

Konstantinos

LeoObrst

Liana Kiff

Malek

MarcelaVegetti

Mark Underwood

MichaelGruninger

Nicolas Seydoux

PeterYim

RalphSchaefermeier

Ram D. Sriram

RaviSharma

Richard Beatch

Richard Martin

SIlvia Nittel

SteveRay

TaraAthan

TerryLongstreth

ToddSchneider

Tom Tinsley

Torsten Hahmann