From OntologPSMW

Revision as of 03:47, 9 January 2016 by KennethBaclawski (Talk | contribs)

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

Contents

UpperOntologySummit - Organizing Committee Conference Call 2006-01-12     (1)

Call Details     (1A)

Attendees     (1B)

Agenda (items to be discussed) Ideas     (1C)

  • ...(please add suggested items here)...     (1C1)
  • who will be the co-organizers (co-sponsors)     (1C2)
  • how many people will be presenting (must-haves vs. good-to-have; ... constraints)     (1C3)
  • PPY: short, medium and long term objectives     (1C4)
  • PPY: our approach: "confined and focused" vs. "broad and inclusive"     (1C5)
  • PPY: how do we involve all these different people?     (1C6)
  • Pat & Peter: funding and fundraising     (1C7)

Agenda & Proceedings     (1E)

1) Welcome & confirmation of agenda     (1E1)

2) Appointment of secretary to take minutes     (1E3)

3) Roll-call of participants - see above     (1E5)

4) Communications, logistics, & work protocols issues - more discussion     (1E6)

  • One paragraph summary review     (1E9)
    • Pat had some discussions w/ Adam and Barry     (1E9B)
    • Need a link from NIST. A stable URL to be ready next week.     (1E9C)
    • Is paragraph ready to go? Would be good to reference a practical implementation (e.g., SICop/Wiki use case). Concerned that resulting ontology would be further removed from practical applications than starting points. Layers of acceptance model (link terms to OWL ontology which is linked to upper ontology). Need to articulate minimal desires for the summit and longer-term goals. Consider posting current summary to Wiki home page and linkng to it from NIST site.     (1E9D)
    • Brand also attended an intelligence community architecture meeting, where this idea has merit, to the extent that it can be tied to practical priorites. Consider adding a paragraph describing intended applications at a general level and then listing a variety of use cases. Put this applicability overview in after the description.     (1E9E)
      • Threee distinct objectives: 1) Objective of summit. 2) Objective of project that is being kicked off. 3) Involvement of a larger community (not necessarily ontologists) that can appreciate what is being proposed. Looking at a working meeting; objective is not just to educate people.     (1E9E1)
      • Do you want to promote on the basis of potential applications? Can use general descriptions of applications and benefits, in addition to highly-technical goals, to cover both topic areas.     (1E9E2)
      • Consider having Brand give a short overview of the various reasons the Federal Government has an interest in seeing this happen.     (1E9E3)
      • Have Pat rev abstract. Then route to prospective participants for their reactions and feedback, prior to posting "publically".     (1E9E4)
  • Number of champions for this meeting     (1E10)
    • Doug Lenat, Adam Pease, Matthew West, Nicola Guarino, Barry Smith, Aldo Gangemi, Michael Gruninger, John Bateman, Ed Hovy? (participants/custodians vs panelsts)     (1E10A)
    • Participants: Leo, Steve, Pat, Peter, Hovy, Sowa, Musen     (1E10B)
    • Participants probably isn't the right term.     (1E10C)
    • Pat anxious to engage individuals     (1E10D)
    • Brand and Leo to talk to Barry. Sponsors are probably funders (but NCOR unlikley to fund)... NCOR could be co-organizers. Vulcan could be one or both. NIST, LOA, Cycorp, Articulate Sofwtare, ... as co-organizers.     (1E10E)
    • Could we have a couple of potential users present at the discussion?     (1E10F)
    • Hovy, second tier     (1E10G)
    • Upcomming semantic technologies in intelligence conference at MITRE - possible date conflict     (1E10H)
    • Wrap up abstract via email, then draft invitations (more personal tone) at least to the custodians/panelists. Goal to send out invitations before next Thursday.     (1E10I)
      • Invitation should be sent by Steve; also mention that member of our organizing committee will be following up with them     (1E10I1)
    • Everyone should propose candidates (on the [uos-org] list) under various category names - and be ready to discuss that at next week's call     (1E10J)

6) UOS Project Home page is now up (awaiting content):     (1E11)

7) Ongoing discussions     (1E13)

  • notes from last call:     (1E14)
    • who will be the co-organizers (people who support this initiative and contribute contribute IPR & expertise and ) & co-sponsors (people who support this intiative by funding the work that this initiative is about)     (1E14A)
    • Brand and Leo to discuss with NCOR (as a potential co-organizer)     (1E14B)
    • Pick up this topic, again after discussing panelists     (1E14C)
    • GSA to put more money into reference model ontology (FEA-RMO). Consider them as an organizer and endorse joint communique. They consider FEA-RMO to be an upper ontology.     (1E14D)
    • Distinction between co-organizers and co-sponsors needs to be clarified. Co-sponsors to provide funding.     (1E14E)
    • Consider broadening from upper ontologies to other levels? Don't want to redefine again. A common upper ontolog subset should help mid-level and domain ontologies. Could define in terms of upper and middle ontologies. Or upper and super-domain ontologies.     (1E14F)
    • Want to draw an event that will get these technical issues cleared out by mid-morning.     (1E14G)
    • Consider drafting a short paragraph to shop to key thought leaders to gauge understanding and support (and solicit feedback).     (1E14H)
    • Motion: Focus is upper and super-domian ontologies     (1E14I)
    • Need to push folks to understand that their ontology (wherever the root is) has to be anchored to a sensible meaning. Can be compatible with an upper ontology at the conceptual, not logical, level.     (1E14J)
    • Have to deal with this at a technical level and real-world implemetnation level. Tried upper ontology with Brailer's people, but didn't adopt it directly (but now a future need under data architecture). Second example with Federal Enerprise Architecture. OMB didn't want to adopt ontology. Now FEA-RMO has come in via reference model maintenance. Can't lead with ontology. Educational issue. Ontology has to come in another way.     (1E14K)
    • Need technical solution first to present it ahead of the sociological solution.     (1E14L)
    • Even with para, unlikley to drive consensus in 1/2 day. Will need numerous discussions leading to summit.     (1E14M)
    • Need to articulate goals for session. Not just a technical issue, but a range of issues. Agreements among upper ontology folks and buy-in by potential consumers that don't currently perceive value of upper ontologies.     (1E14N)
    • Can it be a summit with this expanded definition?     (1E14O)
  • how many people will be presenting (must-haves vs. good-to-have; ... constraints)     (1E15)
  • PPY: short, medium and long term objectives     (1E16)
    • briefly discussed at last call - but need further deliberation     (1E16A)
  • PPY: our approach: "confined and focused" vs. "broad and inclusive"     (1E17)
    • briefly discussed at last call - but need further deliberation     (1E17A)
  • PPY: how do we involve all the different people?     (1E18)
  • Pat & Peter: funding and fundraising     (1E19)

8) New Issues     (1E20)

9) Action Items     (1E21)

10) Next meeting date and adjournment     (1E22)

  • next call will be on Thu 2006.01.19 starting at 12:30 pm PST / 3:30pm EST (right after the Ontolog session, which should end around 12:10pm PST / 3:10pm EST)     (1E23)
  • call adjourned 1:57 pm PST / 4:57 pm EST     (1E24)

minutes captured in real time on this wiki by Kurt Conrad / 2006.01.12-01:57 pm     (1E26)


This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (1E27)