From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]


[ontolog] Member Conference Call - Thu 2006-08-22     (1)

  • Subject: [ontolog] member conference call Thu 2006-08-22     (1A1)

Attendees     (1B)

Agenda Ideas (candidate items to be adopted into the agenda for discussion)     (1C)

  • a key agenda item for this call is to plan out a short series of events (theme, program), possibly on "Measurement & Evaluation of Ontology, and Supporting Tools" and/or some other theme of mutual interest. This series is envisioned as a NIST-Ontolog-NCOR collaboration.     (1C1)
  • see /Prep     (1C2)
  • ...(add suggested items here)...     (1C3)

Agenda & Proceedings     (1E)

1) Welcome & confirmation of agenda     (1E1)

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

3) Roll-call of participants - skipped straight to item 8     (1E5)

4) Upcoming meeting & event schedule (near future)     (1E8)

5) Communications, logistics, & work protocols issues     (1E11)

6) Follow-ups from previous calls     (1E12)

  • (from our 2006.08.03 call) - Rex to be posting the notes from the interactive portion of the 2006.07.23 workshop over the coming weekend.     (1E13)

7) Current Project Status Report     (1E17)

  • Status CctRepresentation and UblOntology project work     (1E18)
    • Steve: some people (like EvanWallace) at NIST are working on ebXML and use of ebXML registry, they would be interested in what has been done     (1E18A)
    • ... ref. item 8 below     (1E18B)

8) Key Issues discussion:     (1E31)

  • planning out a short series of events (theme, program), possibly on "Measurement & Evaluation of Ontology, and Supporting Tools" and/or some other theme of mutual interest. This series is envisioned as a NIST-Ontolog-NCOR collaboration.     (1E32)
    • see - /Prep for background and ideas on things we might address at this call. (-- Steve Ray / PeterYim)     (1E32A)
    • SteveRay's view on new collaborations     (1E32B)
      • Successful collaborations work best when they build on work already ongoing within host institutions. This minimizes the need to start cold with the issue of how to find funding to pursue work. In this spirit, NIST is prepared to share current ongoing work related to measuring and evaluating ontologies, and the tools we intend to build to help do that. If other ontolog forum members find that our work meshes well with their own (already funded) ongoing work, then we have the ingredients for a fruitful collaboration. Note that this model is not one of finding new funding, but rather that of getting more bang for the buck that is already there.     (1E32B1)
    • proposed items for discussion (by SteveRay):     (1E32C)
      • Discussion of future presentations, clustered under themes. Ideas from NIST include:     (1E32C1)
      • Ideas on a role for the ontolog forum in collecting and articulating the case for ontologies     (1E32C2)
    • we should leave the meeting with (at least):     (1E32D)
      • A set of themes that will guide future presentations     (1E32D1)
      • A sense of the group on whether the ontolog forum could play an advocacy role     (1E32D2)
    • Additional Remarks:     (1E32E)
  • discussion:     (1E33)
    • Steve opens with his observation about the value of synergy on activities already on the way, and offer the theme "Measurement & Evaluation of Ontology, and Supporting Tools"     (1E33A)
    • Steve: ran down the list of topics they could bring to the table (using the word "ontology" fairly liberally here ... some project initially are not ontology specific)     (1E33B)
    • Mark: this is an important area of discussion ... so far, 'whoever gets there first declares the standard', people don't often question (or start competing with) the early entrants enough. Therefore this is important in making sure we are doing it right. Having measn for evaluation, metrics, etc. are absolutely essential.     (1E33C)
    • Rex: agree, especially interested in XML to OWL to UML kinds of conversion (or even OWL to XMI) ... that would be helpful to applications developer.     (1E33D)
      • Steve: this would be on top of evaluation, but development of translation tool to support application development     (1E33D1)
    • Steve: maybe even some tool that measure whether something is an 'ontology' or not ... since 'ontology' is still loosely defined unfortunately (similar to the SEI Maturity Model)     (1E33E)
    • Adam: love to see how Peter Denno has been progressing, I've got tons of more work done since we last worked together. I can summarize some of the new work for everyone, but more importantly, please download and evaluate.     (1E33F)
    • Marc: what is discussed here is critically important in healthcare informatics, and they need to be articulated to and understandable by the practitioners.     (1E33G)
      • Peter: for the healthcare related work, are there funding opportunities?     (1E33G1)
        • Marc: not likely to see additional resources from government. Try looking to industry ... bio-surveillance ... NHIN contract prototypes ... endemic deseases ... emergency preparedness ... (Marc / Steve: through applications)     (1E33G1A)
    • Peter: (i) maybe we should take the opportunity to systematically evangelize the use of 'ontologies' too - people needs to buy into 'ontologies' first before they will buy into the need for testing and the setting up proper metrics on 'ontologies', also (ii) path toward standardization (similar to what OASIS has been doing to XML)     (1E33H)
    • Steve: routine process ... structural integrity ... logical consistency ... quality control ...     (1E33I)
    • ANSI HITSP - recognizes the lack of semantic interoperability     (1E33J)
    • Steve: the difficulty in properly assessing ontologies is partly due to the fact that we don't even know what the 'unit of measure' is     (1E33K)
    • Marc: will look to NIST to head up the effort ... maybe in a pilot going with ONC / FHS (possibly under RamSriram's team)     (1E33L)
    • Steve: besides ONTOCLEAN, are people aware of other tools for ontology evaluation     (1E33M)
      • Peter: York Sure presented ONTOCOM, and Valerie Cross presented on CAT at last month's Protege conference ... people might like to look at     (1E33M1)
    • Adam: the root cause for the lack of 'quantitative' assessment is that people have been taking light weight approaches to ontologies, resulting in people spending time arguing the making 'esthetic' evaluation rather than 'quantitative' evaluation.     (1E33N)
      • Adam: I am skeptical about 'design principles' ... because they are not really testable or provable     (1E33N1)
      • Adam: one test maybe to measure ("richness"?) how an ontology can be 'translated' to less expressive language without losing information.     (1E33N2)
    • Steve: lots of gaps in the theoretical foundations yets, but I'll hope to be able to come up with more grounded measures     (1E33O)
      • Adam: maybe survey what's out there (mainly lightweight, in owl, ...) and get an ideas what's there (and at what level of "richness")     (1E33O1)
    • Steve: I'll propose 6 (six) events for this series, starting a month out, and spanning the next 6 months or so (Peter / Steve: targeting about one event a month, maybe more accelerated, at times.)     (1E33P)
  • Marc asked about inviting others (NHIN vendors in particular) to the Ontolog events     (1E34)
    • Peter: Ontolog events are always OPEN to all     (1E34A)
    • Marc will relay the Ontolog event announcements and invitations as he sees fit.     (1E34B)

9) New project proposals     (1E36)

10) Sponsorship and funding     (1E37)

11) Other business     (1E38)

12) Next meeting date and adjourn     (1E39)

minutes captured in real time on this wiki by Peter P. Yim / 2006.08.22-11:44am PDT     (1E43)

Attendees are requested to review the notes above, help clean it up, and make amendments and edits as they see fit. =ppy     (1E44)

This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (1E45)