From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]


OntologySummit2009 Panel Session - "Standards Community Perspectives Toward Ontology-based Standards" - Thu 19-Mar-2009     (1)

Subject: The Standards Perspective -- What are standards and how could ontology help?     (1A)

  • Session Chair: Mr. HowardMason (ISO TC 184/SC 4; BAE Systems) -- "What do standards need?" - slides     (1A1)

Archives     (1A3)

  • Shared-screen support (VNC session), if applicable, will be started 5 minutes before the call at:     (1A4E)
    • view-only password: "ontolog"     (1A4E1)
    • if you plan to be logging into this shared-screen option (which the speaker may be navigating), and you are not familiar with the process, please try to call in 5 minutes before the start of the session so that we can work out the connection logistics. Help on this will generally not be available once the presentation starts.     (1A4E2)
    • people behind corporate firewalls may have difficulty accessing this. If that is the case, please download the [ slides above] and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.     (1A4E3)
  • Discussions and Q & A:     (1A4F)
    • (Unless the conference host has already muted everyone) Please mute your phone, by pressing "*2" on your phone keypad, when a presentation is in progress. To un-mute, press "*3"     (1A4F1)
    • You can type in your questions or comments through the browser based chat session by:     (1A4F2)
      • instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field). 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.     (1A4F3A)
    • (when everyone is muted) If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please "raise your hand (virtually)" by click on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the speaker or the session moderator (again, press "*3" on your phone to unmute). 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 "*2" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)     (1A4F4)
    • thanks to the 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) ... Handy for mobile devices!     (1A4F5)
  • For those who cannot join us, or who have further questions or remarks on the topic, please post them to the [ ontolog-summit ] listserv so that everyone in the community can benefit from the discourse.     (1A4G)
  • Please note that this session will be recorded, and the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.     (1A4K)

Resources     (1A5)

Attendees     (1B)

Agenda & Proceedings     (1C)

1. Opening by session Chair (HowardMason)     (1C1A)

3. Q & A and Open Discussion     (1C1C)

4. Action Items in preparation for the Ontology Summit     (1C1D)

Proceedings     (1D)

Q & A and Open Discussion     (1E)

  • ===IM Chat Transcript captured during the session=== ... (lightly edited for clarity)     (1E2)

Peter P. Yim: Welcome to the OntologySummit2009 Panel Session - "Standards Community Perspectives Toward Ontology-based Standards" - Thu 19-Mar-2009     (1E3)

Subject: The Standards Perspective -- What are standards and how could ontology help?     (1E4)

o Dr. Matthew West -- "Ontologising Standards the low hanging fruit"     (1E7)

o Mr. David Leal -- "Ontologies derived from standard information models used for engineering analysis meta-data"     (1E8)

o Mr. Gerald Radack -- "Catalogues, Dictionaries, Libraries, Data and Metadata"     (1E9)

o Mr. Nicolas Figay -- "Semantic PLM: using OWL for semantic repositories and mapping using reasoning engines"     (1E10)

o Mr. David Shorter - "Seeking greater rigour in textual standards"     (1E11)

o Mr. David Price - "Future STEP"     (1E12)

Refer to details on the session page     (1E13)

anonymous morphed into Nicolas Figay     (1E15)

anonymous morphed into David Leal     (1E16)

Peter P. Yim: Hi you are at the right place ... session starting in 5 minutes     (1E17)

anonymous morphed into Mike Axelrod     (1E18)

anonymous morphed into David Price     (1E19)

anonymous morphed into Matthew West     (1E20)

anonymous morphed into David Shorter     (1E21)

Nicolas Figay: EXPRESS OWL P21 are not only formats, but also rely on different modeling concepts     (1E23)

and paradigms. Not so easy to make it coherent     (1E24)

Mike Bennett: The first step I would think is to have a common concept of layers of types of model     (1E25)

(as found in computer model driven development) so that logical models     (1E26)

and semantic models are seen as distinct.     (1E27)

David Price: In reply to Nicolas comment, I think it's actually UML, EXPRESS and OWL that need alignment.     (1E28)

Agree that paradigms are different, but not so different that a mapping (perhaps lossy)     (1E29)

is impossible, or at least with a bit of additional information/annotation of the models,     (1E30)

schemas and/or ontologies to support the mapping.     (1E31)

David Leal: URIs for country codes seem an obvious place to start for the very simple stuff - much easier     (1E32)

than units of measure. ISO 3166-1 says Afghanistan is "AF", and the codes are already on the Web.     (1E33)

Assigning a URI such as seems obvious. To complete the task,     (1E34)

the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency needs to assign a URI to the class Country too.     (1E35)

David Price: In reply to David Leal comment, while URIs for country identification is good - engineering apps     (1E36)

require units far more often so while that may be harder, it has far more value.     (1E37)

anonymous morphed into DeborahMacPherson     (1E38)

David Price: By the way, in order to enable better alignment between STEP information models and ontologies,     (1E39)

while we are not changing EXPRESS itself, we are gradually adding capability to the information models     (1E40)

themselves (e.g. "Classification Assignment By External Class" and a new "Same As External Item" I've     (1E41)

just created as part of AP239 E2 work).     (1E42)

Joel Bender: a significant amount of work in units has already been done with/in NIST, it needs to be unified     (1E43)

with the already published concepts and terms of the BIPM.     (1E44)

David Leal: I agree with David Price, but it would set a precedent. I also agree with Joel.     (1E45)

David Price: It would be great if we could push that NIST/BIPM units activities ... any idea how?     (1E46)

David Price: The concerns Nicolas described align very well with the issues/concerns/approach that     (1E47)

we're working with NIST on the Future STEP project.     (1E48)

Steve Ray: Perhaps having this forum conclude that an ontologically-driven alignment between the NIST units work     (1E49)

and BIPM should be on the short list produced at the Summit on April 6-7 would be a good stake in the ground.     (1E50)

David Leal: I have raised this with ISO TC12, responsible for the ISO 80000 series which is replacing ISO 31 and     (1E54)

ISO 1000. They need to be involved too.     (1E55)

David Price: Steve, that would be great.     (1E56)

Mike Bennett: Do people using SC4, SC5 etc. always mean TC184? I work on TC68/SC4 and there must be others     (1E57)

once we reach out to other industries? SC is Sub Committee.     (1E58)

Steve Ray: For those present today, generally TC184 is understood. (Implicit knowledge!)     (1E59)

Joel Bender: If any of the folks working on this are familiar with MathML, that would be a plus. It's a fairly     (1E60)

straight forward process to translate MathML terms into rdf/rdfs/owl constructs,     (1E61)

and that's the one spot where the NIST work stops and need to keep going.     (1E62)

Nicolas Figay: I would recommand not to make evolve EXPRESS too fast, and not to be align with other language     (1E63)

which have not the same focus. If not, it will become a monster, and we will have difficulties     (1E64)

to choose one language or the other for a given purpose. If EXPRESS expressivity is the same than OWL,     (1E65)

it is a kind of competition. If different, it is a cooperation. The exemple is the way RDL are used in PLCS,     (1E66)

that is a little bit difficult for non expert     (1E67)

David Price: There is no plan to change EXPRESS.     (1E68)

Mike Bennett: @ Steve, thanks, I see that's Automation systems and integration so I presume that there are opportunities     (1E70)

for standardisation using ontologies in other inustries e.g. TC68 financial services where we are     (1E71)

doing things in this area. So I did not have the explicit knowledge that you mention     (1E72)

David Price: ISO 19440 that David Shorter is describing looks very much like MODAF/DODAF.     (1E73)

Steve Ray: Mike, There are indeed opportunities. I will follow up on your email to me suggesting the financial industry.     (1E74)

Also, what are your thoughts on XBRL?     (1E75)

David Price: I should have said, a very small subset of MODAF/DODAF.     (1E76)

Nicolas Figay: To respond to Mike, we are also involved in System Engineering, Enterprise modeling, project management,     (1E77)

Business Intelligence and trying to make links ... through ontologies and components agregation     (1E78)

Mike Bennett: @ Steve - XBRL very important. I am waiting on the OWL version so I can use it more formally     (1E79)

in creating the financial securities ontology. I've referred to it as much as I can, and I think     (1E80)

everyone involved in SC4 (gotcha!) and elsewhere acknowledges its importance in this area.     (1E81)

Mike Bennett: @ Nicolas, thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Are you also aware of UN/CEFACT CCTS and so on?     (1E82)

Nicolas Figay: To replace Protg, you can use a UML modeler, with ODM profile but compliant with XMI!     (1E83)

Mike Bennett: David, great point about UML and publishing something viewable. I've been using an ODM based format     (1E84)

(I see Nicolas beat me to it)     (1E85)

Mike Bennett: But with different coloured archetypes etc.     (1E86)

Nicolas Figay: Don't forget configuration managment of language format     (1E87)

David Price: My cell phone won't push the #3 to you, so I cannot talk at the moment.     (1E88)

David Price: I am doing #3, but you still cannot hear me.     (1E89)

Steve Ray: Mike, is XBRL - OWL version being worked on already?     (1E91)

Mike Bennett: So I heard, but I haven't heard anything about this recently.     (1E92)

Nicolas Figay: I don't like the idea of migration. May be due to Long Term archiving concern...     (1E93)

Nicolas Figay: For ABOX and TBOX, it is not only express but also p21     (1E94)

Nicolas Figay: For these mapping, the configuration management is to be carefully handled for different languages,     (1E95)

conformance and openess of used tools (e.g. use only tools providing correct and interchangeable XMI     (1E96)

with appropriate version). Horizon and rythm of evolution should be compatible and align     (1E97)

- some synchronisation of the communities is required     (1E98)

Nicolas Figay: A tool can be the set of framework being produced by IAI, ASD SSG, ISO ... for governance of standards     (1E99)

... which should include those related to ontology     (1E100)

Nicolas Figay: still, it is a pity not to have semantic services for SOA.     (1E101)

Nicolas Figay: Business Process are not to be forgotten     (1E102)

Joel Bender: Will SKOS be a unifying force?     (1E103)

David Price: I have to leave to present the Future STEP project o PDES inc. Sorry!     (1E104)

Michael Grüninger: What are some of the terms that would be included in an ontology of product structure?     (1E105)

Nicolas Figay: From my point, it will be extension of modeling constructs that should be added     (1E106)

for understanding why discussions of "is a part of" are hard to manage     (1E108)

(and why OWL classification fails sometimes) particularly for me with non-english speakers.     (1E109)

Mike Axelrod: I've managed to unmute'     (1E110)

Steve Ray: I have begun to list the ideas of candidate standards on the conference page for next week's panel,     (1E111)

Michael Grüninger: There are already several first-order ontologies for mereology (axioms for part-of) and mereotopology     (1E113)

(axioms for part-of and connection). What are other relations that need to be axiomatized for     (1E114)

product structure within the current standards?     (1E115)

Nicolas Figay: if automatic transformation language to language is not very usefull (impedance mismatch),     (1E116)

we should find a way to capture the way it was translated in order to be able to go back     (1E117)

- current technology manage it (with annotations     (1E118)

Joel Bender: @ Michael Grüninger: where can I find these?     (1E119)

Nicolas Figay: owl, uml, java ...     (1E120)

Michael Grüninger: I will provide a complete bibliography on the wiki. We also plan to have an initial version of     (1E122)

Joel Bender: excellent...thank you...     (1E123)

Steve Ray: Great session! Thanks to all.     (1E125)

Peter P. Yim: great session ... the audio recording and chat transcript will be up on the session page later (as usual)     (1E126)

Mike Bennett: Some great ideas in there. I thought there was a lot of valuable detail in what Nicolas is doing for example.     (1E127)

Peter P. Yim: bye everyone ... thanks you for the participation!     (1E128)

Peter P. Yim: posting comments received (on email) from Jerry Smith (DISA) below ...     (1E129)

GeraldSmith: Amplification Gerry Radack comments on opportunities for quickly transforming and elevating a specification:     (1E130)

SC4 "Harvesting" is a fast, low administrative drag process for progressing a candidate specification     (1E131)

to international recognition and accreditation.     (1E132)

Source of the specification is immaterial as long as quality, IPR and management issues are resolved.     (1E133)

See - go to the "Harvesting" link.     (1E134)

GeraldSmith: Regarding DavidShorter's question on his last slide about "... how the result should be published as a standard?",     (1E135)

I would suggest all to look at the "Harvesting" process of ISO TC184-SC4. ... See:     (1E136)

Peter P. Yim: I look forward to all of you to send me (via email to <>) your support     (1E137)

by confirming that we can list your standards working group and/or your organization     (1E138)

as a "co-sponsor" for this Summit     (1E139)

Audio Recording of this Session     (1F)

For the record ...     (1F6)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)     (1G)

This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (1G4)