From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]


Joint Ontolog-OOR Panel Discussion Session - Thu 6-August-2009     (1)

Topic: Ontology Repository Research Issues     (1A)

Abstract: In this session, potential OpenOntologyRepository (OOR) contributors will discuss longer term issues relating to both tools and content development. See developing thoughts at: OOR/ResearchIssues     (1B)

Session Chair: Professor KenBaclawski (Northeastern University) - [ opening slides ]     (1C)

Panelists:     (1D)

Archives     (1J)

  • please download the slides (link above) and run them on your desktop. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.     (1K5)
  • Discussions and Q & A:     (1K6)
    • (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"     (1K6A)
    • You can type in your questions or comments through the browser based chat session by:     (1K6B)
      • 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.     (1K6C1)
    • (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.)     (1K6D)
    • 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!     (1K6E)
  • Please note that this session will be recorded, and the entire proceedings including the audio archives are expected to be made available as open content to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.     (1K10)

Attendees     (1L)

Abstract     (1M)

emphasis on metadata requirements and related research questions, are identified.     (1M3)

developed that provide ontology repository facilities. While they have a lot in common, many elements and features seems to be missing, and I will introduce a few of them (support in finding suitable ontologies, relations between ontologies, interoperability between systems), hoping to generate discussions on the current research and development challenges in the area of ontology repositories.     (1M6)

Resources     (1N)

Agenda     (1O)

1. Opening by session Chair (KenBaclawski)     (1O1)

2. Perspectives from the Panel     (1O2)

3. Q & A and Open Discussion (All) -- please refer to process above     (1O3)

4. Summary and Next Steps (KenBaclawski)     (1O4)

Proceedings     (1Q)

Please refer to the archives above     (1Q1)

===IM Chat Transcript captured during the session=== ...     (1Q2)

Mike Bennett: Manufacturing standards are surely not the only kinds of     (1Q3)

standards? e.g. financial standards     (1Q4)

Arturo Sanchez: Question for Michael: have you studied decidability properties     (1Q5)

of the logical relationships among ontologies mentioned on slide 4 (e.g.,     (1Q6)

extension). How about complexity?     (1Q7)

Michael Grüninger: Response to Mike Bennett: Of course, COLORE will not be     (1Q8)

restricted to manufacturing standards, but since we are receiving our funding     (1Q9)

through the Dept of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering our emphasis is on     (1Q10)

manufacturing standards. In the context of the OOR project, we definitely need     (1Q11)

to encompass all of the standards discussed at the 2009 Ontology Summit.     (1Q12)

Mike Bennett: Thanks Michael. I mention it because the sorts of fundamental     (1Q13)

building blocks you mention were all needed to develop the financial industry     (1Q14)

ontology we're working on, and I'd expect to try and align with the things you     (1Q15)

are talking about, and with "industrial" standards generally (and UN     (1Q16)

etc. standards e.g. FAO Country Ontology).     (1Q17)

Pat Cassidy: MIke: do we yet have examples of 'definably interpretable' domain     (1Q18)

ontologies interpretable with respect to some foundation ontology? That is the     (1Q19)

mechanism that seems to me to be the most plausible means to general semantic     (1Q20)

interoperability, even in the absence of a repository. It will be nice to have     (1Q21)

examples to point to.     (1Q22)

Ravi Sharma: Mike - mereotopology is just one example I hope? because in rela     (1Q23)

manufacturing life, the processes of assembly and sequence of events and     (1Q24)

processes are quite seperable, often!     (1Q25)

Mike Bennett: @Pat, Ravi: Mike = Michael I presume.     (1Q26)

Ravi Sharma: Elisa - reuse is good to think but can wwe give some concrete     (1Q27)

examples, such as a part, process, domain levels?     (1Q28)

Elisa Kendall: Question for Michael (when time permits): Have you looked at a     (1Q29)

combination of ISO 11179 and 19763 as starting points for the metadata you     (1Q30)

might need for COLORE? I realize that they may not be complete in terms of the     (1Q31)

kinds of characterization you might want to do, but ... the crosswalk I     (1Q32)

mentioned might be helpful if you haven't already created something like that     (1Q33)

yourselves     (1Q34)

Joel Bender: Elisa - when you talked about "Requirements range from     (1Q35)

understanding sources ... at the ontology level to detailed provenance at the     (1Q36)

fact/individual level" and said that was independent of the encoding - I'm     (1Q37)

curious how you think that could actually be accomplished.     (1Q38)

Ravi Sharma: BArt - fuzzy levels not only at probabilistic levels, but do we not     (1Q39)

have to define probabilistIC relationships or fuzzy relationship groupings to     (1Q40)

create or associate triples with a search or identify objects of relevance     (1Q41)

Elisa Kendall: Response to Ravi: There are many kinds of reuse under consideration --     (1Q42)

ranging from general / utility / foundational (to use Michael's term)     (1Q43)

ontologies supporting messaging (headers, channel definitions, etc. for an     (1Q44)

event bus) and other aspects of software engineering, to reusable terms     (1Q45)

defining missions, spacecraft, instruments ... some of which are dictated by     (1Q46)

standards from CCSDS and others     (1Q47)

Bart Gajderowicz: @Ravi: yes, creating probabilistic and fuzzy relationships are     (1Q48)

key, these may be added by ontologists if they are relevant to the domain or     (1Q49)

context, but may also be derived through machine learning based on the     (1Q50)

experiences being represented by the ontology, and added as meta data     (1Q51)

specifically for performing mappings     (1Q52)

Ravi Sharma: Elisa - thanks, but we need to start thinking about how valuable     (1Q53)

the reuse has been, almost all casses require a commonly understood     (1Q54)

"framework", Concept or Context or many such agreements before reuse is     (1Q55)

possible similar to code or software component or pattern reuse?     (1Q56)

Elisa Kendall: Response to Joel: One approach might be to have registry-level metadata     (1Q57)

defined (standards based, possibly using ISO 11179, 19763, 1087, etc.) at the     (1Q58)

registry level, to provide the level of provenance required per ontology, and     (1Q59)

then incorporate annotations for the ontologies themselves, where possible.     (1Q60)

The annotations could be managed independently of the ontologies themselves,     (1Q61)

but don't necessarily need to be -- BioPortal does some of this, or is starting     (1Q62)

to do some of this, but for our work, we anticipate that internal ontology and     (1Q63)

model developers will provide this as part of the registration process. This     (1Q64)

is only possible if participants in the registry agree to do so, of course --     (1Q65)

and given that we're dealing with a controlled environment for this project, we     (1Q66)

can also provide the submission processes and requirements. That may not be     (1Q67)

doable on a broader, open level, though we could suggest some minimal set of     (1Q68)

annotations that we would like to see, and even provide templates that are     (1Q69)

representation-specific     (1Q70)

Michael Grüninger: Response to Pat Cassidy: We have several papers that specify     (1Q72)

the definable interpretations. One appeared earlier this year at the     (1Q73)

Commonsense Reasoning Symposium (relating process ontologies) and the other     (1Q74)

will appear in AI Journal, which relates a particular mereotopology with     (1Q75)

classes of lattices. I just noticed that these papers are not on our website     (1Q76)

yet -- I will post them there later.     (1Q77)

Michael Grüninger: Response to Elisa: You're right -- they key is metadata about     (1Q78)

the ontologies. I think that ISO19763 provides a good framework for capturing     (1Q79)

the relevant ontology relationships as metadata, but we still need to     (1Q80)

understand what relationships are essential to ontology design and reuse.     (1Q81)

Michael Grüninger: Response to Ravi: Yes, of course, mereotopology is just one     (1Q82)

example. Using application scenarios that require the integration of multiple     (1Q83)

ontologies (as you suggest) is the right way to go in driving the development     (1Q84)

of the repository.     (1Q85)

Ravi Sharma: Michael - we also need to agree on what minimum type of     (1Q86)

relationships are required for at least a minimal or upper ontology. Then Meta     (1Q87)

data level comparisons of two or more ontology constructs (patterns like -     (1Q88)

including metadata) can be more productive or efficient?     (1Q89)

Ravi Sharma: Mathieu - wonderful; if there is nothing common that these exist as     (1Q90)

independent un connected ontologies, then only benefit is by the ingeneuity of     (1Q91)

the User as to how they use these unconnected ontologies? like going to grocery     (1Q92)

store and coming home to cook the food?     (1Q93)

Mathieu Daquin: Ravi - very good point. Nothing connects two ontologies     (1Q94)

better than their combined use/application. Hard to monitor, though.     (1Q95)

Ravi Sharma: Todd - what do you mean by Code in repository? I thought we support     (1Q96)

multiple languages, patterns, fraworks and domains and even globalization in     (1Q97)

principle?     (1Q98)

Mike Bennett: Terminology: in terms of metadata for ontologies, would this not     (1Q99)

be realised by way of meta-terms for aliases, synonyms? Should synonym and a     (1Q100)

single "alias" for reference within ODD be two separate tags?     (1Q101)

Arturo Sanchez: Comment for Todd and Michael: the practical issue is how can     (1Q102)

end-users express their 'intentions' or 'intuitions' using existing ontologies     (1Q103)

w/o having prior training in formal ontologies. Guided selection (via     (1Q104)

interpretations using mathematical structures) might lead to choosing axioms     (1Q105)

the end-user (the person modelling a certain situation) might not find     (1Q106)

'intuitively' compelling. So, I think that Michael and Todd presented two     (1Q107)

important extremes of the problem: (1) importance of formalizing relationships     (1Q108)

among ontologies; (2) practical use of collections of ontologies. I'm     (1Q109)

interested in the research problem of bridging these two extremes.     (1Q110)

Ravi Sharma: Ken- your slide 8 is a representation of executable ontologies     (1Q111)

where the data from sensors etc get filled based on the metadata values and     (1Q112)

relationships think of this as templates and filled in forms.     (1Q113)

Mike Bennett: @Ken: domains is a bit of a simplification in that slide I     (1Q114)

presume? Terms for legal, mathematical, accounting etc. have terms which     (1Q115)

/should/ be reused in models in other domains - for instance much of business     (1Q116)

meaning is grounded in legal realities.     (1Q117)

Ravi Sharma: Ken- slide 11 reasoning, relationships and nature of Things     (1Q118)

(objects) are key parameters in achieving semantics as well as     (1Q119)

interoperability.     (1Q120)

Mike Bennett: @Ravi: is one issue the question of whether a given ontology     (1Q121)

simply /asserts/ that some term is meaningful, or whether it has enough facts     (1Q122)

defined about the thing to reliably pin down its meaning, i.e. the "context"     (1Q123)

that was spoken of.     (1Q124)

Ken Baclawski: @Mike: I fully agree with you. The diagram does not show     (1Q125)

inter-ontology relationships. It really must. Is there an easy way to show     (1Q126)

this in the diagram?     (1Q127)

Mike Bennett: @Ken: Possibly not, other than by creating an overall map     (1Q128)

somehow...     (1Q129)

Ravi Sharma: to Ken - just for record, I document that we need a map and or a     (1Q130)

framework or an agreement on domains and some upperlevel ontology to include     (1Q131)

others that would somehow be parts or subset of it and then there is hope for     (1Q132)

interoperability or reuse.     (1Q133)

Ken Baclawski: @Ravi: Executable ontologies is a very interesting idea. In     (1Q134)

practice, scientists acquire their data and then analyze it and only as the     (1Q135)

last step do they annotate it for reuse. It would be quite a change in     (1Q136)

attitude to use the metadata annotations to drive the sensor data acquisition.     (1Q137)

Ravi Sharma: Ken- The ontology part is new but for SOS earth science data we do     (1Q138)

a metadata based query and identify the datasets of interest say using HDF_EOS     (1Q139)

set of metadata, then we navigate to those sets, ontology would be akin to     (1Q140)

relatime further processing these datasets for knowledge or at least     (1Q141)

information extraction.     (1Q142)

Ken Baclawski: @Ravi: Is that really true? While the ideal is to take a     (1Q143)

top-down approach, in practice we have a large number of relatively independent     (1Q144)

communities that deal with interoperability only after the fact.     (1Q145)

Ravi Sharma: Ken - the community of earth scientists using satellite (NASA) data     (1Q146)

agreed on a framework not ontology in 1996-98 and then these datasets were     (1Q147)

generated, hence we can subset metadata values and then traverse across the     (1Q148)

areas (geotemporal) of interest.     (1Q149)

Mike Bennett: There was a good talk a year or so back about a set of     (1Q150)

relationships between ontology elements that are analogous to the owl:sameAS     (1Q151)

but a much broader set of such e.g. sub-sets and the like.     (1Q152)

Ravi Sharma: Mike- yes but defining a broader set of sameAs implies knowledge     (1Q153)

built-in in the owl:sameAs     (1Q154)

Michael Grüninger: Sorry, I have another call at 3:30. Great meeting today!     (1Q155)

Mike Bennett: @Ravi: Good point.     (1Q156)

Mike Bennett: @Elisa: you are describing a quality assurance framework - great     (1Q157)

Ravi Sharma: Elisa - I fully appreciate your public sector need comment and     (1Q159)

similarly for citizen services I hope.     (1Q160)

  • Further Question & Remarks - please post them to the [ oor-forum ] listserv     (1Q161)
    • if you are already subscribed, post to <oor-forum [at]>     (1Q161A)
    • (if you are not yet subscribed) you may subscribe yourself to the [ oor-forum ] listserv listserv, by sending a blank email to <oor-forum-join [at]> from your subscribing email address, and then follow the instructions you receive back from the mailing list system.     (1Q161B)

Audio Recording of this Session     (1R)

Special thanks to Kurt Conrad for his help in making the audio recording of this session. =ppy     (1R1)

For the record ...     (1R7)

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

This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (1S4)