From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]
    (1)
Session Topic Discussion
Duration 1 hour
Date/Time August 12 2020 16:00 GMT
9:00am PDT/12:00pm EDT
5:00pm BST/6:00pm CEST
Convener Ken Baclawski

Contents

Agenda     (2A)

Open-ended discussion of the topics for the next summit.     (2A1)

Some possible topics:     (2A2)

Conference Call Information     (2B)

Participants     (2C)

Discussion     (2D)

[12:22] MikeBennett: This harmonizing / gradient idea feeds nicely into our SWAO idea of trying to better characterize ontologies. Eight now a lot of people are using terminologies instead of concept ontology because they've been told ontology is an OWL file for an application for inference processing, only.     (2D1)

[12:24] Russell Reinsch: Data doesn't operate. Cannot interoperate.     (2D2)

[12:25] Russell Reinsch: Is harmonizing more like normalizing?     (2D3)

[12:28] Douglas R. Miles: My mic isn't working so I will need to use chat to talk     (2D4)

[12:29] Douglas R. Miles: But I feel these topics are specific enough they are definitely ideal for presentations.. but a Theme they are very specific     (2D5)

[12:29] Ken Baclawski: @[12:24] Russell Reinsch: I was thinking in terms of "Ontology Summit 2016 : Framing the Conversation: Ontologies within Semantic Interoperability Ecosystems"     (2D6)

[12:30] Ken Baclawski: Possible topic: "Harmonizing Semantic Resources"     (2D7)

[12:30] Russell Reinsch: Ok     (2D8)

[12:31] Douglas R. Miles: I agree with what Russel said, as a General theme we could reuse "Harmonizing Semantic Resources"     (2D9)

[12:33] Douglas R. Miles: (I am grateful still of Gary is the one putting forth ideas we can think about)     (2D10)

[12:35] MikeBennett: Ontology Engineering is the key term here. Our remit is to show some leadership in recognizing and articulating new things that contribute to that discipline.     (2D11)

[12:36] MikeBennett: The interoperability agenda is something we have already covered. We're not here to teach what is already known but to research.     (2D12)

[12:39] Douglas R. Miles: "Tools that Ontologist may use to work together"     (2D13)

[12:40] MikeBennett: Address why domain people are still building controlled vocabularies? What don't they know about concept formation?     (2D14)

[12:40] MikeBennett: +1 to everything on Gary's 2nd slide     (2D15)

[12:43] DrRaviSharma: Ken please show what Gary sent rather than peoples images on zoom     (2D16)

[12:45] Ram D.Sriram: Learning Ontologies could be a topic     (2D17)

[12:47] BobbinTeegarden: Could interoperability please include human interfaces to ontologies: v     (2D18)

[12:48] MikeBennett: @Bobbin +1     (2D19)

[12:49] BobbinTeegarden: Human simple browsing and visualization (of the full graph), and query with something SIRI-like (simple, not SQLlike)     (2D20)

[12:51] Ram D.Sriram: Another topic: Neurosymbolic Computing     (2D21)

[12:51] BobbinTeegarden: Ontologies are not yet SMEable, nor Browse-able, nor interactively created or edited visually. Adoption would be accelerated with something intuitive and accessible.     (2D22)

[12:52] Douglas R. Miles: When we see these as Tracks and not themes these are very great     (2D23)

[12:53] ToddSchneider: Bobbin, 'SMEable'??     (2D24)

[12:54] Douglas R. Miles: SME = Subject Matter Expert     (2D25)

[12:54] MikeBennett: Neuro Symbolic - check out Igor Aleksander of Imperial College e.g Aleksander and Mmorton, mid 90s.     (2D26)

[12:54] ToddSchneider: Ram, Could 'Learning Ontologies' be modified to have a system 'learn' to use an ontology (i.e. to modify itself)?     (2D27)

[12:55] ToddSchneider: Bobbin, I assumed SME referred to Subject Matter Expert, but what does the 'able' suffix refer to?     (2D28)

[12:55] DrRaviSharma: neurosymbolic is combination of Neural networks and ?     (2D29)

[12:56] DrRaviSharma: welcome Todd     (2D30)

[12:56] MikeBennett: Melanie Mitchell - spoke today at ER20 - possible speaker?     (2D31)

[12:57] DrRaviSharma: Todd you mean self learning ontologies?     (2D32)

[12:57] Douglas R. Miles: Bobbin, SMEable = Accessible to the SME?     (2D33)

[12:58] DrRaviSharma: Smart materials fix cracks and fractures but how do ontologies? One way would be design patterns matching etc.     (2D34)

[13:00] ToddSchneider: Bobbin, SME's should not be left alone in developing an ontology.     (2D35)

[13:01] Douglas R. Miles: "Tools that Ontologists may use to work together" By Douglas     (2D36)

[13:02] Douglas R. Miles: (For Ken)     (2D37)

[13:02] ToddSchneider: Gary, are your slides available?     (2D38)

[13:02] MikeBennett: Neuro symbolic computing - also requires that we know how to characterize ontologies so we know the right kind to use. So it fits the Ontology Engineering remit     (2D39)

[13:02] ToddSchneider: Ravi, no. I had self-modifying systems.     (2D40)

[13:02] DrRaviSharma: thanks Ram for clarifying neural networks and ontologies     (2D41)

[13:03] BobbinTeegarden: @Doug yes, something you could easily teach a SME (non-technical domain person) to do, like they now develop class diagrams on the fly to show their 'data'/information. Something like a mind map or class diagram that underneath generates good ontologies...     (2D42)

[13:03] Mark Underwood: Roughly speaking, my suggestion was related to Design patterns for Ontologist (not "ontology") collaborations with SME's / domain experts     (2D43)

[13:03] DrRaviSharma: Mike - thanks for many inputs, will hopefully catch them in recording.     (2D44)

[13:04] BobbinTeegarden: @Mark drag and drop ontology design patterns would be a great addition     (2D45)

[13:05] DrRaviSharma: Todd - self modifying against ? a pattern, standard design or foundation?     (2D46)

[13:07] DrRaviSharma: Todd we have perhaps not yet reached a stage of evolution where automatic ontology development happens like mutation etc?     (2D47)

[13:10] BobbinTeegarden: KADS Patterns were little semantic graph patterns that can be combined in many ways to create 'thoughts' -- micro-semantic patterns, reuseable in the small     (2D48)

[13:10] DrRaviSharma: Ken I would be interested in workshop invite.     (2D49)

[13:11] DrRaviSharma: Ravi is copying from Zoom chat     (2D50)

[13:11] BobbinTeegarden: Go look again at KADS out of Euro. Esprit Consortium from 90s...     (2D51)

[13:11] DrRaviSharma: [Post by Gary Berg-Cross on the Zoom chat]     (2D52)

Harmonizing Semantic resources topic     (2D53)

  • Builds on recent summits.     (2D54)
  • Think of the semantic gradient. In the past dictionaries and lexica were powerful building blocks but the success of the Semantic Web since we started has produced a large quantity of available "structured data" that can be leveraged for various purpose such as KG apps.     (2D55)
  • But we need all of them and they are diverse.     (2D56)
  • Ontologies have some advantages but people are still building controlled vocabaularies.     (2D57)
  • ML can now extract some knowledge from text and data sets to help build semantic resources.     (2D58)

Modern Ontological Engineering topic     (2D59)

  • Ontologies are products of Ontological Engineering.     (2D60)
  • The practice has changed in part because the products have changed and both are more mature.     (2D61)
  • Example ontology modules vs domain ontologies or reference ontologies     (2D62)
  • How are KGs built in comparison to ontologies?     (2D63)
  • Are there different standards?     (2D64)
  • Relations and best practices are not well understood.     (2D65)

Resources     (2E)

Previous Meetings     (2F)

Next Meetings     (2G)