From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]
    (1)
Number 63
Duration 1 hour
Date/Time February 11 2019 19:00 GMT
11:00 PST/2:00pm EST
7:00pm GMT/8:00pm CET
Convener Mike Bennett

IAOA Semantic Web Applied Ontology (SWAO) SIG     (2)

Meetings are normally on the first Monday of the month at these times. The meeting this month is an exception.     (3)

Contents

Agenda     (5)

1. Housekeeping     (5A)

2. Events     (5B)

  • Feedback and matters arising from last week's Oslo International Industrial Ontologies Workshops event     (5C)
  • Proposed 'Challenge' activity for Ontology Summit 2019     (5D)
  • Financial Ontology Workshop in Summer 2019     (5E)
  • Shared events calendar - 2019 events     (5F)

3. Discussion of new initiatives     (5G)

5. Next Meeting     (5O)

Proceedings     (6)

[14:03] MikeBennett: AGENDA:     (6A)

1.Housekeeping     (6B)

2.Events     (6C)

Feedback and matters arising from last week's Oslo International Industrial Ontologies Workshops event     (6D)

Proposed 'Challenge' activity for Ontology Summit 2019     (6E)

Financial Ontology Workshop in Summer 2019     (6F)

Shared events calendar - 2019 events     (6G)

3.Discussion of new initiatives     (6H)

NEW SWAO Resource on TLO and Ontological Commitment considerations     (6I)

Bridging the gap between AO and SemWeb     (6J)

Definitions of ontology and related terms IAOA glossary     (6K)

Blogging     (6L)

Networking     (6M)

Liaison with other bodies     (6N)

5.Next Meeting     (6P)

[14:06] MikeBennett: 1. Housekeeping: NTR     (6Q)

[14:06] MikeBennett: 2. Oslo event     (6R)

[14:07] MikeBennett: There is a paper called The Tower of Babel Problem: Making sense of something or other with BFO.     (6S)

[14:07] MikeBennett: See section on ontology institutions and the role they play in applied ontology work.     (6T)

[14:09] MikeBennett: NCOR - National Center of Ontology Research (Buffalo)     (6U)

[14:10] MikeBennett: NCBO - National Center for Biomedical Ontology (Stanford)     (6V)

[14:12] MikeBennett: NIH - important to support Gene Ontology (Human Genome Project)     (6W)

[14:12] MikeBennett: OFR - recommending the BFO and the related Foundry / Repository.     (6X)

[14:13] MikeBennett: ISO TC68/SC9 WG1 agree we need TLO but BFO constrains you to modeling what is already there.     (6Y)

[14:13] MikeBennett: NCOR - credits Mark Musen.     (6Z)

[14:14] MikeBennett: Whereas Mark Musen is with Stanford i.e. NCBO. So this is strange as are some other statements on the history and current work status of ontologies, in that paper.     (6AA)

[14:14] MikeBennett: Didn't NCOR arise from some work in Europe e.g. Germany?     (6AB)

[14:15] MikeBennett: What was useful: ethics as the real point of the paper.     (6AC)

[14:16] MikeBennett: In what sense?     (6AD)

[14:16] MikeBennett: In that ACOs should undergo some ethics review before publishing.     (6AE)

[14:17] MikeBennett: ACO = Applied Computational Ontology.     (6AF)

[14:18] MikeBennett: The paper includes a list of 'ontology troubles'. For example in the processing of social data.     (6AG)

[14:26] MikeBennett: Looking at the paper, this seems of limited relevance. The cited publication (Pulsifer and Brauen) is nothing to do with ontology.     (6AH)

[14:26] MikeBennett: It is clear this paper does not come from BFO / Buffalo in any case.     (6AI)

[14:27] MikeBennett: Is it worth pushing this to the Ontolog Forum for comment?     (6AJ)

[14:28] MikeBennett: What that does feed into is what we started to talk about on 7 Jan.     (6AK)

[14:29] MikeBennett: It also represents some strong criticism of the ontology field. May merit a response on that basis if it is published, which as yet it is not.     (6AL)

[14:30] MikeBennett: Resource on TLO and Ontological Commitment considerations     (6AM)

[14:31] MikeBennett: To counter the narrative implicit in the above, that there is one kind of TLO, one TLO, one possible ontological stance (per BFO) and set out the range of kinds of things one needs to consider with TLOs and ontological stance / commitment in general, for different usages (would also be of benefit to the ISO WG1 effort noted above).     (6AN)

[14:32] MikeBennett: Examples: An ontology that has Male and Female as subclasses of clothing!     (6AO)

[14:35] MikeBennett: This is comparable to the counter-example in GoodRelations between carabiner as a thing versus carbiner as a product. Here, the wearer is another thing again - and it is not implied that the wearer is necessarily of the same gender at the clothing. So there is a social commentary angle to that.     (6AP)

[14:37] MikeBennett: See also Lakoff and Nunez, Where Math Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being (2000).     (6AQ)

[14:44] MikeBennett: Considerations to survey     (6AR)

[14:45] MikeBennett: AW: Something that started from common core ontologies that went back to BFO. The learning curve was far too high (philosophy needed) and too abstract. Common Core subclasses fro mBFO but was limited to single inheritance which was a limitation. So, needed to move to an application specific ontology that addresses the various points.     (6AS)

[14:45] MikeBennett: Also Becky working with Bio Med and OBO. There are problems in Biomed from the requirement to conform with BFO.     (6AT)

[14:46] MikeBennett: BFO itself constrains the user to single inheritance. That was one of the main things that made it unusable for this practical work.     (6AU)

[14:47] MikeBennett: Example: Murder or homicide due to violence: involves both death and violence - need a polyhierarchy.     (6AV)

[14:47] MikeBennett: Trying to fit this into BFO was bizarre e.g. a rejection of a request for bail, trying to fit this into monohierarchy.     (6AW)

[14:48] MikeBennett: So for our lit of considerations:     (6AX)

[14:48] MikeBennett: 1. Polyhierarchy v monohierarchy (classification facets and their application)     (6AY)

[14:49] MikeBennett: 2. Stance i.e. Realism vs Idealism     (6AZ)

[14:49] MikeBennett: i.e. Realist ontology means that you can only model what is already there.     (6AAA)

[14:49] MikeBennett: Realism can't be used in engineering design, project management, business planning, risk etc. (finance)     (6AAB)

[14:50] MikeBennett: 3. TLO Partitions     (6AAC)

[14:50] MikeBennett: 3A: Continuant vs Occurrent. Caused issues with causal exploration - whether you are occurrent or continuant is time framed     (6AAD)

[14:50] MikeBennett: (MB disagrees)     (6AAE)

[14:50] MikeBennett: But we need to be able to frame these considerations.     (6AAF)

[14:51] MikeBennett: e.g. is a drought a continuant or an occurrent? Depends on the time frame. There is a time that is started. The important thing is what is its start and end time, not whether it is a continuant or an occurrent.     (6AAG)

[14:54] MikeBennett: Actions on that     (6AAH)

[14:56] MikeBennett: The Blog thing is a separate plug-in to MediaWiki, not part of Semantic Media Wiki.     (6AAI)

[14:58] MikeBennett: Blog entry is to create a new Blog site (hence Purpose) not merely a single blog entry.     (6AAJ)

[15:02] MikeBennett: WE have a blog site. Here it is:     (6AAK)

[15:03] MikeBennett: Actions: Let's crack on and create articles and have each other comment on those.     (6AAM)

[15:03] MikeBennett: Unfortunately it does not support threaded conversations.     (6AAN)

[15:05] MikeBennett: Start with the Continuant v Occurrence conversation.     (6AAO)

[15:08] MikeBennett: Calendar:     (6AAP)

[15:08] MikeBennett: MB has made no progress on this as yet.     (6AAQ)

[15:09] MikeBennett: AoB?     (6AAR)

[15:10] MikeBennett: We can also generate articles from our Blog content once the conversations have run their course.     (6AAS)

[15:10] MikeBennett: Next Meeting     (6AAT)

[15:12] MikeBennett: Mar 4th     (6AAU)

[15:12] MikeBennett: MB won't attend; Ken will fire up the call.     (6AAV)

Attendees     (7)

Next Meetings     (8)

Previous Meetings     (9)