From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]


Please provide your suggestions for future Ontology Summits below: (kindly keep each entry to one short paragraph; be concise and stay within 50 words if you can. Feel free to link to support material. Please date your entries and identify yourself for follow-up purposes)     (1A)

Suggestions for Themes and Topics     (1B3)

  • based on discussion among the leadership team of the co-organizers on 2013.11.01 and subsequent communications, it was decided that, in this next summit season, we will try to reach out, and provide opportunities for bridging the Formal Ontology, Semantic Web as well as the Big Data communities. While the title for the next Ontology Summit and the execution details will be left to the community and, in particular, the organizing committee that will be formed, the theme for Ontology Summit 2014 will revolve around "Semantic Web, Big Data and Applied Ontology"     (1B3C)

Suggestions for Process     (1B4)

Suggestions for Format     (1B5)

Suggestions on People We Should Engage     (1B6)

  • ... (insert your input here; kindly provide context and rationale for your suggestion too.)     (1B6A)

Other Suggestions     (1B7)

  • ... (insert your input here; kindly provide context and rationale for your suggestion too.)     (1B7A)

  • Please refer to proceedings from the 26-Apr-2012 Ontology Summit 2012 postmortem session where this topic has been quite thoroughly discussed among members of the community - see: ConferenceCall_2012_04_26 ... the bulk of the input below has been extracted from that discussion. Additional input are solicited from each and everyone who has an idea or opinion on how we could make the next ontology Summit even better the last one!     (1C1)

Suggestions from Co-Organizer meeting of 2012-11-28     (1C2)

  • (Note that many of the following suggestions did not achieve consensus)     (1C2A)
  • Ensure there is value-add for the face-to-face, rather than just reviewing the communique. In other words, the communique will essentially be complete by the time of the Symposium. We could then have additional portions of the Symposium dedicated to things like demonstrations, posters, etc.     (1C2B)
  • Continue reaching out to other, "non-ontologist" communities for their experience and participation (software engineering, knowledge acquisition, standards, formal methods, verification). Balance outreach with "inreach" (i.e. informing others of the benefits of ontology).     (1C2C)
  • Final theme (wording was finalized after the meeting): "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"     (1C2E)

Suggestions for Themes and Topics     (1C3)

  • The OntologySummit2012_Communique observation that systems interact with their environments, necessitating changes in an ontology for such a system is spot on! A topic for next year [2013] could be viewing ontologies as environments, enabling modeling relationships of ontologies to systems and users of both. ... (--PatrickDurusau / 2012_04_25)     (1C3A)
  • "Ontology development best practices and ontology evaluation". Currently, there is no agreed methodology for development of ontologies, and there are no universally agreed metrics for ontology evaluation. At the same time, everybody agrees that there a lot of badly engineered ontologies out there, thus people use -- at least implicitly -- some criteria for the evaluation of ontologies. Also, there has been a significant amount of research on the subject. The point of the Summit would be to determine the state of the art on ontology development best practices and evaluation, and, ideally, to establish a consensus position on the subject in the Ontology Summit Communique. ... (--FabianNeuhaus / 2012_11_07)     (1C3B)
  • Ontology Evaluation can tie together some ideas from previous summits -- relationship to standards conformance, evaluation of ontologies within the context of specific information systems, using benchmark problems (cf Henson's slides) (--MichaelGruninger / 2012.04.26)     (1C3D)
  • Federation and Integration for technical/technology purposes, or federation/integration in a social, or organizational setting? (TerryLongstreth / 2012.04.26) (CoryCasanave / 2012.04.26)     (1C3I)
  • Work in knowledge elicitation, specifically for ontologies AND from other field such as information and library science, and also cognitive work analysis... (AmandaVizedom / 2012.04.26)     (1C3J)
  • Ontologies in Information Systems - How are they being used? How are they parts of a bigger puzzle? (AliHashemi / 2012.04.26)     (1C3L)
  • An ontology of the modeling languages (UML, RDF, OWL, FOL, etc) clarifying the inter-relationships (A more expressive than B, C is refinement of D, etc.) among these modeling languages will be helpful. (EricChan / 2012.04.26)     (1C3M)
  • Ontology Evaluation - Quality as Requirements Satisfaction The absence of well-understood, well-grounded, usable methods and tools for ontology evaluation is a significant barrier to broader and more successful use of ontologies in real solutions. This absence derives, in part, from a lack of consensus on the nature of ontology quality (and, thus, on related methodologies for development and evaluation). Underlying both is a need to understand ontology quality not as a single, context-independent measurement but as a relationship between the technical and functional requirements of a particular use and the requirements ontologies must meet in order to be suitable for that use. We need a good understanding of what ontology features matter to what kinds of projects: that is, an understanding of what it means for an ontology to be suitable for an application, fit for a particular use case. Until we build (at least a good start to) that kind of understanding, some people who could benefit from ontology applications will continue to balk at the lack of clarity, while other people will go ahead but invest in ontology that is mismatched to the requirements. The latter experiences waste those potential adopters' time and other resources, and make the climate for ontology adoption worse. I suggest that it should be very high on our priority list to work on building that shared understanding of the relationships between use case features and suitable ontology features. We can really only do that effectively as a community, including ontologists and systems engineers and semantic application stakeholders (current, potential, and former), sharing experiences and collaborating on the lessons learned. There are enough of us, across industries and sectors, to get going and make progress on this. There are also many who won't share just yet because they aren't sure whether the payoff of sharing outweighs their trained resistance to making in-house knowledge public. We can still move, and try to pick them up as we gain momentum."... (--AmandaVizedom / 2012_11_22)     (1C3O)

Suggestions for Process     (1C4)

  • Schedule a Workshop(s) day for the day *after* the summit; use this day to launch or further follow-on efforts and collaborations. Could include anything from working to set up relationships to vocamps to do rapid development of small related ontology modules. (AmandaVizedom / 2012.04.26)     (1C4A)
  • The timeframe between the initial planning meetings and the start of the virtual sessions seemed short this made it difficult to plan some of the sessions and also did not leave much time to market the summit as it emerged. Particularly with cross discipline it could take quite a bit of time to engage these external communities. (CoryCasanave / 2012.04.26)     (1C4B)
  • Because the symposium registration is free of charge, people have a tendency to register first, and decide not to show up later. I would request that people be conscientious of the fact that NIST gets charged by the number of registrants. Therefore, at the least, don't casually register (unless you are coming) and *cancel* your registration (by emailing one of the people handling the logistics) if you later find out that you can't make it to the symposium. (RamSriram / Peter P. Yim / 2012.04.26)     (1C4C)

Suggestions for Format     (1C5)

  • Consider holding joint sessions with other organizations, either as part of the regular virtual sessions, or possibly to host the Ontology Summit Symposium. (SteveRay / 2012.04.26)     (1C5A)

Suggestions on People We Should Engage     (1C6)

  • consider teaming up with the emerging "Research Data Alliance" - an international effort to engage researchers around the world so they can share and use research data without barriers. (PeterYim / 2012_11_19)     (1C6A)
  • ... (insert your input here; kindly provide context and rationale for your suggestion too.)     (1C6B)

Other Suggestions     (1C7)

  • I would urge that the summit be held somewhere more convenient next year, e.g., downtown Washington, DC, Arlington, or Crystal City. (FrankOlken / 2012.04.26)     (1C7A)
  • ... (insert your input here; kindly provide context and rationale for your suggestion too.)     (1C7B)

Suggestions for Themes and Topics     (1D1)

  • To start bootstrapping a new ecosystem built using a new ontology-based paradigm for Internet-based Information System architecting, engineering and delivery. -- Christopher Spottiswoode / 2011_10_18     (1D1B)
  • Suggested Theme: Either "Information Federation with Ontologies" or "Solving the Data Problem". A focus on the practical application of ontological methods and tools to a problem facing every large organization - understanding and using data from independently conceived resources together. The concerns of information federation are not the same as the concerns of these other ontology use cases (such as proof) and this may result in differences in ontological approach, languages, notations, tooling and even theories. Federated data is inherently distributed, uncoordinated, messy and conflicting - yet there is value in leveraging these disparate data resources in a more unified way. It is not always clear how "neat" solutions work in this unstructured world, yet the very "scruffy" solutions seem to be insufficient. A position of the community on this question could help the application of ontologies, ontological tooling and ontological approaches to this important problem. Cory Casanave / 2011-10-27     (1D1D)
  • meets Ontology - How the two approaches can come together over time for a win-win. Steve Ray / 2011-11-07     (1D1E)
  • Towards Objective Metrics for Understanding Ontology Quality in Context (AmandaVizedom and JoanneLuciano)     (1D1U)

Picking up threads from several prior Summits, armed with the progress made in distinguishing families of ontology application use cases (see, e.g., the Application Cases and Usage Framework Syntheses from Ontology Summit 2011, at and, respectively), we are now in a position to push beyond the agreement to disagree that has characterized discussions of ontology quality to date. Specifically, we can work as a community to identify ontology quality characteristics relevant to (families of) ontology applications. We take this suggestion to be compatible with LeoObrst's suggestion at, FabianNeuhaus's suggestion at, MichaelUschold's suggestion at, the quality and requirements aspects of Ontology Summit 2010, and other suggestions made at various times in the Ontolog community. We believe that our suggested topic focuses these energies on a circumscribed and yet broadly-applicable step in making progress toward ontology quality across domains and lifecycle stages (e.g. development, evaluation, reuse, and ontologist training). (See also Slideshare presentation by Joanne Luciano     (1D1V)

Suggestions for Process     (1D2)

  • To implement that bootstrap and connect it to the open market, the Ontology Community might consider adopting, refining, concisely specifying and issuing under its own banner what it might choose to label The Grand Challenge of Ontology Chemistry. Ontology Summit 2012 might be an excellent occasion for finalizing and issuing the Challenge. -- Christopher Spottiswoode / 2011_10_18     (1D2A)

Suggestions for Format     (1D3)

  • CS is starting a series of posts to the Ontolog Forum addressing some of the many aspects of the proposal. He hopes that Community critique and involvement will lead firstly to more relevant and adequate coverage of the issues, and in due course to the organization and execution of the Challenge. -- Christopher Spottiswoode / 2011_10_18     (1D3A)

Suggestions on People We Should Engage     (1D4)

  • ... (insert your input here; kindly provide context and rationale for your suggestion too.)     (1D4A)
  • Funders would of course also be required, for the organization, management, marketing and the prize itself. The strategy for unlocking funding is one of the more burning matters to discuss early in the above process. -- Christopher Spottiswoode / 2011_10_18     (1D4C)

Other Suggestions     (1D5)

  • Proposal (supporting Cory's above at "Solving the Data Problem: Information Federation with Ontologies´┐Ż´┐Ż as this involves many challenges, both practical and research, opens up some of our current debates, provides a frame within which other tracks can be placed (methodology, best practice, even and does not sound like a rehash of last year's -- JohnBateman.     (1D5A)
  • ... (insert your input here; kindly provide context and rationale for your suggestion too.)     (1D5B)

This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (1D5C)