Ontology Summit 2007: OntologySummit2007_Process proposal-1 (draft)     (1)

A 5-Step Process     (1B)

• Convener Grouping: Summit participants ("conveners") are dispersed into 'teams' (constituencies[1]), each representing major communities within the broader ontology community space     (1B1)
  • we can use a survey[2] to help identify which team an individual participant is affiliated with     (1B1A)
  • an analysis of the survey results can also provide clues as to whether we have balanced representation in different constituencies, and if not, remedial 'recruitment' actions may be taken     (1B1B)
  • a participant can choose to be in more than one team     (1B1C)
  • each team is encourage to elect a champion to help coordinate and track progress (this is optional, though)     (1B1D)

• Understanding the Community Vocabulary: Each constituency will:     (1B2)
  • identify the context (vantage point) from which their inputs are derived; there may be needs to create further subdivisions. (For example: if "Biomedical informatics practitioners" is one such constituency, and it turns out that that the "bio-informaticists" and the medical-informaticists" don't share the same vocabularies, then they may want to subdivide and collect inputs for each of these sub-teams.     (1B2A)
  • (each team) or each sub-team will come up with the gloss for what do they mean when they use the term "ontology"     (1B2B)
  • identify other ontology-related terms that is in their constituency's common vocabulary,     (1B2C)
    • and come up with the gloss for each of these terms     (1B2C1)
    • also assess the Likelihood that someone may refer to each of these terms as "ontology"     (1B2C2)
      • ( 0 = totally unlikely; 5 = some would; 9 = almost always )     (1B2C2A)
  • identify conspicuous ontology (or ontology-like) artifacts[3] within their constituency     (1B2D)
  • the above is discovered through dialog over the [ontology-summit] discussion forum, aided (where necessary) by the survey[2] and continuously summarized and synthesized and posted to the wiki to keep all participants in sync.     (1B2E)
  • each constituency will complete and vet their glossary and list of ontology (or ontology-like) artifacts     (1B2F)

• Constructing a categorization / typology framework[4]     (1B3)
  • this is done between all coneveners     (1B3A)
  • and done in parallel with the virtual discourse described in 2. above     (1B3B)

• Categorize     (1B4)
  • place terms and artifacts into the above categorization framework (by each constituency)     (1B4A)
  • reach shared understanding on typology     (1B4B)

• Authoring the Communique     (1B5)
  • draft     (1B5A)
  • review, modify, enhance     (1B5B)
  • adopt (with list of endorsers)     (1B5C)
  • release / publish     (1B5D)

Resource & References     (1C)

• CYC, SUMO, DOLCE, PSL, BFO, GUM, ISO-15926     (1C4)
• HL7-RIM, SNOMED CT, GO, BioPAX Level 2 Ontology, ...     (1C5)

•     (1C6)
  • we need both name and version (as different versions of the artifact with the same name may be placed differently in the categorization framework, and hence their typology may differ     (1C6A)

Survey questions (Draft-1)     (1D)

• 1 = informed layman     (1D17)
• 2 = practitioner     (1D18)
• 3 = expert     (1D19)

• Term     (1D22)
• Gloss     (1D23)
• Source Reference - (cite papers etc.; URL; point to section/paragrpah if possible)     (1D24)
• Representative Artifact - (Name, version)     (1D25)
• Likelihood that some may refer to this as "ontology"     (1D26)
  • (enter a number from 0~9: where, 0 = totally unlikely; 5 = some would; 9 = almost always )     (1D26A)
• Comments     (1D27)

See a prototype of this form at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/wip/summit71.html     (1D30)

Sample of a completed survey (on the prototype form) - (Draft-1)     (1E)

    (1E1)