From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]


Ontology Summit 2013 Hackathon & Clinics Activities     (1)

This is the workspace for the Ontology Summit 2013 Hackathon & Clinics Activities     (1B)

See: [[OntologySummit2013_Symposium|Reports from the Hackathon during the OntologySummit2013_Symposium]]     (1C)

Congratulations! ... The First IAOA Prize for the Best Hackathon-Clinic Project was awarded to "HC-03: Evaluation of OOPS!, OQuaRE and OntoQA for FIBO Ontologies"     (1D)

This was awarded at the OntologySummit2013_Symposium (ref.) by a panel of judges that comprised of Dr. Leo Obrst, Dr. Matthew West & Dr. MichaelGruninger.     (1D1)
Again, congratulations, Mike Bennett, MariaPovedaVillalon, AstridDuqueRamos, Samir Tartir and the rest of the HC-03 team!     (1D2)

The Hackathon-Clinics Program     (1E)

  • Hackathon-Clinics Event Schedule (Master Calendar)     (1E1)
  • Get an overview of the program, each of the projects, the process and the schedule from the proceedings of the Thu 28-Mar-2013 OntologySummit2013_Hackathon_Clinics Program Launch - see: ConferenceCall_2013_03_28     (1E2)
  • ref. the Hackathon & Clinics Program Launch - Thu 28-Mar-2013 - ConferenceCall_2013_03_28     (1E13)

Hackathon-Clinics Event Schedule (Master Calendar)     (1F)

... the assumption is that each project will (essentially) take up one whole day; the Saturday will be the main event day (the Sunday will be an optional extension day, if the team wants to spend more time finishing up.)     (1F1)

  • Main Chat-room (ALL Projects): ... (all participants should join into this chat-room when participating or observing)     (1F5)
    • Each project will have their own chat-workspace (or even subgroup chat-workspace) ... refer to the above "Main Chat-room" or to the respective hackathon-clinic project's homepage for detail (at time of session.)     (1F5A)
  • Dial-in for the "Open Webcast" segments of ALL Projects (ref. time schedule below)     (1F6)
    • Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... Conference ID: 141184# ; or     (1F6A)
    • Skype: joinconference ... Conference ID: 141184#     (1F6B)

Events on (Day-1): Sat 2013.03.30     (1F7)

Events on (Day-2): Sat 2013.04.06     (1F8)

Events on (Day-3): Sat 2013.04.13     (1F9)

Description, Objective & Goals     (1G)

Background ... the Ontology Summit organizing committee had overwhelming consensus that we should not spend the symposium wordsmithing (the Communique) this year. Instead, do something that extends from the insights we have gained through the summit sessions, discourse, and the development of the Communique.     (1G1)

Objective & Goals ... the Ontology Summit 2013 Hackathon & Clinics Activities are intended to have summit participants collaborate intensively to create something 'real' and 'useful' (relevant to this Ontology Summit and/or the "Ontology Evaluation" theme), to produce something that can be demonstrated during the face-to-face Symposium (May 2 & 3, 2013), and possibly something that will spin-off into meaningful projects that can be continued after this Ontology Summit is over.     (1G2)

Description ... Three (3) forms of collaborative activities will be featured in the Ontology Summit 2013 Hackathon & Clinics Activities ...     (1G3)

  • the "Hackathon" ... where small, distributed, collaborating (virtual) teams will work together intensively over a weekend to create some new code, new API, new ontology or new application, that are relevant to this Ontology Summit and/or this year's "Ontology Evaluation" theme.     (1G4)
  • "Ontology Clinics" ... in this ontology metrics & measurement clinic, we bring (i) existing tools that measure particular characteristics of ontologies together with (ii) existing ontologies whose characteristics people have an interest in measuring, and run the ontologies through the tools ...     (1G5)
    • (A) evaluating ontologies - we send ontologies to be evaluated through the "evaluation tool," study the results, diagnose problems with the ontology, and see how the ontology may be improved, and     (1G5A)
    • (B) evaluating tools - we send gold standard ontologies through the "evaluation tool," study the results, diagnose problems with the "tool," and see how the "tool" (the ontology too, possibly) may be improved.     (1G5B)
  • "Application Clinics" ... where we assemble a small team of ontologists and ontology-evaluation-tool developers, to work with a user community team (of subject matter experts and application developers) that has a real ontology-driven application that needs to be designed, implemented and deployed. This Application Clinic exercise is intended to help users evaluate whether ontologies the users already had in mind are fit for the intended purpose and whether the quality of those ontologies are satisfactory, and provide recommendations to the users or user communities.     (1G6)

... consistent with the Ontology Summit practice, all process and work products involved in these activities will be "open." Please refer to details in our prevailing Open IPR Policy.     (1G7)

Call for Proposals     (1H)

Please come up with meaningful project(s), find your collaborating partner(s), and form a team, design your project(s) and craft your proposal(s), and get that to us before the submission deadline.     (1H1)

After all proposals have been collected, we will collaboratively align and tweak the projects and the teams, so we have some very interesting projects to work on, during the (community picked) Hackathon-Clinics weekends (we'll try to pick two, since some people may be involved in more than one project, and some may have conflicts with a particular date.)     (1H2)

What needs to go into a "Project Proposal"     (1H3)

The proposal needs to be succinct (1 page, at most 2) and should include ...     (1H3A)

  • a Title of proposed project (prefix it with "Hackathon," "Ontology Clinic-A/B" or "Application Clinic")     (1H3B)
  • an Abstract describing the project work     (1H3C)
  • Collaborators involved �� names of individuals, affiliations, their roles in the project, their tasks, etc.     (1H3D)
  • Objectives / Goals �� especially as they relate to the Summit and the "Ontology Evaluation" theme     (1H3E)
  • expected Deliverable(s)     (1H3F)
  • Remarks �� anything pertinent     (1H3G)
  • Resource / References     (1H3H)

... You don't have to have the proposal fully completed. Gaps in the proposals are acceptable - just state what you need to fill those gaps (e.g. the kind of collaborators (specifying skills needed) you are looking for, etc.)     (1H3I)

Post your proposal to the [ontology-summit] list before the Fri 2013.03.08 submission deadline. If need be, email any question you may have to the Hackathon-Clinics Activities co-champions: Mike Dean <>, Ken Baclawski <> and Peter P. Yim <>     (1H3J)

Important Dates     (1H4)

  • Announcement of the call for proposals: Thu 2013.02.21     (1H4A)
  • Deadline for proposal submission: Thu 2013.03.08 (2 weeks to prepare proposal)     (1H4B)
  • Alignment of projects and teams: 2013.03.09~03.19 (10 days to tweak proposals/projects)     (1H4C)
  • Announcement of selected projects: Thu 2013.03.21     (1H4D)
  • Hackathon-Clinics project plan debut: session-11 - Thu 2013.03.28     (1H4E)
  • Staging of projects: Fri 2013.03.22 to hackathon-clinics weekend (see below; 1 week+)     (1H4F)
  • Hackathon-Clinics Weekends: the Saturdays are the main event dates; the Sunday after that is an optional extension for teams that want a bit more time to finish up     (1H4G)
  • preparation of writeup/presentation/demo - 2013.04.15~29 (2 weeks+)     (1H4H)
  • writeup/presentation/demo material due - 2013.04.30 (2 days before event)     (1H4I)
  • Presentation / Demo: Thu 2013.05.02 (Symposium Day-1)     (1H4J)
  • Award Ceremony: Fri 2013.05.03 (Symposium Day-2)     (1H4K)

Hackathon Proposals Received     (1I)

  • H1. Hackathon Proposal: Formalization of use case encodings under the GOEF framework - from: James Michaelis and Joanne Luciano (RPI) / 2013.03.04     (1I1)
    • see: proposal (--JoanneLuciano / 2013.03.07)     (1I1A)
    • Abstract: ... Ontologies have become a prominent way to represent knowledge in an increasing number of disciplines due to their ability to formalize knowledge in a consistent manner. However, ontology construction is labor-intensive, which makes it desirable to reuse existing ontologies when possible. Current ontology evaluation methods are context free, which make it difficult to determine whether an existing ontology can be used in different application. The goal of the General Ontology Evaluation Framework (GOEF) is to enable objective evaluation of an ontology, or part thereof, within the context of a use case. The use case provides the context information that is needed for evaluation of the ontology. The GOEF approach requires both a use case and corresponding ontology under consideration for its assessments. However, at present, additional work is needed to help formalize the notion of a use case within GOEF. For this session,     (1I1B)
    • we would like to pursue three relevant activities:     (1I1C)
      • (i) the collection of use cases for ontology usage (expressed at a non-formalized level),     (1I1C1)
      • (ii) conduct corresponding brainstorming of a formal modeling which would meet the needs of the proposed use cases, and     (1I1C2)
      • (iii) review a candidate architecture for GOEF, based on formal modelings proposed for use case representation.     (1I1C3)
  • H2. Development of GOEF framework - from: James Michaelis and Joanne Luciano (RPI) 2013.03.05     (1I2)
    • Abstract: ... Ontologies have become a prominent way to represent knowledge in an increasing number of disciplines due to their ability to formalize knowledge in a consistent manner. However, ontology construction is labor-intensive, which makes it desirable to reuse existing ontologies when possible. To do this the it must be determined whether an existing ontology (or part of the ontology) can be used in a different application. The General Ontology Evaluation Framework (GOEF) provides an organizational framework for intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation of an ontology, or part thereof, within the context of a use case. The use case provides the specific context information that is needed for the evaluation. The GOEF approach requires both a use case and corresponding ontology under consideration for its assessments. However, at present, additional work is needed to develop the framework and assemble the individual evaluation sub-services. GOEF needs to be further specified, coded, and developed. Preliminary analysis suggests use of the SADI web service ( For this session, we seek to:     (1I2A)
      • (i) review the proposed architecture (expressed at a non-formalized level),     (1I2A1)
      • (ii) conduct corresponding brainstorming of a design that would meet the needs of the proposed use cases, and     (1I2A2)
      • (iii) create stubs and a strategy for development.     (1I2A3)
  • H3. OOR-KEEPER Integration - from: Ken Baclawski & Máximo Gurméndez (NEU) / 2013.03.04     (1I3)
    • Abstract: ... The OpenOntologyRepository (OOR) [2] consists of a code base forked from BioPortal [3]. The requirements for BioPortal and OOR differ. See [[ConferenceCall_2009_10_15|4] for a detailed analysis of the differences between these two. See [5,6] for the OOR requirements. The main programming language used in OOR is Ruby. KEEPER, on the other hand is a JEE application that exposes its basic API via a WSDL/SOAP web service. The main challenge is to integrate these two systems so that:     (1I3B)
      • 1. An ontology in the OOR defines the process it will use for standardization.     (1I3B1)
      • 2. Once the ontology is assigned to a process, the OOR will invoke the KEEPER service to start an instance of the process de���finition.     (1I3B2)
      • 3. The OOR shows, for each user, the pending tasks that the different processes have assigned to it.     (1I3B3)
      • 4. The OOR renders the forms to the appropriate user based on the process definition and submits to KEEPER all the information filled in on these forms.     (1I3B4)
      • 5. Integrate authentication across OOR and KEEPER     (1I3B5)
    • ... with the KEEPER functionality in place, we can progress the OOR to production status, and allow ontology evaluation services (like those provided by OOPS!) to be applied to the contents (ontologies) hosted in an OOR instance.     (1I3C)
from Ken Baclawski, Mike Dean & Peter P. Yim / 2013.03.12 ... rather than doing another proposal towards developing the API that will allow services like OOPS! (and other ontology evaluation tools) to be integrated with OOR and OntoHub (since they supposedly share the same architecture), we suggest that we incorporate the above goal into the two above proposals - namely, OOR-KEEPER & Ontohub-OOPS!     (1I5A)
  • H5. / A3. BACnet Ontology for Hackathon - from: Joel Bender / 2013.03.08     (1I6)
    • Abstract: ... The objective of this Hackathon is to take a transliteration of the BACnet ASN.1 productions in RDF/RDFS and produce an OWL ontology that is interoperable with other specifications in the building automation industry. BACnet is a communications protocol for Building Automation and Control Systems (BACS) developed under the auspices of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). BACnet is an American national standard, a European standard, a national standard in more than 30 countries, and an ISO global standard. The protocol is supported and maintained by ASHRAE Standing Standard Project Committee 135 (SSPC-135).     (1I6B)
    • Deliverables: ... The resulting OWL file and supporting documentation will be submitted to SSPC-135 for future inclusion into the standard.     (1I6C)
    • Call for Collaborators: ... I am interested in collaborators for developing an ontology for building automation and control networks to be incorporated into a future revision of the BACnet standard [1]. This is an opportunity to build a specification that will be an American Standard, European Standard, and ISO standard.     (1I6D)
from Steve Ray / 2013.03.08 ... As you might expect, Joel, I'm definitely interested in this work, since I expect to be integrating an OWL version of ASHRAE SPC201P (i.e. FSGIM) with "neighboring" standards, including BACnet. It would be so great if BACnet migrated to OWL.     (1I7A1)

ConferenceCall_2012_12_19     (1I9)

it is supposed to have a tool that would filter such special texts written in Controlled Natural Language (CNL) and transformable to OWL (or backward) and successfully reasoning by reasoners. The hackathon event will be devoted to exploring some use cases (ontologies) for the cycling filter (OWL-to-CNL-to-OWL or CNL-to-OWL-to-CNL) based on two available online demo tools on the attempto website and (if possible) based on the Rabbit open source project (if it has a demo or can be prepared before the hackathon event). Success of the CNL-OWL cycle filtering of ontology could become a criterium of a "correct" ("evaluated") ontology - if the ontology still works properly after such an automatic cycle. Also during the hackathon event it would be explored the idea of the CNL Platform for Semantic Web based on CNL-OWL cycling filter for ontlogies evaluation.     (1I14)

works and clarify its possible future role in the CNL platform for the Semantic Web.     (1I16)

Ontology Clinic Proposals Received     (1J)

  • O1. Ontology Clinic: COLORE - from: Michael Grüninger & Megan Katsumi (U of Toronto) / 2013.03.04     (1J1)
    • Abstract: ... The objective of the COLORE project is to construct an open repository of first-order ontologies that will serve as a testbed for ontology evaluation and integration techniques, and that can support the design, evaluation, and application of ontologies in first-order logic. During the Ontology     (1J1B)

Clinic, we will explore ontology evaluation within COLORE as well as use COLORE as the source for ontologies to be evaluated by other techniques.     (1J2)

Abstract: ... This ontology clinic is aimed at the evaluation of publicly available ISO 15926 reference data, viewing it as an ontology for the engineering domain. We will look for compliance to upper ontology constraints, diagnose problems in reference data, evaluate ease of understanding and use of existing data, and make suggestions for ontology improvement. Another goal is to apply formal ontology quality metrics for data in question.     (1J4A)
The effort will develop rules and algorithms to support generic verification tests, and also attempt to invent and implement specialized checks and quality metrics for ISO 15926 reference data.     (1J4B)
Collaborators: ... Project initiators are, a Moscow (Russia) based company, developer of the .15926 software environment. Another team of tool developers from Moscow ( has also expressed interest in participating.     (1J4C)
We are looking for collaborators �� ontology evaluation experts commanding any generic or specialized software tools to work on proposed ISO 15926 datasets. We will welcome software tool developers willing to show use of their instruments for project tasks.     (1J4D)
from Joel Bender / 2013.03.08 ... I'm interested in participating. I'm not an ontology evaluation expert by any stretch of the imagination, nor do I have access to any but the most basic tools, but I would bring enthusiasm, a thirst for knowledge, and my own well developed flare for self deprecating humor.     (1J4D1)
from MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa / 2013.03.11 ... I'm very interested on collaborating in your proposal playing the role of an ontology evaluation expert. We can use OOPS! as first step for identifying problems in the ontologies and then we can also use the method in which OOPS! is based (probably in combination with other quality frameworks such as the one presented by Samir Tartir and the one presented by AstridDuqueRamos).     (1J4D2)
Our own tool .15926 Editor is freely available (, well documented, is designed for exploratory programming and includes examples of use for data verification. Basic knowledge of the Python programming language will be enough to join us in the project with this tool.     (1J5A)
We will be happy to provide office space for real world collaboration in Moscow, well connected to the virtual environment of the Hackathon.     (1J5B)
  • O3. Ontology Clinic-A: FIBO Ontology Evaluation with OOPS!, OQuaRE and other Tools - from: Mike Bennett (FIBO), MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa (OOPS!), MariaPovedaVillalon (OOPS!), JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis (OQuaRE), AstridDuqueRamos (OQuaRE) / 2013.03.11     (1J6)
    • Abstract: ... This ontology clinic aims to explore the application of ontology quality measures to ontologies produced under the Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO) umbrella. In this clinic we will explore the application of the OOPS! and OQuaRE methodologies and tools to two styles of ontology developed under the FIBO umbrella: Business Conceptual Ontologies (BCOs) which are the FIBO standards themselves; and example "Operational Ontologies" derived from these for deployment in semantic technology applications. We would look to establish which types of measure should be applied to each type of ontology and apply the relevant tools and techniques to these. From this activity we hope to make the first steps towards defining a formal quality process for the future development of formal standards under the FIBO umbrella, a set of quality assurance parameters for users who need to extend the FIBO BCO locally for their own conceptual semantic modeling, and a set of guidance notes, validation and verification techniques etc. for developers of semantic technology applications based on the FIBO standards.     (1J6B)
    • Deliverables:     (1J6C)
      • Elements of a formal methodology for development of FIBO Business Conceptual Ontologies     (1J6C1)
      • Elements of a formal methodology for local extension of FIBO BCOs by end users, to create their own ontologies at the same conceptual level (for onward use either in conventional technology model driven development, data integration or the development of operational ontologies for semantic processing)     (1J6C2)
      • Formal conformance points for operational ontologies (new textual material for future versions of the FIBO OMG specifications)     (1J6C3)
      • Notes and ��how to�� material for developers of semantic technology applications that use FIBO     (1J6C4)
    • Remarks: ... We see this clinic as a vital first step in our development both of the formal methodologies for FIBO standards development and of the conformance points and developer guidance necessary for end users to make practical use of FIBO in semantic technology-based applications.     (1J6D)

Evaluation based on ISO/IEC 25000:2005, the standard for Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation, OQuaRE defines intrinsic and extrinsic quality criteria in terms of quality sub-characteristics. This ontology clinic pursues the validation of the quality sub-characteristics and metrics defined in OQuaRE and the addition of the new metrics, sub-characteristics or the association of existent metrics with the existent sub-characteristics. To meet this target we are searching for ontology evaluation experts and ontology experts who want to propose new sub-characteristics or redefine the existent ones and for ontology metrics developers who want to include their own metrics into the OQuaRE sub-characteristics in order to complement the existent ones.     (1J8)

Application Clinic Proposals Received     (1K)

  • A1. Application Clinic: I-Choose �� Building Ontology for Sustainable Products Certification and Inspection - from: Joanne Luciano, DjokoSigitSayogo (and Colleagues from University at Albany), et al. / 2013.03.07     (1K1)
    • Abstract: ... The I-Choose project is a research activity involving a research team that consists of practitioners and researchers from the US, Mexico and Canada from the fields of information science, computer science, economics, and political science. The I-Choose project aims to develop a data architecture based on ontology to support sustainable consumer choice so that consumers can make decisions that maximize their specific utility preferences. Our initial case is the market for certified coffee produced and consumed in the North American region. Our preliminary research and findings based on interviews with organizations in the supply chain have sharpened our focus on the specific function of certification and inspection by mission-driven third party certifiers as the ��missing link�� in providing trusted information about unobservable product attributes to customers in the sustainable product supply-chain. In relation, the current objective of I-Choose is to develop an OWL-based ontology that can satisfy three elements,     (1K1B)
      • a) run on certification and inspection data sets such as those found in the Fairtrade certification system,     (1K1B1)
      • b) handle several different types of problems (retrieving reliable data about an individual certification criteria, returning meta-data about criteria, respecting rules about data ownership, etc.), and     (1K1B2)
      • c) handle a great amount of detail (such as integrating judgments from many criteria).     (1K1B3)
The development of the ontology will follow the same logic and framing on the SemantEco Water Quality Ontology from the Tetherless World Constellation.     (1K2A)
The 2013 Ontology Summit is bringing together a rich range of perspectives on ontology evaluation. Some of these perspectives are fairly abstract, some are encoded in methods and practices, and some are encoded in tools. Critical interaction via summit sessions and discussion has resulted in greater sharing of knowledge and in richer understandings of ontology evaluation at multiple elements. This enrichment is likely to be apparent in the activities and future products of summit participants. Another manifestation of this enrichment will be the summit Communique. The goal of this ��hackathons & clinics�� activity is to add another manifestation: a formal ontology representing ontology evaluation elements, factors, relationships, processes, etc., as they have emerged from summit discussion.     (1K4A)
The scope of this project is staged to increase with available resources or as time permits, beginning with representation of the most important general concepts and their relationships to one another, through representation of specific metrics, tools, ontology characteristics, evaluation processes, and multi-faceted organizations thereof. Scope and prioritization will be requirements-driven, based on two or more rough use cases developed ahead of time. These use cases will include, at minimum, one direct human-use scenario and one system-incorporation scenario, such as (for example): (a) a human user, using the ontology in the process of determining how well-suited a particular ontology is for a particular application; and (b) a repository environment incorporating the ontology into a feature set meant to enable matching of use cases and well-suited ontologies, through stated or inferred requirements and performed or recorded evaluations.     (1K4B)
Collaborators: ... soliciting support and contribution from:     (1K4C)
o Ontologists: The feasibility of this project as a 1-2 day ontology sprint depends on having at least a handful of folks to do the representation. The plan, pending consultation with collaborators, is to make major design decisions in collaboration, and to modularize and distribute chunks of KR throughout the team, working in parallel with open communication channels during the sprint.     (1K4D)
o Potential Users While we can work with imagined use cases, real potential ones are better. If you can see how you might use the resulting ontology, and have some real (albeit potential and result-dependent) interest in doing so, your use case would be most welcome. Real use cases, and real potential deployment, will help focus and energize this ontology development sprint.     (1K4E)
from Ali Hashemi: I'd be interested in collaborating with you and others on this project.     (1K5A1)

Independent Contributors (sign-up)     (1L)

Anyone who is not directly associated in one of the proposed projects, but would want to participate, should sign up below, and identify what projects you would like to participate in, and the skills you can bring to the table.     (1L1)

    • interested in participating in clinics and/or hackathons     (1L3A)
    • skills: ontology engineering; ontology requirements elicitation & analysis; partnering with coders to design & develop semantic applications; semantic project management.     (1L3B)
    • interested in participating in hackathon or clinics     (1L4A)
    • skills: software engineering (languages: Java / C / C++ / Perl / Lisp, can Ruby&Python a little). Ontology Engineering (OWL2, CycL). Controlled Vocabularies (NISO Z39.19/SKOS).     (1L4B)

This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (1L9)