Actions

Ontolog Forum

Revision as of 06:41, 9 January 2016 by imported>KennethBaclawski (Fix PurpleMediaWiki references)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Ontology Summit 2013: Panel Session-04 - Thu 2013-02-07

Summit Theme: "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"

Summit Track Title: Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria

Session Topic: Ontology Development Methodologies for Integrating Ontologies

Session Co-chairs: Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction) and Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council; Hypercube) - intro slides

Panelists / Briefings:

  • Professor BarrySmith (University at Buffalo, US) - "Ontological realism as a strategy for integrating ontologies" slides
  • Mr. ChrisPartridge (BORO Solutions, UK) - "Ontology Architecture - Top Ontology Architecture" slides
  • Mr. AnatolyLevenchuk ([[TechInvestLab]], RU) - "ISO 15926 Reference Data Engineering Methodology" slides
  • Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council; Hypercube, UK) - "Quality Considerations for an Industry Standard Ontology" slides

Archives

Abstract

OntologySummit2013 Session-04: "Ontology Development Methodologies for Integrating Ontologies" - intro slides

This is our 8th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by NIST, Ontolog, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD with the support of our co-sponsors. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit is: "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle."

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 are a lot of badly engineered ontologies out there, thus people use -- at least implicitly -- some criteria for the evaluation of ontologies.

During this Ontology Summit, we seek to identify best practices for ontology development and evaluation. We will consider the entire lifecycle of an ontology -- from requirements gathering and analysis, through to design and implementation. In this endeavor, the Summit will seek collaboration with the software engineering and knowledge acquisition communities. Research in these fields has led to several mature models for the software lifecycle and the design of knowledge-based systems, and we expect that fruitful interaction among all participants will lead to a consensus for a methodology within ontological engineering. Following earlier Ontology Summit practice, the synthesized results of this season's discourse will be published as a Communiqué.

At the Launch Event on 17 Jan 2013, the organizing team provided an overview of the program, and how we will be framing the discourse around the theme of of this OntologySummit. Today's session is one of the events planned.

Focusing on what Track-C: "Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria" addresses, one way to look at it is that Ontologies broadly come in two types:

  • 1. Those developed for integrating data from various sources.
  • 2. Those developed to support reasoning applications.

We will be having one session devoted to each of these types, to try to identify what is important for them separately, and then to compare and see what the differences and similarities are for methodologies of these two types on the email exploder.

In this 4th panel session of the Summit, and the first Track-C session today, we will look at methodologies for developing integrating ontologies and will aim to identify the range of things a methodology needs to address in order for it to continue to develop consistently when there are potentially a large and distributed number of people involved in its development.

More details about this Ontology Summit is available at: OntologySummit2013 (homepage for this summit)

Briefings

  • 'Professor BarrySmith (University at Buffalo, US) - "Ontological realism as a strategy for integrating ontologies" slides
    • Abstract: ... Focusing primarily on the experiences of the OBO (Open Biomedical Ontologies) Foundry, I will explore the various ways in which ontology evaluation can be exploited as a tool for ontology integration. The underlying paradigm is one of scientific peer review: ontologies, like scientific journal articles, should be evaluated by experts in light of an evolving set of principles, which are outlined here: http://obofoundry.org/crit.shtml. These include not only general principles (such as adequacy to the relevant object domain), but also principles designed to ensure the sort of consistent and non-redundant development that is needed for integration.I will summarize the experiences of the OBO Foundry thus far, including some of the problems we have faced, and show how the Foundry methodology and results are being used also by ontology consortia outside biomedicine.
  • Mr. ChrisPartridge (BORO Solutions, UK) - "Ontology Architecture - Top Ontology Architecture" slides
    • Abstract: I will describe how we can apply some of the lessons learnt in Enterprise / Systems / Software Architecture to managing large ontology developments based upon my experience with the development of BORO, IDEAS and MODEM. In a sense this is meta-methodology, in that it suggests what methodologies need to address with some roadmap examples, without stipulating how they do it. Larger ontology developments faces the same challenges that these architectures attempt to deal with - which are broadly speaking;
      • Complexity (and size),
      • Change
    • The kinds of solutions they bring to bear should influence the way we work with ontologies.
  • Mr. AnatolyLevenchuk ([[TechInvestLab]], RU) - "ISO 15926 Reference Data Engineering Methodology" slides
    • Abstract: The "ISO 15926 Reference Data Engineering Methodology" describes the engineering of ontologies for systems federation purposes. "Situational Method Engineering" is a discipline for the description of development methodologies. This presentation will describe the practical experience of applying the Situational Method Engineering discipline to the creation of an ontology development methodology for the growing community of ISO 15926 reference data engineers.
  • Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council; Hypercube, UK) - "Quality Considerations for an Industry Standard Ontology" slides
    • Abstract: This presentation explores and sets out some of the quality considerations that might apply to the development of an industry standard ontology. Taking the Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO) as an example, the presenter will situate the development of the ontology within the formal systems development lifecycle before considering what kinds of measure might or might not apply to this kind of ontology, and what steps should be built into the development lifecycle to ensure these are carried out.

Agenda

OntologySummit2013 - Panel Session-04

  • Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call

Proceedings

Please refer to the above

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session

see raw transcript here.

(for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)

Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.

-- begin in-session chat-transcript --

[08:37] Peter P. Yim: Welcome to the

Ontology Summit 2013: Virtual Panel Session-04 - Thu 2013-02-07

Summit Theme: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle

  • Summit Track Title: Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria

Session Topic: Ontology Development Methodologies for Integrating Ontologies

Panelists / Briefings:

  • Professor Barry Smith (University at Buffalo, US) - "Ontological realism as a strategy for integrating ontologies"
  • Mr. Chris Partridge (BORO Solutions, UK) - "Ontology Architecture - Top Ontology Architecture"
  • Mr. Anatoly Levenchuk ([[TechInvestLab]], RU) - "ISO 15926 Reference Data Engineering Methodology"
  • Mr. Mike Bennett (EDM Council; Hypercube, UK) - "Quality Considerations for an Industry Standard Ontology"

Logistics:

  • (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName (in WikiWord format)
  • Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute
  • Can't find Skype Dial pad?
    • for Windows Skype users: it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
    • for Linux Skype users: please note that the dial-pad is only available on v4.1 (or later or the earlier Skype versions 2.x,)

if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it.

Attendees: Amanda Vizedom, Anatoly Levenchuk, AndreyBayda, Barry Smith, Bob Smith, Bob Schloss,

Bobbin Teegarden, Bruce Bray, Carmen Chui, Chris Partridge, Dalia Varanka, David Makovoz,

DeborahMacPherson, Dmitry, Dmitry Borisoglebsky, Doug Foxvog, Fabian Neuhaus, Fran Lightsom,

GaryBergCross, Hans Polzer, hevok, JaguaraciSilva, JeffersonBraswell, Joanne Luciano,

JoaoPauloAlmeida, Joe, Joel Bender, John Bilmanis, Lamar Henderson, Leo Obrst, Lowell Vizenor, MaksK,

Marcela Vegetti, MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa, Matthew West, Megan Katsumi, Michael Grüninger, Michael Riben,

Mike Bennett, Mike Dean, Mike Denny, Nikolay Borgest, Peter P. Yim, Richard Martin, Rob Hausam, Robert Rovetto,

Scott Hills, Simon Spero, Steve Ray, Terry Longstreth, Till Mossakowski, Todd Schneider, Torsten Hahmann,

Trish Whetzel, VictorAgroskin.

Proceedings:

[09:04] anonymous morphed into Joe

[09:14] anonymous morphed into Carmen Chui

[09:25] anonymous1 morphed into Torsten Hahmann

[09:27] anonymous1 morphed into Robert Rovetto

[09:29] anonymous1 morphed into Rob Hausam

[09:30] anonymous1 morphed into Michael Riben

[09:30] anonymous1 morphed into Trish Whetzel

[09:31] anonymous1 morphed into Doug Foxvog

[09:31] anonymous morphed into Nikolay Borgest

[09:32] anonymous morphed into Mike Denny

[09:32] Andrey Bayda morphed into AndreyBayda

[09:34] anonymous morphed into Dmitry Borisoglebsky

[09:34] anonymous1 morphed into Todd Schneider

[09:34] anonymous morphed into Barry Smith

[09:34] anonymous2 morphed into Hans Polzer

[09:34] anonymous morphed into Chris Partridge

[09:34] anonymous1 morphed into Joanne Luciano

[09:37] Peter P. Yim: == Matthew West opens the session on behalf of the co-chairs ... see: the [0-Chair]

slides

[09:37] anonymous morphed into hevok

[09:40] anonymous1 morphed into Lamar Henderson

[09:41] anonymous morphed into JeffersonBraswell

[09:43] List of members: Amanda Vizedom, Anatoly Levenchuk, AndreyBayda, Barry Smith, Bob Smith,

Bobbin Teegarden, Carmen Chui, Chris Partridge, Dalia Varanka, Dmitry Borisoglebsky, Doug Foxvog,

Fabian Neuhaus, Fran Lightsom, Hans Polzer, hevok, Joanne Luciano, JoaoPauloAlmeida, JeffersonBraswell,

Joe, Joel Bender, John Bilmanis, marcelaVegetti, MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa, Matthew West, Megan Katsumi,

Michael Grüninger, Michael Riben, Mike Bennett, Mike Dean, Mike Denny, Nikolay Borgest, Peter P. Yim,

Richard Martin, Robert Rovetto, Rob Hausam, Scott Hills, Steve Ray, Terry Longstreth, Till Mossakowski,

Todd Schneider, Torsten Hahmann, Trish Whetzel, Victor Agroskin, vnc2

[09:41] Peter P. Yim: == Barry Smith presenting ... see: the [1-Smith] slides

[09:41] anonymous morphed into Trish Whetzel

[09:46] Leo Obrst: Hi, folks, running late.

[09:46] anonymous morphed into Dmitry

[09:46] Bob Schloss: Barry Smith - for the future, your slide 4 meant to say XML but says XLM :-)

[09:57] Peter P. Yim: @BobSchloss, @BarrySmith - I've updated the slides (and it says "XML" on Barry's

slide#4 now) ... Thank you, Bob, for the prompt.

[09:49] Matthew West: [ref. BarrySmith's presentation showing multiple hits of obesity when that term

is searched in BioPortal] Whose definition of obesity should everyone else use?

[09:56] Hans Polzer: Another way to constrain ontology for purposes of integration is to be explicit

about the specific ontology being used by the participating entities

[09:58] Hans Polzer: I would suggest that explicitness is often better than "realism". Explicitness

entails being explicit about the levels of realism in Barry's presentation

[10:03] Barry Smith: Hans Polzer writes "Another way to constrain ontology for purposes of integration

is to be explicit about the specific ontology being used by the participating entities" -- this

would indeed have some positive effect, but it is not clear how it would serve to constrain; on the

contrary, it seems that it might well encourage further proliferation

[09:57] Amanda Vizedom: Assume for the moment that we could somehow enforce such uniform terminology,

despite the long history of failed attempts to do so. How, then, do you address the real cognitive

performance issues of forcing users (human reasoners, information consumers) into vocabulary and

information processes not native to their expert fields, not adapting and growing with local

dynamics? Cognitive Science says this will harm their performance, especially in high-stakes,

high-uncertainty, time-sensitive fields. How do you suggest mitigating this harm, and why is this

terminology-focus worth it?

[10:03] Barry Smith: Amanda Vizedom asks how the realist would address the real cognitive performance

issues of forcing users (human reasoners, information consumers) into vocabulary and information

processes not native to their expert fields not adapting and growing with local dynamics? Cognitive

Science says this will harm their performance, especially in high-stakes, high-uncertainty,

time-sensitive fields. How do you suggest mitigating this harm, and why is this terminology-focus

worth it?

[10:05] Barry Smith: Amanda Vizedom asks how the realist would address the real cognitive performance

issues of forcing users (human reasoners, information consumers) into vocabulary and information

processes not native to their expert fields not adapting and growing with local dynamics? The answer

is that, from the realist perspective, a small fraction of people in any given field would be

involved in ontology development, and they would understand the need to use a common vocabulary. Not

every disciplinary subdialect needs to be represented in the ontology; that way chaos lies

[09:58] JoaoPauloAlmeida: What about if you want to describe social reality?

[09:59] JoaoPauloAlmeida: Not part of science text book

[10:01] Mike Bennett: @JoaoPauloAlmeida what about John Searle's ontology of social constructs? A

text book.

[10:04] JoaoPauloAlmeida: @MikeBennett All BFO usage examples are from biology, chemistry, ... I was

wondering whether Barry thinks it can be applied to social domains.

[10:01] JoaoPauloAlmeida: Will that not require a revision of BFO to include "doctrine", ... norms,

agents, etc.?

[10:06] Barry Smith: JoaoPauloAlmeida asks whether BFO usage can be applied to social domains. We are

working on this. See e.g. http://militaryontology.org

[10:06] JoaoPauloAlmeida: Thanks

[10:02] Hans Polzer: social reality is grounded in near term or current social opinion within a

scoped population. Be explicit about the scope of that population and you can obtain social reality

by polling that population subset.

[09:59] Hans Polzer: Appeals to authority or standardization to promote integration have limited

scalability in scope.

[10:00] Peter P. Yim: @Barry - is there a plan/timeline to get all ontologies in the OBO Foundry to be

BFO "compliant" (if they aren't already)?

[10:01] Todd Schneider: Have to go.

[10:01] Amanda Vizedom: @BarrySmith: You slide between talk of "common ontology" and talk of

controlled terminology. Why? Why not map multiple terminologies (including multilingual) to common

ontology and use localization and user modeling techniques?

[10:03] Doug Foxvog: @Amanda: +1

[09:58] Peter P. Yim: == Chris Partridge presenting ... see: the [2-Partridge] slides

[10:02] anonymous1 morphed into Lowell Vizenor

[10:04] Hans Polzer: Re Chris's talk, a look at the NCOIC SCOPE model might be of interest regarding

the relationship between different scales of projects/systems/enterprises and architecture.

[10:06] JoaoPauloAlmeida: There is a more general definition of architecture that is used by IEEE

(1471-2000): The fundamental organization of a system, embodied in its components, their

relationships to each other and the environment, and the principles governing its design and

evolution.

[10:06] Mike Bennett: @JoaoPauloAlmeida good question. In FIBO we make reference to JohnSowa's KR

Lattice which has similar upper ontology partitions, and have added Social Constructs, but I almost

wonder if they should be a partition in their own right.

[10:07] Peter P. Yim: @Joe, @hevok, @Dmitry, @anonymous - kindly morph into your real name (click on the

settings button at the top center of the window to do so) so we all know who's here and properly

attribute contributions ... thanks.

[10:07] Hans Polzer: Shared understanding and "common" ontology raise the issue of what that

understanding is shared across and what the ontology is common to. Commonality and sharing imply a

scope across which things are shared or common. We need a way to define and share that scope among

the participants that are sharing or using a common artifact.

[10:08] GaryBergCross: Generative Entrenchment sounds similar to ideas around contingency.

[10:10] Hans Polzer: Managing a project isn't just about managing interdependence of the parts -

although very important, but also managing the relationship of the project/enterprise with the

larger ecosystem. Often this latter aspect is assumed and assumed to be static - which it rarely

really is!

[10:14] Hans Polzer: I would add to the Pierce quote that people also have a context assumption and

an assumption concerning the scope of that context.

[10:15] Hans Polzer: This is the source of silos, by the way

[10:18] Hans Polzer: It would be helpful if people on projects were asked to explicitly identify

adjacent domains and interacting external projects/systems/enterprises/contexts that their

creation will need to interact with. In other words, explicitly consider the ecosystem within which

they operate

[10:21] Barry Smith: To HansPolzer's remark -- that people identify neighboring domains and build

ontologies in such a way as to be consistent with neighboring ontologies -- this is one of the

principles of the OBO Foundry: http://obofoundry.org

[10:21] Mike Bennett: @Hans good point. A related point is to what extent you define abstractions in

a given domain ontology, such that terms in an adjacent subject matter may be specializations of

those same abstractions. This makes no sense in the application domain but helps with common

meaning.

[10:26] Chris Partridge: @HansPolzer - Yes I agree that one needs to look at the larger ecosystem.

However, I think you need to differentiate between the ontology as artefact and its ecosystem - and

the ontology as the 'reality' being described and its ecosystem. They are usually different,

sometimes very different.

[10:28] Hans Polzer: Chris, agree that these are best managed separately - but linked

[10:31] Hans Polzer: Chris, this is also similar to the "different path" effect you referenced in

your talk. If you look more explicitly at the ecosystem and its dynamic trajectory you may end up

with a different solution than if you just look at the problem that the ontology is addressing with

only implicit context assumptions.

[10:29] JaguaraciSilva: how can we define the difference among artifacts and ontologies if the

proper ontology can be an artefact within a ecosystem?

[10:35] Hans Polzer: Jaguariaci, ontologies are both artifacts and used to describe/represent

artifacts. We don't have an ontology of ecosystems and their scope, but we should. Then you could

specify the scope of the ontology and the ecosystem assumptions of that ontology. The NCOIC SCOPE

model is not an ontology, but it is an effort to provide a descriptive framework for characterizing

scope of an artifact/institution/system/ecosystem

[10:38] JaguaraciSilva: @Hans, thanks!. it means a "architecture view" in an well defined context.

[10:16] anonymous1 morphed into DeborahMacPherson

[10:17] anonymous1 morphed into JaguaraciSilva

[10:20] Michael Grüninger: @ChrisPartridge: Can you identify an upper ontology for each of the

choices on slide 11? Additionally, have you evaluated existing upper ontologies with respect to the

meta-ontological choices?

[10:31] Chris Partridge: @MichaelGruninger Hi Mike. I'm not sure one can have an ontology component

for each of the choices, as they are tightly coupled. One can take a top ontology and classify which

of the choices it has made - and see the outcome. My focus has been on the choices that have been

made in the top ontologies I have worked on - and the results of the choices. However, I have

commented on SUMO, DOLCE and BFO as I have been exposed to them. My proposal is that the developers

of top ontologies should classify them - if not by the choices I propose then by some of their own

making - and provide arguments for their choices.

[10:46] Robert Rovetto: @ChrisPartridge When you say "top ontologies should classify them", what is

them referring to? The choices made?

[10:52] Matthew West: @RobertRovetto: Yes, he means classify them by the ontological commitments made

as e.g. listed on one of his slides.

[10:24] Peter P. Yim: == Anatoly Levenchuk presenting ... see: the [3-Levenchuk] slides

[10:28] DaliaVaranka1 morphed into Dalia Varanka

[10:37] anonymous1 morphed into Simon Spero

[10:39] Amanda Vizedom: @AnatolyLevenchuk: Can you explain what you mean by "same domain" (on your

slide 11)?

[11:00] Anatoly Levenchuk: @AmandaVizedom: when we engineer formal symbolic system as artifact that

represent something in real world, it is the same activity. Especially if you compare declarative

programming with programming, modeling with programming (Simula 68 is a memory about times when

programming and modeling was the same), ontologizing and data modeling, etc., you see multiple

generalities in essence of this activities but completely different terminology, conferences and

even theory. Now it slowly converges (e.g. Domain-Driven Design in programming is close to

ontologising, Model-Driven Programming is part of software engineering now, etc.).

[11:31] Amanda Vizedom: @Anatoly, thanks for your answer.

[10:41] Hans Polzer: Ref Anatoly's talk, the programming, ontology, and modeling are not the same

domain. They are overlapping domains that share many scope dimensions, but differ from each other in

specific other scope dimensions (like what they model/represent). It helps to be specific/explicit

about along what dimensions they differ so that we can better identify their commonality and the

process elements that are appropriate to them and which process elements need to differ and how.

[10:55] JaguaraciSilva: by conceptual modeling the view programming, ontology and modeling aren't in

the same domain, but if there's another need what characterizes a [system architecture by example]

it can result on unique view, what depends on such concerns.

[11:06] Anatoly Levenchuk: @HansPolzer: if you want to see differences, you definitely will find

them. I want to see commonality to heavy reuse achievements of this professional silos, then I find

that all these domain not so distinct in essence of their intent: to engineer an executable

(interpretable) formal systems that reflect real world systems.

[11:09] Hans Polzer: Anatoly, my point is that if you want commonality, that commonality has to deal

with the differences across which you want commonality. Trying to force fit commonality in places

where there are essential differences (as seen by the domain stakeholders and their purposes)

results in empty standards, i.e., ones that aren't followed.

[11:15] Anatoly Levenchuk: @Hans: if I tell that tigers and lions are mammals, that is not I will

miss striped skin of a tiger and attribute it to lion. But I will feed them with milk early in their

life cycle and with meat later. This is my approach for programming, ontologizing, modeling.

[11:21] Hans Polzer: Anatoly - I understand what you were trying to communicate - I was just pointing

out that we have different names for these domains for a reason. In many contexts, these domains may

well be indistinguishable - but be sure that they are when you are applying a process or ontology

standard to them in that context.

[11:04] JaguaraciSilva: @AnatolyLevenchuk do you know some studies with domain-driven design? I've

used MDA (Model Driven Architecture) approaches on last years.

[11:10] Anatoly Levenchuk: @Jaguaraci: 30 years ago we discuss domain-driven design as "if you not

knowing what exactly should do your system, better use bottom up process and build library that

reflect your project". Now this is DDD (Domain-Driven Design). Yes, I regularly read about DDD and

actively use it. MDA is about different thing (but you can use both).

[10:48] Peter P. Yim: == Mike Bennett presenting ... see: the [4-Bennett] slides

[10:52] anonymous1 morphed into Simon Spero

[10:58] Hans Polzer: Ref Mike's talk: good point on no right answer for genius versus methodology

balance. That's where context and scope come in

[11:00] Amanda Vizedom: @MikeBennett: Genius-Methodology Balance is an interesting suggestion. I

wonder, though, whether there is some choice as to whether this is treated as zero or positive sum.

As I think over the places I've worked, those couple that had the highest concentration of really

brilliant people *also* paid the most attention to methodology and related areas such as training

and testing. This did, however, require additional investment in really brilliant people to lead and

coordinate those latter activities!

[11:03] anonymous1 morphed into MaksK

[11:04] Peter P. Yim: @MaksK - would you be kind enough to morph into your real name, please

[11:08] Amanda Vizedom: @MikeBennett: regarding "the Bonus" (your slide 12): Another, potentially

major bonus is "implementability" of the standard itself -- that is, the usability of the standard

in compliance monitoring. Have you seen work in this direction with FIBO?

[11:11] Simon Spero: @MikeBennett: A lot of common things that you have to use restriction classes

for are easily expressed using things like controlled natural language. e.g. Everything that a

carnivore eats is an animal.

[11:13] Terry Longstreth: @Simon: And CNL (controlled natural language) can express ambiguity (where

resolving ambiguity is an implementation detail); e.g. Almost Everything that a carnivore eats is an animal.

[11:14] Simon Spero: @TerryLongstreth: Most is a nasty nasty quantifier :-)

[11:11] Doug Foxvog: @MikeBennett: A requirement for a *LANGUAGE* to be DL-safe seems to be

self-defeating. Businesses regularly use programming languages (!) none of which are DL-safe. The

issue always is *HOW* the language is used. Restricting the power of the language is not, imho, an

appropriate answer.

[11:13] Simon Spero: @MikeBennett: I usually have to check with Attempto to see what it was I just said.

[11:15] Hans Polzer: @MikeBennett, ref slide 15 - need to be explicit about scope/context of the

business domain at issue, as well as any other domains the selected domain needs to interact with

and to what extent it needs to do so

[11:18] Peter P. Yim: == Q&A and Open Discussion ...

[11:18] Amanda Vizedom: Question for All Panelists: As you understand & practice it, what role(s)

does ontology evaluation play in development methodology.

[11:20] Amanda Vizedom: (and, to the extent that there are multiple answers, what types of evaluation

play those roles)?

[11:21] Joanne Luciano: And adding to Amanda's question, I am wondering what thoughts have been given

to incremental development and modularization of ontology development and evaluation

[11:23] Leo Obrst: @Joanne: yes, modularity issues are very important! Enables relatively

independent, parallel ontology development.

[11:30] Joanne Luciano: @LeoObrst --that's the idea...

[11:30] Mike Bennett: Modularity has been an important consideration in the development of FIBO.

Partly this is so that one can take a specific sub-set of those ontologies, either as application-ready

ontologies (ambitious!) or as the basis from which to then derive the operational ontology.

[11:32] Joanne Luciano: @MikeBennett -- good.

[11:32] Chris Partridge: @Leo - I have concerns about this idea. On the one hand it is good, but on

the other hand complex (i.e. functionally rich) systems are normally tightly coupled. I have a

feeling that this desire for modularity could be a kind of self-hard - deliberately dumbing down the system.

[11:34] Leo Obrst: @Chris: yes, there are serious issues. You must do an analysis (top-down)

initially to characterize the modules and their dependencies.

[11:35] Leo Obrst: @Chris: more later on this topic!

[11:34] Joanne Luciano: We haven't talked much about the relationship of OWL and RDF...

[11:34] Joanne Luciano: and multiple ontologies over the same domain

[11:34] Joanne Luciano: (another time!)

[11:23] Simon Spero: Further to AmandaVizedom's question: in agile methods, continuous tests are

generally considered critical (Unit -> Integration -> Behavior).

[11:23] Simon Spero: Can there be Onto-Unit (without Application)

[11:25] Hans Polzer: Continuous evaluation throughout development might be practical for evaluating

attributes that can be analyzed via automated methods, but unlikely to be practical if it requires

lots of human stakeholders and expertise and time. A more phased approach is probably more pragmatic

in most contexts, with maybe some intrinsic attributes evaluated more frequently during the

development process

[11:28] JaguaraciSilva: @Hans: continuous evaluation can using a continuous integration environment

such as Hudson, TFS, etc..

[11:29] Hans Polzer: @Jaguaraci: Yes

[11:26] Steve Ray: [ref. ChrisPartridge's verbal remarks about "mentoring is more important" -

citing: "give people some food and they will be starving tomorrow; give them a line and a hook, and

they will be able to eat for the rest of their lives"] That was Lord Kelvin who said that.

[11:27] Chris Partridge: @Steve - Yup, thanks. I've had a long day.

[11:28] Amanda Vizedom: [ref. verbal remarks] Thanks for your answers, @Chris and @Mike!

[11:30] Matthew West: @Barry - *7 to unmute

[11:30] Chris Partridge: @Barry - is there a BarrySmith2 - if so, is this a good thing?

[11:31] Peter P. Yim: @Matthew & Fabian - Barry *is* on the voice line now [... BarrySmith's verbal

remarks followed.]

[11:34] Peter P. Yim: great session!

[11:34] Leo Obrst: Thanks, all!

[11:34] Peter P. Yim: join us again, same time next week, for Ontology Summit 2013 session-05: "Software

Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - I " - Co-chairs: Michael Denny (MITRE) & Peter P. Yim (Ontolog;

CIM3) - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_02_14

[11:35] Peter P. Yim: -- session ended: 11:34 am PST --

-- end of in-session chat-transcript --

  • Further Question & Remarks - please post them to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv
    • all subscribers to the previous summit discussion, and all who responded to today's call will automatically be subscribed to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv
    • if you are already subscribed, post to <ontology-summit [at] ontolog.cim3.net>
    • (if you are not yet subscribed) you may subscribe yourself to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv, by sending a blank email to <ontology-summit-join [at] ontolog.cim3.net> from your subscribing email address, and then follow the instructions you receive back from the mailing list system.
    • (in case you aren't already a member) you may also want to join the ONTOLOG community and be subscribed to the [ ontolog-forum ] listserv, when general ontology-related topics (not specific to this year's Summit theme) are discussed. Please refer to Ontolog membership details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
      • kindly email <peter.yim@cim3.com> if you have any question.

Additional Resources

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Thursday, 07-Feb-2013
  • Start Time: 9:30am PST / 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm CET / 17:30 GMT/UTC
  • Expected Call Duration: ~2.0 hours
  • Dial-in:
    • Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... (long distance cost may apply)
      • ... [ backup nbr: (415) 671-4335 ]
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
    • Skype: joinconference (i.e. make a skype call to the contact with skypeID="joinconference") ... (generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer)
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
      • Unfamiliar with how to do this on Skype? ...
        • Add the contact "joinconference" to your skype contact list first. To participate in the teleconference, make a skype call to "joinconference", then open the dial pad (see platform-specific instructions below) and enter the Conference ID: 141184# when prompted.
      • Can't find Skype Dial pad? ...
        • for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
        • for Linux Skype users: please note that the dial-pad is only available on v4.1 (or later; or on the earlier Skype versions 2.x,) if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. ... (ref.)
  • Shared-screen support (VNC session), if applicable, will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/
    • view-only password: "ontolog"
    • if you plan to be logging into this shared-screen option (which the speaker may be navigating), and you are not familiar with the process, please try to call in 5 minutes before the start of the session so that we can work out the connection logistics. Help on this will generally not be available once the presentation starts.
    • people behind corporate firewalls may have difficulty accessing this. If that is the case, please download the slides above (where applicable) and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.
  • In-session chat-room url: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/summit_20130207
    • instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field from "anonymous" to your real name, like "JaneDoe").
    • You can indicate that you want to ask a question verbally by clicking on the "hand" button, and wait for the moderator to call on you; or, type and send your question into the chat window at the bottom of the screen.
    • thanks to the soaphub.org folks, one can now use a jabber/xmpp client (e.g. gtalk) to join this chatroom. Just add the room as a buddy - (in our case here) summit_20130207@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!
  • Discussions and Q & A:
    • Nominally, when a presentation is in progress, the moderator will mute everyone, except for the speaker.
    • To un-mute, press "*7" ... To mute, press "*6" (please mute your phone, especially if you are in a noisy surrounding, or if you are introducing noise, echoes, etc. into the conference line.)
    • we will usually save all questions and discussions till after all presentations are through. You are encouraged to jot down questions onto the chat-area in the mean time (that way, they get documented; and you might even get some answers in the interim, through the chat.)
    • During the Q&A / discussion segment (when everyone is muted), If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please raise your hand (virtually) by clicking on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the session moderator (again, press "*7" on your phone to un-mute). Test your voice and introduce yourself first before proceeding with your remarks, please. (Please remember to click on the "hand button" again (to lower your hand) and press "*6" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)
  • RSVP to peter.yim@cim3.com with your affiliation appreciated, ... or simply just by adding yourself to the "Expected Attendee" list below (if you are a member of the community already.)
  • Please note that this session may be recorded, and if so, the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content, along with the proceedings of the call to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.

Attendees

  • Expecting:
    • ...
    • please add yourself to the list if you are a member of the Ontolog or Ontology Summit community, or, rsvp to <peter.yim@cim3.com> with your affiliation.



Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2013_02_07&oldid=737"