From OntologPSMW

Revision as of 09:41, 27 April 2013 by PeterYim (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]
  • Topic: "Ontologizing the Ontolog Body of Knowledge - Discussion Session 1 - Framing the Issues, Requirements and Approach"     (1)


  • Date: Thursday, April 20, 2006     (5A)
  • Start Time: 10:30 AM PDT / 1:30 PM EDT / 17:30 UTC (see world clock for other time zones)     (5B)
  • Dial-in Number: +1-641-696-6600 (Iowa, USA)     (5C)
  • Shared-screen support (VNC session) will be started 5 minutes before the call at:     (5D)
    • view-only password: "ontolog"     (5D1)
    • 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.     (5D2)
    • people behind corporate firewalls may have difficulty accessing this. If that is the case, please download the slides below and runing them locally. The speaker will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.     (5D3)
  • Please note that this session will be recorded, and the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.     (5H)

Attendees     (6)

Background     (7)

This is the first event of a series of talks and discussions the revolves around the topic: "Ontologizing the Ontolog Body of Knowledge" during which this community will explore the "what's" and "how's" to the development of a semantically interoperable application, using the improved access to the content of Ontolog as a case in point.     (7A)

The series is spurred by the Ontolog Community's quest toward:     (7B)

  • (a) providing better access to the body of knowledge that the community has accumulated over the years,     (7C)
  • (b) using the opportunity to explore the landscape and the state-of-the-art for both technologies and approaches, on how this could actually be done,     (7D)
  • (c) employing the kinds of formal and informal semantic technologies and ontological engineering     (7E)

approaches that we've been 'talking about',     (7F)

  • (d) plan to develop an ontology-based application to achieve the purpose, both as a proof-of-concept, and also to provide open example of a 'working application' and 'the process' that people can look at, and     (7G)
  • (e) build up enough interest and momentum to really do it -- funded, if at all possible, but on an open/voluntary-basis, if we have to.     (7H)

Agenda & Proceedings     (8)

Topic: Ontologizing the Ontolog Body of Knowledge - Discussion Session 1 - Framing the Issues, Requirements and Approach     (9)

The Ontolog community is strategizing how to develop a baseline ontology to represent the entities, relationships and uses of content. The purpose of this ontology is to support the needs and uses of any members of the Ontolog Community. The intent is to provide a foundation upon which any member of the community could apply additional functionality or transform content into other ontology models. By content, we include the community of people, their work and expertise; all electronic archives and content created in and published via the wiki, and information that is referenced by the community members such as standards, reference models, meeting announcements and reports. We will discuss, in this session, how we should frame the issues, establish our requirements and to go about approaching this task of 'ontologizing' the Ontolog content.     (9B)
  • Pertinent Issues we might explore during this session:     (9C)
    • Some 'framing questions': (--DeniseBedford / 2006.04.17-06:57 EDT)     (9C1)
      • What content from Ontolog should be ontologized? (content defined broadly - people, groups, email messages, conference call agendas, conference call transcripts/recordings, presentations, discussion threads, etc.)     (9C1A)
      • What content from outside Ontolog should be ontologized? (content referenced but not created by the group...?, standards, conferences, research & development, other communities)     (9C1B)
      • At what level do we want to apply the ontology to the content?     (9C1C)
      • Can we define a set of roles or user types of the Ontolog content - from within Ontolog and external to Ontolog?     (9C1D)
      • Can we define a handful of scenarios to use to test the ontology development as we move forward?     (9C1E)
      • How will the ontology be used on a practical level?     (9C1F)
      • What applications will consume it?     (9C1G)
        • Will we use it in internal architecture/applications only?     (9C1G1)
        • Will we surface portions of it for consumption by external applications?     (9C1G2)
      • What kind of an underlying functional architecture do we need?     (9C1H)
        • What kinds of applications and technologies will support this functional architecture?     (9C1H1)
  • Session Format: this is be a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call     (9D)
    • 1. we'll go around with a self-introduction of participants (10~15 minutes)     (9D1)
    • 2. Introduction of Panelists (Moderator)     (9D2)
    • 3. Opening by the Moderator (5 min.)     (9D3)
    • 4. 5-minute brief by each panelist on their perspective     (9D4)
    • 5. follow each panelist's presentation with a 3 minute Q&A and discussion on that particular perspective     (9D5)
    • 6. open general discussion by all participants     (9D6)
    • 7. Summary / Conclusion / Follow-up (Moderator)     (9D7)

Questions, Answers & Discourse:     (9F)

  • ... More Questions     (9F2)
    • from the 2006.04.03 session - Dr. Bedford, on slide 13 you emphasize maintaining the distinction between 'concepts' and 'instances.' This is a frequently recurring theme in the literature on the development of ontologies, perhaps because it is one of those guidelines that seems simple enough in theory but is very difficult in practice. Do you have specific lessons to pass along on how this distinction can be maintained consistently, homogeneously, and appropriately throughout the development lifecycle of an ontology? (Kevin S. Lynch) (I may not be able to attend the session, but will listen for your answer on the audio version )        (9F2A)

call, but one key concern I have about this project is: what specifically can we add that cannot be or is not being provided currently by existing tools? And supplemental to that: what can we provide/promote that will serve as a demonstrator of our own belief of the importance of ontology in contrast to the full-text search paradigm? In other words: Should we be eating our own dog food?     (9F12)

general context. Lisa did a good job of grasping the general audience of users without losing the fundamental connection among the users--increasing understanding of the value of ontology. She also touched on tools briefly. Bob laid out a process of arriving at an appropriate set of tools using an identification of where in Leo Obrst's spectrum of semantic tools and concepts from lesser to greater expressivity we want to be. He also provided a ballpark for the amount of work likely to be needed. Patrick laid out a process for arriving at an appropriate value proposition--what's in it for the users. I wanted to build a summary as we go along because, I, too, will have to drop off the call. But the point I wanted to bring up the idea that we might want to choose to select a narrower audience rather than a broader audience for the sake of providing a more clear benefit to our users. I wonder what our panelists think about that idea--narrowing the audience to provide a more clear message of the benefit.     (9F14)

that we might end up with a self-referential control group: we are hardly the most representative cross-section of users! But equally, that approach would provide a clear impetus to provide us with additional tools for *our* work: if that is for a wider, later, benefit and audience, so much the better. As long as we try to keep an eye on the longer-term goals, I'd be for a narrower initial focus     (9F16)

accommodated (i.e. narrowing or not). If we come up with (a taxonomy) of roles and what they desire. Then we can concentrate on roles     (9F18)

"context" - I would agree that this seems to be the best starting point     (9F20)

might not be able to answer. The role would be that of a researcher (such as myself) working on ontologies:     (9F22)

of focus. And it is valuable in and of itself. I also think what Pat just said makes sense. But, I would, since that's the question of scope or focus, again. As a user, one of the benefits I would love to have is just a common sense explanation of what each of the major Upper Ontologies is best for?     (9F24)

  • For those who have further questions and discussion on this topic, please post them to the ontolog forum so that we can all benefit from the discourse.     (9F25)

Session Recording of this Panel Discussion     (10)

(Thanks to BobSmith and PeterYim for their help with getting the session recorded. =ppy)     (10A)

    • the playback of the audio files require the proper setup, and an MP3 compatible player on your computer.     (10B1)
  • Conference Date and Time: April 20, 2006 10:39am~12:23pm Pacific Daylight Time     (10C)
  • Duration of Recording: 1 Hour 43 Minutes     (10D)
  • Recording File Size: 24.3 MB (in mp3 format)     (10E)
  • Telephone Playback Expiration Date: April 30, 2006 12:41 PM PDT     (10F)
    • Prior to the above Expiration Date, one can call-in and hear the telephone playback of the session.     (10F1)
    • Playback Dial-in Number: 1-805-620-4002 (Ventura, CA)     (10F2)
    • Playback Access Code: 183529#     (10F3)
    • suggestion: best that you listen to the session while having the above material opened in front of you. You'll be prompted to advance slides by the speaker.     (10F4)