From OntologPSMW

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - "[ ]LeoObrst[ ]" to " Leo Obrst ")
(Fix PurpleMediaWiki references)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
= OntologySummit2009 Planning Session - Thu 2008-12-18  =
+
= [[OntologySummit2009]] Planning Session - Thu 2008-12-18  =
  
 
* Subject: '''Ontologies as the Next Generation of Information Standards'''  
 
* Subject: '''Ontologies as the Next Generation of Information Standards'''  
* Co-chair: SteveRay & [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]  
+
* Co-chair: [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]] & [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]  
 
* Agenda: This is a communitywide brainstorming and planning session for OntologySummit2009.  
 
* Agenda: This is a communitywide brainstorming and planning session for OntologySummit2009.  
  
Line 51: Line 51:
  
 
* Attended:  
 
* Attended:  
** SteveRay (chair)  
+
** [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]] (chair)  
 
** [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] (co-chair)  
 
** [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] (co-chair)  
 
** [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]  
 
** [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]  
** KurtConrad  
+
** [[KurtConrad|Kurt Conrad]]
** RobinBenjamins  
+
** [[RobinBenjamins|Robin Benjamins]]
** LaurentLiscia  
+
** [[LaurentLiscia|Laurent Liscia]]
 
** [[BillMcCarthy]]  
 
** [[BillMcCarthy]]  
** TrishWhetzel  
+
** [[TrishWhetzel|Trish Whetzel]]
** NilsSandsmark  
+
** [[NilsSandsmark|Nils Sandsmark]]
** DavidPrice  
+
** [[DavidPrice|David Price]]
** FabianNeuhaus  
+
** [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]
** PeterBenson  
+
** [[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]
** RexBrooks  
+
** [[RexBrooks|Rex Brooks]]
** DavidLeal  
+
** [[DavidLeal|David Leal]]
 
** [[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]]  
 
** [[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]]  
** DougHolmes  
+
** [[DougHolmes|Doug Holmes]]
** MikeBennett  
+
** [[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]
** NancyWiegand  
+
** [[NancyWiegand|Nancy Wiegand]]
** MatthewWest  
+
** [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]
** RaviSharma  
+
** [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]
  
 
* Expecting:  
 
* Expecting:  
 
** Simon Frechette (NIST)  
 
** Simon Frechette (NIST)  
** BarrySmith  
+
** [[BarrySmith|Barry Smith]]
 
** [[GaryBergCross]] (will join late)  
 
** [[GaryBergCross]] (will join late)  
** AsmaMinyaoui  
+
** [[AsmaMinyaoui|Asma Minyaoui]]
** HensonGraves  
+
** [[HensonGraves|Henson Graves]]
** JamieClark  
+
** [[JamieClark]]
 
*   
 
*   
 
** ''(please add yourself to the list if you are a [[WikiHomePage|member]] or rsvp to <peter.yim@cim3.com> with your name and affiliation.)''  
 
** ''(please add yourself to the list if you are a [[WikiHomePage|member]] or rsvp to <peter.yim@cim3.com> with your name and affiliation.)''  
  
 
* Regrets:  
 
* Regrets:  
** ElisaKendall  
+
** [[ElisaKendall|Elisa Kendall]]
** MikeDean  
+
** [[MikeDean|Mike Dean]]
** EvanWallace  
+
** [[EvanWallace|Evan Wallace]]
** MarkMusen
+
** Mark Musen
** PeterBrown  
+
** [[PeterBrown|Peter Brown]]
** AlanRuttenberg  
+
** [[AlanRuttenberg|Alan Ruttenberg]]
** PatHayes  
+
** [[PatHayes|Pat Hayes]]
** NicolaGuarino
+
** Nicola Guarino
  
 
=== Agenda Ideas  ===
 
=== Agenda Ideas  ===
Line 102: Line 102:
 
1. Meeting called to order:  
 
1. Meeting called to order:  
  
* SteveRay & [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] took the chair and welcomed everyone  
+
* [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]] & [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] took the chair and welcomed everyone  
  
 
* [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] volunteered to take minutes of the meeting  
 
* [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] volunteered to take minutes of the meeting  
Line 157: Line 157:
 
''Edited to provide better flow of the conversation only.''  
 
''Edited to provide better flow of the conversation only.''  
  
PeterYim: Welcome to: OntologySummit2009 Planning Session - Thu 2008-12-18  
+
[[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: Welcome to: [[OntologySummit2009]] Planning Session - Thu 2008-12-18  
  
RexBrooks: One partition that I think would be helpful is a survey of existing ontological  
+
[[RexBrooks|Rex Brooks]]: One partition that I think would be helpful is a survey of existing ontological  
  
 
representations of standards.  
 
representations of standards.  
  
MikeBennett: Do you mean industry messaging / data standards like XBRL?  
+
[[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: Do you mean industry messaging / data standards like XBRL?  
  
RexBrooks: Hi Mike. Yes.  
+
[[RexBrooks|Rex Brooks]]: Hi Mike. Yes.  
  
RexBrooks: XBRL is especially pertinent.  
+
[[RexBrooks|Rex Brooks]]: XBRL is especially pertinent.  
  
RexBrooks: The OASIS Semantic Execution Environment Technical Committee (SEE TC) released a  
+
[[RexBrooks|Rex Brooks]]: The OASIS Semantic Execution Environment Technical Committee (SEE TC) released a  
  
 
Pubic Review draft of its Reference Ontology for Service Oriented Architecture  
 
Pubic Review draft of its Reference Ontology for Service Oriented Architecture  
Line 175: Line 175:
 
recently. see: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200812/msg00001.html  
 
recently. see: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200812/msg00001.html  
  
MikeBennett: An interesting challenge - many of the ones in my industry (financial) were developed  
+
[[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: An interesting challenge - many of the ones in my industry (financial) were developed  
  
 
without defining a technology neutral business view of what they were trying to represent.  
 
without defining a technology neutral business view of what they were trying to represent.  
  
RexBrooks: Exactly.  
+
[[RexBrooks|Rex Brooks]]: Exactly.  
  
PeterBenson: If we are looking at standards we must be looking at conformance clauses and criteria  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: If we are looking at standards we must be looking at conformance clauses and criteria  
  
RexBrooks: Indeed. Those may also vary with the representation, e.g. OWL, OWL-S. WSML etc.  
+
[[RexBrooks|Rex Brooks]]: Indeed. Those may also vary with the representation, e.g. OWL, OWL-S. WSML etc.  
  
PeterBenson: starting with defining what is and is not an ontology would be useful  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: starting with defining what is and is not an ontology would be useful  
  
DougHolmes: Peter, a previous Ontology Summit has addressed the question you raised on "what is an ontology?";
+
[[DougHolmes|Doug Holmes]]: Peter, a previous Ontology Summit has addressed the question you raised on "what is an ontology?";
  
 
the communique is at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Communique  
 
the communique is at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Communique  
  
PeterBenson: Thanks Doug, I took a look but could not find a definition.  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: Thanks Doug, I took a look but could not find a definition.  
  
PeterBenson: As in a definition we could add to an ISO standard  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: As in a definition we could add to an ISO standard  
  
DougHolmes: We more or less came to the same conclusion.  
+
[[DougHolmes|Doug Holmes]]: We more or less came to the same conclusion.  
  
MikeBennett: Indeed te communique says "The goal of the Ontology Summit is not to establish  
+
[[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: Indeed te communique says "The goal of the Ontology Summit is not to establish  
  
 
a definitive definition of the word "ontology", which has proved extremely  
 
a definitive definition of the word "ontology", which has proved extremely  
Line 203: Line 203:
 
challenging due to the diversity of artifacts it can refer to"  
 
challenging due to the diversity of artifacts it can refer to"  
  
PeterBenson: hmm.. if we can not define it do we know what we are talking about?  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: hmm.. if we can not define it do we know what we are talking about?  
  
PeterYim: '''Q1: who else should get involved?'''  
+
[[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: '''Q1: who else should get involved?'''  
  
PeterBenson: NATO AC/135  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: NATO AC/135  
  
MikeBennett: UN/CEFACT  
+
[[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: UN/CEFACT  
  
PeterYim: [[BillMcCarthy]] is already on our organizing committee and will be our liaison to UN/CEFACT  
+
[[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: [[BillMcCarthy]] is already on our organizing committee and will be our liaison to UN/CEFACT  
  
PeterBenson: The chair of AC/135 is George Bond he is on our board - so yes I will be glad to contact him  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: The chair of AC/135 is George Bond he is on our board - so yes I will be glad to contact him  
  
RexBrooks: We already have NCOR, but it would be good to have both BarrySmith and MarkMusen.  
+
[[RexBrooks|Rex Brooks]]: We already have NCOR, but it would be good to have both [[BarrySmith|Barry Smith]] and MarkMusen.  
  
PeterYim: Yes, we do have both of them (BarrySmith and MarkMusen) on the organizing committee already.  
+
[[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: Yes, we do have both of them (BarrySmith and MarkMusen) on the organizing committee already.  
  
DougHolmes: It seems to me that it would be good to have at least some representative  
+
[[DougHolmes|Doug Holmes]]: It seems to me that it would be good to have at least some representative  
  
 
of the GIS community [e.g. GML]  
 
of the GIS community [e.g. GML]  
  
PeterBenson: If you are looking for UN/CEFACT then you may want to ask TC 154  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: If you are looking for UN/CEFACT then you may want to ask TC 154  
  
 
[[BillMcCarthy]]: I can talk to my co-convenor for the accounting interoperability summit Roger Debreceny  
 
[[BillMcCarthy]]: I can talk to my co-convenor for the accounting interoperability summit Roger Debreceny  
Line 229: Line 229:
 
with the purpose of including XBRL  
 
with the purpose of including XBRL  
  
MikeBennett: EDM Council of course  
+
[[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: EDM Council of course  
  
PeterBenson: TC 37 would be a natural as they deal with terminology  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: TC 37 would be a natural as they deal with terminology  
  
DougHolmes: In the spirit of brainstorming, there are also some de-facto standards, such as  
+
[[DougHolmes|Doug Holmes]]: In the spirit of brainstorming, there are also some de-facto standards, such as  
  
 
Dublin Core and FOAF that seem to be "ontological"  
 
Dublin Core and FOAF that seem to be "ontological"  
  
TrishWhetzel: SKOS is another  
+
[[TrishWhetzel|Trish Whetzel]]: SKOS is another  
  
PeterYim: EdDodds suggested XBRL and UDEF too  
+
[[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: [[EdDodds|Ed Dodds]] suggested XBRL and UDEF too  
  
MikeBennett: SUMO - IEEE  
+
[[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: SUMO - IEEE  
  
DougHolmes: And, a number of architecture standards [e.g. FEAF, DODAF, etc.]  
+
[[DougHolmes|Doug Holmes]]: And, a number of architecture standards [e.g. FEAF, DODAF, etc.]  
  
TrishWhetzel: Will the ISO groups by default bring in the grid folks, ie caGrid?  
+
[[TrishWhetzel|Trish Whetzel]]: Will the ISO groups by default bring in the grid folks, ie caGrid?  
  
KenBaclawski: As I mentioned in my introduction, I have been working with the CEA-2018 standard.  
+
[[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]]: As I mentioned in my introduction, I have been working with the CEA-2018 standard.  
  
 
The standard is a general task planning standard which could have applications in  
 
The standard is a general task planning standard which could have applications in  
Line 255: Line 255:
 
standards committee is Chuck Rich at WPI, and I will try to get him to participate.  
 
standards committee is Chuck Rich at WPI, and I will try to get him to participate.  
  
PeterYim: '''Q2: how could we partition this year's discourse? - i.e. framing the conversation'''  
+
[[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: '''Q2: how could we partition this year's discourse? - i.e. framing the conversation'''  
  
MikeBennett: Ontology development methodologies  
+
[[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: Ontology development methodologies  
  
PeterBenson: Does this mean you are keeping "information" in the title?  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: Does this mean you are keeping "information" in the title?  
  
DougHolmes: 1. What is the role of an ontology in establishing a standard?
+
[[DougHolmes|Doug Holmes]]: 1. What is the role of an ontology in establishing a standard?
  
 
2. What kind of constraints or rules [standards?] should be applied to  
 
2. What kind of constraints or rules [standards?] should be applied to  
Line 267: Line 267:
 
ontologies that are used to establish a standard?  
 
ontologies that are used to establish a standard?  
  
KurtConrad: Not clear on what you mean by "partition"  
+
[[KurtConrad|Kurt Conrad]]: Not clear on what you mean by "partition"  
  
PeterBenson: The ISO definition of "data" is the representation of information -  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: The ISO definition of "data" is the representation of information -  
  
PeterBenson: There are no "information standard" that I know of  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: There are no "information standard" that I know of  
  
MatthewWest: Standards (amongst other things) provide definitions and authoritative sources for  
+
[[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: Standards (amongst other things) provide definitions and authoritative sources for  
  
 
identification of standard objects. Ontology is a natural next step for that,  
 
identification of standard objects. Ontology is a natural next step for that,  
Line 281: Line 281:
 
Standards themselves are information.  
 
Standards themselves are information.  
  
MikeBennett: You might want to look at a breakdown of the different kind of animals that are  
+
[[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: You might want to look at a breakdown of the different kind of animals that are  
  
 
referred to as standards in different industries, for example some are message standards  
 
referred to as standards in different industries, for example some are message standards  
Line 289: Line 289:
 
Also some standards mandate business workflow and so on.  
 
Also some standards mandate business workflow and so on.  
  
KenBaclawski: A lot of standards are being expressed in XML Schema or RELAX NG.   
+
[[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]]: A lot of standards are being expressed in XML Schema or RELAX NG.   
  
 
CEA-2018 is expressed in RELAX NG.  Are these already ontologies?  
 
CEA-2018 is expressed in RELAX NG.  Are these already ontologies?  
  
PeterBenson: I agree that ontologies could be the next step in the representation of information  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: I agree that ontologies could be the next step in the representation of information  
  
 
hence my request for a definition of the term ontology as this may provide the  
 
hence my request for a definition of the term ontology as this may provide the  
Line 299: Line 299:
 
natural partition of the debate  
 
natural partition of the debate  
  
PeterYim: input from DavidPrice: what are "today's" (as opposed to "next generation") standards,  
+
[[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: input from [[DavidPrice|David Price]]: what are "today's" (as opposed to "next generation") standards,  
  
 
and which parts of it lends to ontological representation with today's technology;  
 
and which parts of it lends to ontological representation with today's technology;  
Line 305: Line 305:
 
and which parts require research to bring us to the future.  
 
and which parts require research to bring us to the future.  
  
DavidLeal: Standards that define a pipe thread or a material test method (two examples at random)  
+
[[DavidLeal|David Leal]]: Standards that define a pipe thread or a material test method (two examples at random)  
  
 
are currently expressed as text. We need to educate standardisation communities that  
 
are currently expressed as text. We need to educate standardisation communities that  
Line 311: Line 311:
 
are not involved with IT about ontologies.  
 
are not involved with IT about ontologies.  
  
RexBrooks: Earlier in the chat, I suggested: One partition that I think would be helpful is  
+
[[RexBrooks|Rex Brooks]]: Earlier in the chat, I suggested: One partition that I think would be helpful is  
  
 
a survey of existing ontological representations of standards.  
 
a survey of existing ontological representations of standards.  
Line 321: Line 321:
 
recently. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200812/msg00001.html  
 
recently. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200812/msg00001.html  
  
PeterBenson: computer processable standards?  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: computer processable standards?  
  
PeterYim: '''Q3: suggestions for developing a "Roadmap" as a key deliverable'''  
+
[[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: '''Q3: suggestions for developing a "Roadmap" as a key deliverable'''  
  
DavidLeal: Peter - that what I was attempting to say, but most standardisation communities  
+
[[DavidLeal|David Leal]]: Peter - that what I was attempting to say, but most standardisation communities  
  
 
do not know what is possible.  
 
do not know what is possible.  
  
MatthewWest: Web 1, Web 2, Web 3 history and predictions, provide a startpoint for a road map.  
+
[[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: Web 1, Web 2, Web 3 history and predictions, provide a startpoint for a road map.  
  
PeterBenson: Sounds like a previous Ontology Summit sought to addressed the question of what is  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: Sounds like a previous Ontology Summit sought to addressed the question of what is  
  
 
an ontology without coming up with a definitive answer, working towards defining classes  
 
an ontology without coming up with a definitive answer, working towards defining classes  
Line 337: Line 337:
 
of ontologies would be useful  
 
of ontologies would be useful  
  
RexBrooks: The Semantic Spectrum that Leo introduced several years ago is still viable as  
+
[[RexBrooks|Rex Brooks]]: The Semantic Spectrum that Leo introduced several years ago is still viable as  
  
 
a type of roadmap in the sense that we can compare where we are in terms of  
 
a type of roadmap in the sense that we can compare where we are in terms of  
Line 343: Line 343:
 
expressivity versus how computable the otnological representations are.  
 
expressivity versus how computable the otnological representations are.  
  
DougHolmes: Peter, I think if you qualify that as an "artifact for defining standards", it might  
+
[[DougHolmes|Doug Holmes]]: Peter, I think if you qualify that as an "artifact for defining standards", it might  
  
 
be a tractable goal  
 
be a tractable goal  
  
MikeBennett: That suggests another stream which would be how to present ontology information in a  
+
[[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: That suggests another stream which would be how to present ontology information in a  
  
 
non IT format. Is that something that should be on the roadmap?  
 
non IT format. Is that something that should be on the roadmap?  
  
PeterBenson: He rest of the world is a pretty large audience, can we be a little bit more precise  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: He rest of the world is a pretty large audience, can we be a little bit more precise  
  
PeterBenson: so explaining what an ontology is would be a good goal  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: so explaining what an ontology is would be a good goal  
  
MikeBennett: One possible audience: those responsible for maintaining standards.  
+
[[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: One possible audience: those responsible for maintaining standards.  
  
 
Specifically industry (content) standards where the business content is often  
 
Specifically industry (content) standards where the business content is often  
Line 363: Line 363:
 
on requirements management.  
 
on requirements management.  
  
DougHolmes: Peter, I think explaining what an ontology is in the context of using it to define  
+
[[DougHolmes|Doug Holmes]]: Peter, I think explaining what an ontology is in the context of using it to define  
  
 
a standard is a reasonable goal; if we don't constrain it like that, we'll just  
 
a standard is a reasonable goal; if we don't constrain it like that, we'll just  
Line 369: Line 369:
 
repeat the 2007 experience...  
 
repeat the 2007 experience...  
  
PeterBenson: By that definition ISO 22745-30 is a specification of how to express an ontology in XML  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: By that definition ISO 22745-30 is a specification of how to express an ontology in XML  
  
PeterBenson: The ISO 13584 is developing ontoML  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: The ISO 13584 is developing ontoML  
  
PeterBenson: The ISO 13584 team is developing ontoML  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: The ISO 13584 team is developing ontoML  
  
PeterBenson: Doug, I agree with you  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: Doug, I agree with you  
  
MatthewWest: We need to look at standards expressed as ontologies as well as standard ontologies.  
+
[[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: We need to look at standards expressed as ontologies as well as standard ontologies.  
  
DavidLeal: An area in which it would be good to have a success is LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) data.  
+
[[DavidLeal|David Leal]]: An area in which it would be good to have a success is LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) data.  
  
 
There have been attempt to create an ontology corresponding to the standard ISO 14048.  
 
There have been attempt to create an ontology corresponding to the standard ISO 14048.  
Line 387: Line 387:
 
[[BillMcCarthy]]: The Open-edi accounting and economic ontology (ISO/IEC 15944-4) is expressed in UML  
 
[[BillMcCarthy]]: The Open-edi accounting and economic ontology (ISO/IEC 15944-4) is expressed in UML  
  
MatthewWest: What I mean is that we need to focus on standard expressed as ontologies rather  
+
[[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: What I mean is that we need to focus on standard expressed as ontologies rather  
  
 
than standard ontologies or ontology languages.  
 
than standard ontologies or ontology languages.  
  
PeterBenson: Is everything expressed in UML an ontology?  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: Is everything expressed in UML an ontology?  
  
PeterYim: '''Q4: process suggestions?'''  
+
[[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: '''Q4: process suggestions?'''  
  
PeterBenson: if we are dealing with a large group trying to come to consensus a variation of  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: if we are dealing with a large group trying to come to consensus a variation of  
  
 
Robert's rules of order may work. The requirement that a motion must be put in  
 
Robert's rules of order may work. The requirement that a motion must be put in  
Line 401: Line 401:
 
play tends to help focus the discussion  
 
play tends to help focus the discussion  
  
PeterYim: input from MarkMusen: we should have the Communique pretty much into "final draft"  
+
[[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: input from Mark Musen: we should have the Communique pretty much into "final draft"  
  
 
(if not already done) by the time we all walk into the face-to-face workshop  
 
(if not already done) by the time we all walk into the face-to-face workshop  
Line 407: Line 407:
 
... we could use the F2F time more wisely  
 
... we could use the F2F time more wisely  
  
PeterYim: we should get people to involve early .. and definitely to be cognizant that this  
+
[[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: we should get people to involve early .. and definitely to be cognizant that this  
  
 
is a 3-month affair and NOT a 2-day conference  
 
is a 3-month affair and NOT a 2-day conference  
  
FabianNeuhaus: I support Mark's point, during the last summit people who did not participate  
+
[[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]: I support Mark's point, during the last summit people who did not participate  
  
 
until the face-to-face meeting made last minute requests for changes which  
 
until the face-to-face meeting made last minute requests for changes which  
Line 417: Line 417:
 
derailed the schedule for the Summit  
 
derailed the schedule for the Summit  
  
PeterBenson: Inviting people who may not want to "participate" but may be willing to review  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: Inviting people who may not want to "participate" but may be willing to review  
  
 
the output may be worth considering.  
 
the output may be worth considering.  
  
KenBaclawski: Capturing the rationales for the parts of a communique would help prevent  
+
[[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]]: Capturing the rationales for the parts of a communique would help prevent  
  
 
participants from recapitulating the debate that resulted in the draft communique.  
 
participants from recapitulating the debate that resulted in the draft communique.  
  
PeterBenson: It should be possible to create a "voting" comunity  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: It should be possible to create a "voting" comunity  
  
PeterYim: '''Q5: any other suggestions?'''  
+
[[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: '''Q5: any other suggestions?'''  
  
MikeBennett: I think that if you want to have a clear message for industry standards owners,  
+
[[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: I think that if you want to have a clear message for industry standards owners,  
  
 
there should be some consistent definition of what an ontology is, including some  
 
there should be some consistent definition of what an ontology is, including some  
Line 437: Line 437:
 
that standard.  
 
that standard.  
  
PeterBenson: absolutely  
+
[[PeterBenson|Peter Benson]]: absolutely  
  
KenBaclawski: Have we started asking individuals to select roles in the summit planning,  
+
[[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]]: Have we started asking individuals to select roles in the summit planning,  
  
 
organization and logistics?  
 
organization and logistics?  
  
PeterYim: we'll be putting up the [ontology-summit] mailing list ... those who are involved  
+
[[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: we'll be putting up the [ontology-summit] mailing list ... those who are involved  
  
 
(or responded to) today's sesion will automatically be subscribed.  
 
(or responded to) today's sesion will automatically be subscribed.  
  
DougHolmes: Adios  
+
[[DougHolmes|Doug Holmes]]: Adios  
  
PeterYim: Thanks everyone ... meeting adjourned 2008.12.18-12:06pm PST  
+
[[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: Thanks everyone ... meeting adjourned 2008.12.18-12:06pm PST  
  
 
- end of chat transcript -  
 
- end of chat transcript -  

Latest revision as of 02:26, 9 January 2016

[ ]

Contents

[edit] OntologySummit2009 Planning Session - Thu 2008-12-18     (1)

  • Discussions and Q & A:     (1E5)
    • (Unless the conference host has already muted everyone) Please mute your phone, by pressing "*2" on your phone keypad, when the talk is in progress. To un-mute, press "*3"     (1E5A)
    • (when everyone is muted) If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please "raise your hand (virtually)" by pressing "11" on your phone keypad. You may speak when acknowledged by the speaker or the session moderator. Test your voice and introduce yourself first before proceeding with your remarks, please.     (1E5B)
    • You can also type in your questions or comments through the browser based chat session by:     (1E5C)
      • instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field). 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.     (1E5D1)
    • 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) ontolog_20081218@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!     (1E5E)
  • For those who cannot join us, or who have further questions or remarks on the topic, please post them to the [ontology-forum] listserv so that everyone in the community can benefit from the discourse.     (1E6)
  • 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.     (1E10)

[edit] Attendees     (1G)

[edit] Agenda Ideas     (1G5)

(Please add below, and identify yourself for follow-up purposes)     (1G5A)

[edit] Agenda & Proceedings     (1H)

1. Meeting called to order:     (1H1)

2. Roll Call:     (1H5)

3. Discussions:     (1H7)

  • Q3: suggestions for developing a "Roadmap" as a key deliverable?     (1H13)

5. New Issues:     (1H16)

6. Any Other Business:     (1H17)

7. Action items:     (1H18)

8. Schedule Next Meeting & Adjourn:     (1H19)

  • 15-Jan-2009 Launch Event - see: ConferenceCall_2009_01_15     (1H20)

notes taken by: Peter P. Yim / 2008.12.18-12:10 pm PST     (1H23)

All participants, please review and edit to enhance accuracy and granularity of the documented proceedings.     (1H24)


[edit] Transcript of the in-session chat input from the participants     (1I)

Edited to provide better flow of the conversation only.     (1I1)

Peter P. Yim: Welcome to: OntologySummit2009 Planning Session - Thu 2008-12-18     (1I2)

Rex Brooks: One partition that I think would be helpful is a survey of existing ontological     (1I3)

representations of standards.     (1I4)

Mike Bennett: Do you mean industry messaging / data standards like XBRL?     (1I5)

Rex Brooks: Hi Mike. Yes.     (1I6)

Rex Brooks: XBRL is especially pertinent.     (1I7)

Rex Brooks: The OASIS Semantic Execution Environment Technical Committee (SEE TC) released a     (1I8)

Pubic Review draft of its Reference Ontology for Service Oriented Architecture     (1I9)

Mike Bennett: An interesting challenge - many of the ones in my industry (financial) were developed     (1I11)

without defining a technology neutral business view of what they were trying to represent.     (1I12)

Peter Benson: If we are looking at standards we must be looking at conformance clauses and criteria     (1I14)

Rex Brooks: Indeed. Those may also vary with the representation, e.g. OWL, OWL-S. WSML etc.     (1I15)

Peter Benson: starting with defining what is and is not an ontology would be useful     (1I16)

Doug Holmes: Peter, a previous Ontology Summit has addressed the question you raised on "what is an ontology?";     (1I17)

Peter Benson: Thanks Doug, I took a look but could not find a definition.     (1I19)

Peter Benson: As in a definition we could add to an ISO standard     (1I20)

Doug Holmes: We more or less came to the same conclusion.     (1I21)

Mike Bennett: Indeed te communique says "The goal of the Ontology Summit is not to establish     (1I22)

a definitive definition of the word "ontology", which has proved extremely     (1I23)

challenging due to the diversity of artifacts it can refer to"     (1I24)

Peter Benson: hmm.. if we can not define it do we know what we are talking about?     (1I25)

Peter P. Yim: Q1: who else should get involved?     (1I26)

Peter P. Yim: BillMcCarthy is already on our organizing committee and will be our liaison to UN/CEFACT     (1I29)

Peter Benson: The chair of AC/135 is George Bond he is on our board - so yes I will be glad to contact him     (1I30)

Rex Brooks: We already have NCOR, but it would be good to have both Barry Smith and MarkMusen.     (1I31)

Peter P. Yim: Yes, we do have both of them (BarrySmith and MarkMusen) on the organizing committee already.     (1I32)

Doug Holmes: It seems to me that it would be good to have at least some representative     (1I33)

of the GIS community [e.g. GML]     (1I34)

Peter Benson: If you are looking for UN/CEFACT then you may want to ask TC 154     (1I35)

BillMcCarthy: I can talk to my co-convenor for the accounting interoperability summit Roger Debreceny     (1I36)

with the purpose of including XBRL     (1I37)

Mike Bennett: EDM Council of course     (1I38)

Peter Benson: TC 37 would be a natural as they deal with terminology     (1I39)

Doug Holmes: In the spirit of brainstorming, there are also some de-facto standards, such as     (1I40)

Dublin Core and FOAF that seem to be "ontological"     (1I41)

Trish Whetzel: SKOS is another     (1I42)

Peter P. Yim: Ed Dodds suggested XBRL and UDEF too     (1I43)

Doug Holmes: And, a number of architecture standards [e.g. FEAF, DODAF, etc.]     (1I45)

Trish Whetzel: Will the ISO groups by default bring in the grid folks, ie caGrid?     (1I46)

Ken Baclawski: As I mentioned in my introduction, I have been working with the CEA-2018 standard.     (1I47)

The standard is a general task planning standard which could have applications in     (1I48)

many domains, but was developed for consumer electronics. My contact with the     (1I49)

standards committee is Chuck Rich at WPI, and I will try to get him to participate.     (1I50)

Peter P. Yim: Q2: how could we partition this year's discourse? - i.e. framing the conversation     (1I51)

Mike Bennett: Ontology development methodologies     (1I52)

Peter Benson: Does this mean you are keeping "information" in the title?     (1I53)

Doug Holmes: 1. What is the role of an ontology in establishing a standard?     (1I54)

2. What kind of constraints or rules [standards?] should be applied to     (1I55)

ontologies that are used to establish a standard?     (1I56)

Kurt Conrad: Not clear on what you mean by "partition"     (1I57)

Peter Benson: The ISO definition of "data" is the representation of information -     (1I58)

Peter Benson: There are no "information standard" that I know of     (1I59)

Matthew West: Standards (amongst other things) provide definitions and authoritative sources for     (1I60)

identification of standard objects. Ontology is a natural next step for that,     (1I61)

whether the standards are information standards or not.     (1I62)

Standards themselves are information.     (1I63)

Mike Bennett: You might want to look at a breakdown of the different kind of animals that are     (1I64)

referred to as standards in different industries, for example some are message standards     (1I65)

(XML or otherwise), some are data models and so on. Should there be a partition on this?     (1I66)

Also some standards mandate business workflow and so on.     (1I67)

Ken Baclawski: A lot of standards are being expressed in XML Schema or RELAX NG.     (1I68)

CEA-2018 is expressed in RELAX NG. Are these already ontologies?     (1I69)

Peter Benson: I agree that ontologies could be the next step in the representation of information     (1I70)

hence my request for a definition of the term ontology as this may provide the     (1I71)

natural partition of the debate     (1I72)

Peter P. Yim: input from David Price: what are "today's" (as opposed to "next generation") standards,     (1I73)

and which parts of it lends to ontological representation with today's technology;     (1I74)

and which parts require research to bring us to the future.     (1I75)

David Leal: Standards that define a pipe thread or a material test method (two examples at random)     (1I76)

are currently expressed as text. We need to educate standardisation communities that     (1I77)

are not involved with IT about ontologies.     (1I78)

Rex Brooks: Earlier in the chat, I suggested: One partition that I think would be helpful is     (1I79)

a survey of existing ontological representations of standards.     (1I80)

I also cited: The OASIS Semantic Execution Environment Technical Committee (SEE TC)     (1I81)

released a Public Review draft of its Reference Ontology for Service Oriented Architecture     (1I82)

Peter Benson: computer processable standards?     (1I84)

Peter P. Yim: Q3: suggestions for developing a "Roadmap" as a key deliverable     (1I85)

David Leal: Peter - that what I was attempting to say, but most standardisation communities     (1I86)

do not know what is possible.     (1I87)

Matthew West: Web 1, Web 2, Web 3 history and predictions, provide a startpoint for a road map.     (1I88)

Peter Benson: Sounds like a previous Ontology Summit sought to addressed the question of what is     (1I89)

an ontology without coming up with a definitive answer, working towards defining classes     (1I90)

of ontologies would be useful     (1I91)

Rex Brooks: The Semantic Spectrum that Leo introduced several years ago is still viable as     (1I92)

a type of roadmap in the sense that we can compare where we are in terms of     (1I93)

expressivity versus how computable the otnological representations are.     (1I94)

Doug Holmes: Peter, I think if you qualify that as an "artifact for defining standards", it might     (1I95)

be a tractable goal     (1I96)

Mike Bennett: That suggests another stream which would be how to present ontology information in a     (1I97)

non IT format. Is that something that should be on the roadmap?     (1I98)

Peter Benson: He rest of the world is a pretty large audience, can we be a little bit more precise     (1I99)

Peter Benson: so explaining what an ontology is would be a good goal     (1I100)

Mike Bennett: One possible audience: those responsible for maintaining standards.     (1I101)

Specifically industry (content) standards where the business content is often     (1I102)

not captured because the technical people developing the standard are not strong     (1I103)

on requirements management.     (1I104)

Doug Holmes: Peter, I think explaining what an ontology is in the context of using it to define     (1I105)

a standard is a reasonable goal; if we don't constrain it like that, we'll just     (1I106)

repeat the 2007 experience...     (1I107)

Peter Benson: By that definition ISO 22745-30 is a specification of how to express an ontology in XML     (1I108)

Peter Benson: The ISO 13584 is developing ontoML     (1I109)

Peter Benson: The ISO 13584 team is developing ontoML     (1I110)

Peter Benson: Doug, I agree with you     (1I111)

Matthew West: We need to look at standards expressed as ontologies as well as standard ontologies.     (1I112)

David Leal: An area in which it would be good to have a success is LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) data.     (1I113)

There have been attempt to create an ontology corresponding to the standard ISO 14048.     (1I114)

The team at the EU JRC in Ispra would be interested.     (1I115)

BillMcCarthy: The Open-edi accounting and economic ontology (ISO/IEC 15944-4) is expressed in UML     (1I116)

Matthew West: What I mean is that we need to focus on standard expressed as ontologies rather     (1I117)

than standard ontologies or ontology languages.     (1I118)

Peter Benson: Is everything expressed in UML an ontology?     (1I119)

Peter P. Yim: Q4: process suggestions?     (1I120)

Peter Benson: if we are dealing with a large group trying to come to consensus a variation of     (1I121)

Robert's rules of order may work. The requirement that a motion must be put in     (1I122)

play tends to help focus the discussion     (1I123)

Peter P. Yim: input from Mark Musen: we should have the Communique pretty much into "final draft"     (1I124)

(if not already done) by the time we all walk into the face-to-face workshop     (1I125)

... we could use the F2F time more wisely     (1I126)

Peter P. Yim: we should get people to involve early .. and definitely to be cognizant that this     (1I127)

is a 3-month affair and NOT a 2-day conference     (1I128)

Fabian Neuhaus: I support Mark's point, during the last summit people who did not participate     (1I129)

until the face-to-face meeting made last minute requests for changes which     (1I130)

derailed the schedule for the Summit     (1I131)

Peter Benson: Inviting people who may not want to "participate" but may be willing to review     (1I132)

the output may be worth considering.     (1I133)

Ken Baclawski: Capturing the rationales for the parts of a communique would help prevent     (1I134)

participants from recapitulating the debate that resulted in the draft communique.     (1I135)

Peter Benson: It should be possible to create a "voting" comunity     (1I136)

Peter P. Yim: Q5: any other suggestions?     (1I137)

Mike Bennett: I think that if you want to have a clear message for industry standards owners,     (1I138)

there should be some consistent definition of what an ontology is, including some     (1I139)

consistent approach to what would be defined as good ontology for the content of     (1I140)

that standard.     (1I141)

Ken Baclawski: Have we started asking individuals to select roles in the summit planning,     (1I143)

organization and logistics?     (1I144)

Peter P. Yim: we'll be putting up the [ontology-summit] mailing list ... those who are involved     (1I145)

(or responded to) today's sesion will automatically be subscribed.     (1I146)

Peter P. Yim: Thanks everyone ... meeting adjourned 2008.12.18-12:06pm PST     (1I148)

- end of chat transcript -     (1I149)


This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (1I150)