From OntologPSMW

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - "[ ]ToddSchneider[ ]" to " Todd Schneider ")
(Fix PurpleMediaWiki references)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
= OntologySummit2013: Panel Session-06 - Thu 2013-02-21  =
+
= [[OntologySummit2013|Ontology Summit 2013]]: Panel Session-06 - Thu 2013-02-21  =
  
 
Summit Theme: '''"Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"'''  
 
Summit Theme: '''"Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"'''  
Line 11: Line 11:
 
Briefings:  
 
Briefings:  
  
* '''Dr. MatthewWest''' (Information Junction, UK) & '''Professor MichaelGruninger''' (U of Toronto, Canada) - "'''General Assessment & Fine-tuning of OntologySummit2013 Direction & Approach'''"  [ slides]  
+
* '''Dr. MatthewWest''' (Information Junction, UK) & '''Professor MichaelGruninger''' (U of Toronto, Canada) - "'''General Assessment & Fine-tuning of [[OntologySummit2013|Ontology Summit 2013]] Direction & Approach'''"  [ slides]  
 
* '''Dr. LeoObrst''' (MITRE) & '''Dr. SteveRay''' (CMU) - "'''Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-1'''"  [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_intrinsic-aspects_synthesis-I--LeoObrst-SteveRay_20130221.pdf slides]  
 
* '''Dr. LeoObrst''' (MITRE) & '''Dr. SteveRay''' (CMU) - "'''Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-1'''"  [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_intrinsic-aspects_synthesis-I--LeoObrst-SteveRay_20130221.pdf slides]  
 
* '''Mr. TerryLongstreth''' (Ind. Consultant) & '''Dr. ToddSchneider''' (Raytheon) - "'''Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-1'''"  [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_extrinsic-aspects_synthesis-I--ToddSchneider-TerryLongstreth_20130221.pdf slides]  
 
* '''Mr. TerryLongstreth''' (Ind. Consultant) & '''Dr. ToddSchneider''' (Raytheon) - "'''Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-1'''"  [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_extrinsic-aspects_synthesis-I--ToddSchneider-TerryLongstreth_20130221.pdf slides]  
 
* '''Dr. MatthewWest''' (Information Junction) & '''Mr. MikeBennett''' (EDM Council; Hypercube) - "'''Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-1'''"  [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_quality-methodology_synthesis-I--MikeBennett-MatthewWest_20130221.pdf slides]  
 
* '''Dr. MatthewWest''' (Information Junction) & '''Mr. MikeBennett''' (EDM Council; Hypercube) - "'''Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-1'''"  [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_quality-methodology_synthesis-I--MikeBennett-MatthewWest_20130221.pdf slides]  
 
* '''Dr. MichaelDenny''' (MITRE) & '''Mr. PeterYim''' (Ontolog; CIM3) - "'''Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-1'''"  [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_software-environment_synthesis-I--MichaelDenny-PeterYim_20130221.pdf slides]  
 
* '''Dr. MichaelDenny''' (MITRE) & '''Mr. PeterYim''' (Ontolog; CIM3) - "'''Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-1'''"  [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_software-environment_synthesis-I--MichaelDenny-PeterYim_20130221.pdf slides]  
* '''Dr. AmandaVizedom''' (Ind. Consultant) & '''Dr. FabianNeuhaus''' (NIST) - "'''Approach to the OntologySummit2013 Communique'''"  [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_communique-approach--FabianNeuhaus-AmandaVizedom_20120221.pdf slides]  
+
* '''Dr. AmandaVizedom''' (Ind. Consultant) & '''Dr. FabianNeuhaus''' (NIST) - "'''Approach to the [[OntologySummit2013|Ontology Summit 2013]] Communique'''"  [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_communique-approach--FabianNeuhaus-AmandaVizedom_20120221.pdf slides]  
 
* '''Mr. MikeDean''' (Raytheon BBN) & '''Mr. PeterYim''' (Ontolog; CIM3) - "'''Approach to the "Hackathon" & "Clinics" Activities'''"  [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_hackathon-clinics-approach--MikeDean-PeterYim_20130221.pdf slides]  
 
* '''Mr. MikeDean''' (Raytheon BBN) & '''Mr. PeterYim''' (Ontolog; CIM3) - "'''Approach to the "Hackathon" & "Clinics" Activities'''"  [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_hackathon-clinics-approach--MikeDean-PeterYim_20130221.pdf slides]  
  
Line 40: Line 40:
 
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.  
 
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.  
+
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 Communiqu��.  
  
In today's session, we will focus on the synthesis of all of these ideas as input into an initial draft of the Summit Communiqué. We will also have a discussion on some new features of this year's Symposium -- a hackathon for ontology evaluation software support and the idea of ontology evaluation clinics for ontologies that people want evaluated.  
+
In today's session, we will focus on the synthesis of all of these ideas as input into an initial draft of the Summit Communiqu��. We will also have a discussion on some new features of this year's Symposium -- a hackathon for ontology evaluation software support and the idea of ontology evaluation clinics for ontologies that people want evaluated.  
  
More details about this OntologySummit is available at: '''OntologySummit2013''' (homepage for this summit)  
+
More details about this [[OntologySummit|Ontology Summit]] is available at: '''OntologySummit2013''' (homepage for this summit)  
  
 
== Agenda  ==
 
== Agenda  ==
Line 88: Line 88:
 
------  
 
------  
  
[8:36] PeterYim: Welcome to the  
+
[8:36] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: Welcome to the  
  
''' OntologySummit2013: Panel Session-06 - Thu 2013-02-21 '''  
+
''' [[OntologySummit2013|Ontology Summit 2013]]: Panel Session-06 - Thu 2013-02-21 '''  
  
 
Summit Theme: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle  
 
Summit Theme: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle  
  
* Summit General Co-chairs: Professor [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Grüninger]] (U of Toronto) and Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction)  
+
* Summit General Co-chairs: Professor [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Grüninger]] (U of Toronto) and Dr. [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] (Information Junction)  
  
 
Session Topic: Ontology Summit 2013: Synthesis-I  
 
Session Topic: Ontology Summit 2013: Synthesis-I  
  
* Session Chair: Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK)  
+
* Session Chair: Dr. [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] (Information Junction, UK)  
  
 
Panelists / Briefings:  
 
Panelists / Briefings:  
  
* Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK) & Professor [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Grüninger]] (U of Toronto, Canada)
+
* Dr. [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] (Information Junction, UK) & Professor [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Grüninger]] (U of Toronto, Canada)
  
- "General Assessment & Fine-tuning of OntologySummit2013 Direction & Approach"  
+
- "General Assessment & Fine-tuning of [[OntologySummit2013|Ontology Summit 2013]] Direction & Approach"  
  
* Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE) & Dr. SteveRay (CMU)
+
* Dr. [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]] (MITRE) & Dr. [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]] (CMU)
  
 
- "Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-1"  
 
- "Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-1"  
  
* Mr. TerryLongstreth (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]] (Raytheon)
+
* Mr. [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]] (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]] (Raytheon)
  
 
- "Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-1"  
 
- "Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-1"  
  
* Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction) & Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council; Hypercube)
+
* Dr. [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] (Information Junction) & Mr. [[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]] (EDM Council; Hypercube)
  
 
- "Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-1"  
 
- "Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-1"  
  
* Dr. MichaelDenny (MITRE) & Mr. [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] (Ontolog; CIM3)
+
* Dr. [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]] (MITRE) & Mr. [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] (Ontolog; CIM3)
  
 
- "Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-1"  
 
- "Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-1"  
  
* Dr. AmandaVizedom (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. FabianNeuhaus (NIST)
+
* Dr. [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]] (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]] (NIST)
  
- "Approach to the OntologySummit2013 Communique"  
+
- "Approach to the [[OntologySummit2013|Ontology Summit 2013]] Communique"  
  
* Mr. MikeDean (Raytheon BBN) & Mr. [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] (Ontolog; CIM3)
+
* Mr. [[MikeDean|Mike Dean]] (Raytheon BBN) & Mr. [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] (Ontolog; CIM3)
  
 
- "Approach to the "Hackathon" & "Clinics" Activities"  
 
- "Approach to the "Hackathon" & "Clinics" Activities"  
Line 146: Line 146:
 
if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it.  
 
if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it.  
  
Attendees: AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom, AnatolyLevenchuk, [[AstridDuqueRamos]], BruceBray, ClarePaul,  
+
Attendees: [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]], [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]], [[AnatolyLevenchuk|Anatoly Levenchuk]], [[AstridDuqueRamos]], [[BruceBray|Bruce Bray]], [[ClarePaul|Clare Paul]],  
  
DavidLeal, DougFoxvog, DuaneNickull, FabianNeuhaus, FrankLoebe, [[GaryBergCross]], JeanneHolm, JieZheng,  
+
[[DavidLeal|David Leal]], [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]], [[DuaneNickull|Duane Nickull]], [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]], [[FrankLoebe|Frank Loebe]], [[GaryBergCross]], [[JeanneHolm|Jeanne Holm]], [[JieZheng|Jie Zheng]],  
  
JoanneLuciano, JoelBender, KenBaclawski, LamarHenderson, LeoObrst, MarcelaVegetti, MariaPoveda,  
+
[[JoanneLuciano|Joanne Luciano]], [[JoelBender|Joel Bender]], [[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]], [[LamarHenderson|Lamar Henderson]], [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]], [[MarcelaVegetti|Marcela Vegetti]], [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]],  
  
MatthewWest, MichaelDenny, MikeBennett, MikeDean, MikeRiben, PeterYim, RichardMartin, SimonSpero,  
+
[[MatthewWest|Matthew West]], [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]], [[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]], [[MikeDean|Mike Dean]], [[MikeRiben|Mike Riben]], [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]], [[RichardMartin|Richard Martin]], [[SimonSpero|Simon Spero]],  
  
SteveRay, TerryLongstreth, TillMossakowski, ToddSchneider, TomTinsley, YuriyMilov  
+
[[SteveRay|Steve Ray]], [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]], [[TillMossakowski|Till Mossakowski]], [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]], [[TomTinsley|Tom Tinsley]], [[YuriyMilov|Yuriy Milov]]
  
 
''' Proceedings: '''  
 
''' Proceedings: '''  
  
[9:25] anonymous morphed into MariaPoveda  
+
[9:25] anonymous morphed into [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]]
  
[9:27] SteveRay: Hi Maria, glad you could join us today.  
+
[9:27] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: Hi Maria, glad you could join us today.  
  
[9:28] anonymous morphed into MichaelDenny  
+
[9:28] anonymous morphed into [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]]
  
[9:29] MariaPoveda: Hi all  
+
[9:29] [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]]: Hi all  
  
[9:30] anonymous morphed into LamarHenderson  
+
[9:30] anonymous morphed into [[LamarHenderson|Lamar Henderson]]
  
[9:30] SteveRay: Skype is acting up again. Drops me after about 2 seconds...  
+
[9:30] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: Skype is acting up again. Drops me after about 2 seconds...  
  
[9:31] SteveRay: Google Voice works...  
+
[9:31] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: Google Voice works...  
  
[9:42] JoanneLuciano: can't get in on skype :-(  
+
[9:42] [[JoanneLuciano|Joanne Luciano]]: can't get in on skype :-(  
  
[9:45] PeterYim: @Joanne - please try restarting skype (or restarting your machine) or call one of  
+
[9:45] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: @Joanne - please try restarting skype (or restarting your machine) or call one of  
  
 
the phone numbers ... skype should be working as quite a few (over 15) are connected via skype as we speak  
 
the phone numbers ... skype should be working as quite a few (over 15) are connected via skype as we speak  
  
[9:32] DuaneNickull: Good Morning all!  
+
[9:32] [[DuaneNickull|Duane Nickull]]: Good Morning all!  
  
[9:33] AnatolyLevenchuk: To Duane: we have 21:13 here in Moscow. Good night! :-)  
+
[9:33] [[AnatolyLevenchuk|Anatoly Levenchuk]]: To Duane: we have 21:13 here in Moscow. Good night! :-)  
  
[9:35] PeterYim: == MatthewWest opens the session on behalf of the General Co-chairs  
+
[9:35] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] opens the session on behalf of the General Co-chairs  
  
 
... see: the [0-Chair] slides  
 
... see: the [0-Chair] slides  
  
[9:35] List of members: AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom, AnatolyLevenchuk, Astrid, ClarePaul, DavidLeal,  
+
[9:35] List of members: [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]], [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]], [[AnatolyLevenchuk|Anatoly Levenchuk]], Astrid, [[ClarePaul|Clare Paul]], [[DavidLeal|David Leal]],  
  
DougFoxvog, DuaneNickull, FabianNeuhaus, FrankLoebe, JoelBender, LeoObrst, MariaPoveda, MatthewWest,  
+
[[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]], [[DuaneNickull|Duane Nickull]], [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]], [[FrankLoebe|Frank Loebe]], [[JoelBender|Joel Bender]], [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]], [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]], [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]],  
  
MichaelDenny, MikeBennett, MikeDean, PeterYim, RichardMartin, SimonSpero, SteveRay, TerryLongstreth,  
+
[[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]], [[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]], [[MikeDean|Mike Dean]], [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]], [[RichardMartin|Richard Martin]], [[SimonSpero|Simon Spero]], [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]], [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]],  
  
ToddSchneider, vnc2  
+
[[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]], vnc2  
  
[9:39] AmandaVizedom: re: Matthew's slide 4: ...or, it may be conscious knowledge on the part of an  
+
[9:39] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: re: Matthew's slide 4: ...or, it may be conscious knowledge on the part of an  
  
 
individual reviewer, but it isn't shared knowledge. Thus, issues of consistency and guidance for the  
 
individual reviewer, but it isn't shared knowledge. Thus, issues of consistency and guidance for the  
Line 200: Line 200:
 
field, etc.  
 
field, etc.  
  
[9:42] DougFoxvog: @Amanda: the ref. to "Matthew's slide 4" should be to Steve/Leo's slide 4.  
+
[9:42] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @Amanda: the ref. to "Matthew's slide 4" should be to Steve/Leo's slide 4.  
  
[9:48] AmandaVizedom: @Doug: No, in that comment I was responding to Matthew's comment about how we  
+
[9:48] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Doug: No, in that comment I was responding to Matthew's comment about how we  
  
 
*do* evaluation (of ontology papers).  
 
*do* evaluation (of ontology papers).  
  
[9:35] SimonSpero morphed into SimonSpero  
+
[9:35] [[SimonSpero|Simon Spero]] morphed into [[SimonSpero|Simon Spero]]
  
[9:44] anonymous morphed into TomTinsley  
+
[9:44] anonymous morphed into [[TomTinsley|Tom Tinsley]]
  
[9:39] PeterYim: == LeoObrst / SteveRay presenting ... see: the [1-Track-A] slides  
+
[9:39] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]] / [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]] presenting ... see: the [1-Track-A] slides  
  
[9:41] AmandaVizedom: re: Leo's slide 2: In-Between > Both  
+
[9:41] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: re: Leo's slide 2: In-Between > Both  
  
[9:44] FabianNeuhaus: @Leo: slide 2: I think there is an important difference between relationship  
+
[9:44] [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]: @Leo: slide 2: I think there is an important difference between relationship  
  
 
between ontology and world (e.g, whether the ontology represents reality accurately) and whether the  
 
between ontology and world (e.g, whether the ontology represents reality accurately) and whether the  
Line 226: Line 226:
 
below)]. Thus, these should not be lumped together as "extrinsic"  
 
below)]. Thus, these should not be lumped together as "extrinsic"  
  
[9:58] SteveRay: @Fabian, your first comment at 9:44 you had two negatives. Could you restate? (The  
+
[9:58] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Fabian, your first comment at 9:44 you had two negatives. Could you restate? (The  
  
 
sentence beginning "In the first case...")  
 
sentence beginning "In the first case...")  
  
[9:59] FabianNeuhaus: Sorry. I meant to write: "In the first case the ontology is not opaque to the  
+
[9:59] [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]: Sorry. I meant to write: "In the first case the ontology is not opaque to the  
  
 
tester, in the second it might be (as blackbox testing). Thus, these should not be lumped together  
 
tester, in the second it might be (as blackbox testing). Thus, these should not be lumped together  
Line 236: Line 236:
 
as "extrinsic"  
 
as "extrinsic"  
  
[10:00] LeoObrst: @Fabian: (slide 2): Yes, indeed. I don't think we lump these together as  
+
[10:00] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: @Fabian: (slide 2): Yes, indeed. I don't think we lump these together as  
  
 
extrinsic, if you look at the other slides. The first focuses on mostly intrinsic-->land of  
 
extrinsic, if you look at the other slides. The first focuses on mostly intrinsic-->land of  
Line 242: Line 242:
 
in-between. The second focuses on the extrinsic regions.  
 
in-between. The second focuses on the extrinsic regions.  
  
[10:01] JoanneLuciano: @LeoObrst --> I would say land of in-betweenS (plural)  
+
[10:01] [[JoanneLuciano|Joanne Luciano]]: @LeoObrst --> I would say land of in-betweenS (plural)  
  
[10:02] SteveRay: OK. As Leo said, he and I are using "Intrinsic" and "Extrinsic" as useful extreme  
+
[10:02] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: OK. As Leo said, he and I are using "Intrinsic" and "Extrinsic" as useful extreme  
  
 
concepts, and few if any evaluations will be at either extreme.  
 
concepts, and few if any evaluations will be at either extreme.  
  
[9:51] AmandaVizedom: @Fabian: I think that there are aspects of the first that can be evaluated  
+
[9:51] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Fabian: I think that there are aspects of the first that can be evaluated  
  
 
independently, but not nearly enough to select/eval ontologies for most uses -- they don't just need  
 
independently, but not nearly enough to select/eval ontologies for most uses -- they don't just need  
Line 256: Line 256:
 
interact.  
 
interact.  
  
[9:52] FabianNeuhaus: @Amanda. I agree. However, ontology evaluation is not only done for the  
+
[9:52] [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]: @Amanda. I agree. However, ontology evaluation is not only done for the  
  
 
purpose of choice. It is, for example, done during the development process.  
 
purpose of choice. It is, for example, done during the development process.  
  
[9:53] MichaelDenny: @FabianNeuhaus +1 Fitness for an application versus fitness as conformance to  
+
[9:53] [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]]: @FabianNeuhaus +1 Fitness for an application versus fitness as conformance to  
  
 
world reality.  
 
world reality.  
  
[9:54] FabianNeuhaus: @MichaelDenny: Exactly!  
+
[9:54] [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]: @MichaelDenny: Exactly!  
  
[9:49] MikeBennett: I think Fabian's point has interesting implications for the creation of formal  
+
[9:49] [[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: I think Fabian's point has interesting implications for the creation of formal  
  
 
methodologies for ontology development and evaluation - in particular the ontology-world  
 
methodologies for ontology development and evaluation - in particular the ontology-world  
Line 272: Line 272:
 
relationship should be fundamental to what process paths to follow in such a methodology.  
 
relationship should be fundamental to what process paths to follow in such a methodology.  
  
[9:57] AmandaVizedom: @Fabian, Michael: I agree that such elements of "conformance to world reality"  
+
[9:57] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Fabian, Michael: I agree that such elements of "conformance to world reality"  
  
 
can be independently assessed. I argue, however, that in order to evaluate "conformance to world  
 
can be independently assessed. I argue, however, that in order to evaluate "conformance to world  
Line 284: Line 284:
 
of those.  
 
of those.  
  
[9:58] MikeBennett: @Amanda +1 - there's the basic model theoretic relation of whether it's really  
+
[9:58] [[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: @Amanda +1 - there's the basic model theoretic relation of whether it's really  
  
 
an ontology of the world or some application, and for the former, there's the scope and the  
 
an ontology of the world or some application, and for the former, there's the scope and the  
Line 290: Line 290:
 
ontological commitments that would be appropriate to that scope.  
 
ontological commitments that would be appropriate to that scope.  
  
[9:59] JoanneLuciano: +100 (have to know purpose before can evaluate)  
+
[9:59] [[JoanneLuciano|Joanne Luciano]]: +100 (have to know purpose before can evaluate)  
  
[9:45] AmandaVizedom: @Leo: would you put some aspects of reasoning support in Region 1 (Intrinsic)?  
+
[9:45] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Leo: would you put some aspects of reasoning support in Region 1 (Intrinsic)?  
  
 
I think I would, even though performing the reasoning requires more than the ontology. Probably  
 
I think I would, even though performing the reasoning requires more than the ontology. Probably  
Line 302: Line 302:
 
there support for provenance information capture, such that it, too can be reasoned about?  
 
there support for provenance information capture, such that it, too can be reasoned about?  
  
[10:02] LeoObrst: @Amanda: yes, real reasoning figures across the 3 regions.  
+
[10:02] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: @Amanda: yes, real reasoning figures across the 3 regions.  
  
[9:47] AmandaVizedom: @Leo: I would also see adequacy of coverage as Region 2, insofar as you can't  
+
[9:47] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Leo: I would also see adequacy of coverage as Region 2, insofar as you can't  
  
 
tell what aspects of the world are wanted without knowing about the domain / usage.  
 
tell what aspects of the world are wanted without knowing about the domain / usage.  
  
[10:04] LeoObrst: @Amanda: (re. your second point) Yes, adequacy of coverage primarily falls under  
+
[10:04] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: @Amanda: (re. your second point) Yes, adequacy of coverage primarily falls under  
  
 
Region 2, where domain knowledge and ontology-world correspondence is very important.  
 
Region 2, where domain knowledge and ontology-world correspondence is very important.  
  
[9:46] ToddSchneider: Leo, Steve, Why are 'Transitivity, symmetry, reflexivity, equivalence' listed  
+
[9:46] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Leo, Steve, Why are 'Transitivity, symmetry, reflexivity, equivalence' listed  
  
 
as meta-properties [to an ontology]?  
 
as meta-properties [to an ontology]?  
  
[9:48] DougFoxvog: @Todd: "transitivity, symmetry, & reflexivity" are properties of properties; thus  
+
[9:48] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @Todd: "transitivity, symmetry, & reflexivity" are properties of properties; thus  
  
 
meta-properties. Equivalence can be a property of properties as well as one of types and individuals.  
 
meta-properties. Equivalence can be a property of properties as well as one of types and individuals.  
  
[9:48] ToddSchneider: Doug, okay.  
+
[9:48] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Doug, okay.  
  
 
[9:48] anonymous morphed into [[GaryBergCross]]  
 
[9:48] anonymous morphed into [[GaryBergCross]]  
  
[9:51] DougFoxvog: Region 3 (purely extrinsic) would disallow a query as to whether two classes are  
+
[9:51] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: Region 3 (purely extrinsic) would disallow a query as to whether two classes are  
  
 
disjoint. However, since it allows queries, couldn't it ask if a hypothetical thing (perhaps by  
 
disjoint. However, since it allows queries, couldn't it ask if a hypothetical thing (perhaps by  
Line 330: Line 330:
 
reifying it) could be an instance of those two classes -- in order to determine disjointness?  
 
reifying it) could be an instance of those two classes -- in order to determine disjointness?  
  
[10:05] FabianNeuhaus: @Leo: I just don't think that this is a helpful way to slice up the cake. The  
+
[10:05] [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]: @Leo: I just don't think that this is a helpful way to slice up the cake. The  
  
 
way you describe it there is a sliding scale between two extremes with considering only internal  
 
way you describe it there is a sliding scale between two extremes with considering only internal  
Line 340: Line 340:
 
different thing entirely.  
 
different thing entirely.  
  
[10:08] SteveRay: @Fabian: I don't agree - this is one of the performance characteristics a user  
+
[10:08] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Fabian: I don't agree - this is one of the performance characteristics a user  
  
 
would want to assure is met.  
 
would want to assure is met.  
  
[10:07] ToddSchneider: All, from an IT perspective use of the term 'reality' to describe intended  
+
[10:07] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: All, from an IT perspective use of the term 'reality' to describe intended  
  
 
interpretations or uses (of the IT system) is misleading.  
 
interpretations or uses (of the IT system) is misleading.  
  
[10:11] LeoObrst: @Fabian: well, we discussed this and felt that by providing pole perspectives,  
+
[10:11] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: @Fabian: well, we discussed this and felt that by providing pole perspectives,  
  
 
that this would help. One would probably say that conformance of the ontology to reality is truly  
 
that this would help. One would probably say that conformance of the ontology to reality is truly  
Line 362: Line 362:
 
case one hardly ever finds.  
 
case one hardly ever finds.  
  
[10:14] AmandaVizedom: @Fabian, @Leo: I would agree that it doesn't feel like a scale. The second  
+
[10:14] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Fabian, @Leo: I would agree that it doesn't feel like a scale. The second  
  
 
kind of evaluation isn't really "between" the other two. Rather, it's a different kind of activity  
 
kind of evaluation isn't really "between" the other two. Rather, it's a different kind of activity  
Line 380: Line 380:
 
validation, etc.  
 
validation, etc.  
  
[10:16] FabianNeuhaus: @Amanda: I agree. You can easily build an ontology that scores well on  
+
[10:16] [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]: @Amanda: I agree. You can easily build an ontology that scores well on  
  
 
intrinsic metrics and shows the intended behavior in the sense of answering queries fine, but  
 
intrinsic metrics and shows the intended behavior in the sense of answering queries fine, but  
Line 386: Line 386:
 
contains factual errors.  
 
contains factual errors.  
  
[10:11] FrankLoebe: @Fabian: Are you aware of any methodology / approach for evaluating an ontology  
+
[10:11] [[FrankLoebe|Frank Loebe]]: @Fabian: Are you aware of any methodology / approach for evaluating an ontology  
  
 
regarding its performance of describing reality? Or was anything discussed in the previous summit  
 
regarding its performance of describing reality? Or was anything discussed in the previous summit  
Line 392: Line 392:
 
sessions (not all of which I could follow / catch up with)?  
 
sessions (not all of which I could follow / catch up with)?  
  
[10:13] FabianNeuhaus: @Frank: WernerCeusters addresses that to a degree in his methodology.  
+
[10:13] [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]: @Frank: [[WernerCeusters|Werner Ceusters]] addresses that to a degree in his methodology.  
  
[10:08] FabianNeuhaus: @Todd: that's not what I mean by reality.  
+
[10:08] [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]: @Todd: that's not what I mean by reality.  
  
[10:09] ToddSchneider: Fabian, so much for interpretation clarity:) But I was also referring to  
+
[10:09] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Fabian, so much for interpretation clarity:) But I was also referring to  
  
 
Leo's & Steve's slides and in general.  
 
Leo's & Steve's slides and in general.  
  
[10:28] TillMossakowski: a question about the track A talk (slide 7): is it possible to download  
+
[10:28] [[TillMossakowski|Till Mossakowski]]: a question about the track A talk (slide 7): is it possible to download  
  
 
[[ConferenceCall_2013_01_31|[[OntoQA]]]] somewhere?  
 
[[ConferenceCall_2013_01_31|[[OntoQA]]]] somewhere?  
  
[10:33] LeoObrst: @Till: I'm not sure. We'll query SamirTartir and the other [[ConferenceCall_2013_01_31|[[OntoQA]]]] folks.  
+
[10:33] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: @Till: I'm not sure. We'll query [[SamirTartir|Samir Tartir]] and the other [[ConferenceCall_2013_01_31|[[OntoQA]]]] folks.  
  
 
[9:52] anonymous morphed into [[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]]  
 
[9:52] anonymous morphed into [[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]]  
  
[9:54] PeterYim: == TerryLongstreth / [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]] presenting ... see: the [2-Track-B] slides  
+
[9:54] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]] / [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]] presenting ... see: the [2-Track-B] slides  
  
[10:04] PeterYim: == MikeBennett / MatthewWest presenting ... see: the [3-Track-C] slides  
+
[10:04] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]] / [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] presenting ... see: the [3-Track-C] slides  
  
 
[10:08] [[GaryBergCross]]: I'm surprised that people haven't mention the difference between evaluating  
 
[10:08] [[GaryBergCross]]: I'm surprised that people haven't mention the difference between evaluating  
Line 416: Line 416:
 
light weight ontologies vs. 'heavy" ones with lots of axioms.  
 
light weight ontologies vs. 'heavy" ones with lots of axioms.  
  
[10:09] MariaPoveda: @Gary could it be the first one a subset of the second option?  
+
[10:09] [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]]: @Gary could it be the first one a subset of the second option?  
  
[10:09] MariaPoveda: I mean in a heavyweight ontology you can make the mistake you do in a taxonomy  
+
[10:09] [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]]: I mean in a heavyweight ontology you can make the mistake you do in a taxonomy  
  
 
for example, and many other  
 
for example, and many other  
  
[10:13] SimonSpero: @Maria: @What is the mistake of a taxonomy  
+
[10:13] [[SimonSpero|Simon Spero]]: @Maria: @What is the mistake of a taxonomy  
  
[10:14] SimonSpero: @Maria: Apart from assuming that a taxonomy is necessarily an ontology  
+
[10:14] [[SimonSpero|Simon Spero]]: @Maria: Apart from assuming that a taxonomy is necessarily an ontology  
  
[10:14] MariaPoveda: @simon for example to set a subclassOf axiom wrong or to include a class in two  
+
[10:14] [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]]: @simon for example to set a subclassOf axiom wrong or to include a class in two  
  
 
levels of the hierarchy  
 
levels of the hierarchy  
  
[10:14] MariaPoveda: @Simon, some authors also consider cycles as errors, they are not always, but  
+
[10:14] [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]]: @Simon, some authors also consider cycles as errors, they are not always, but  
  
 
in some cases they are  
 
in some cases they are  
  
[10:16] SimonSpero: Maria: Cycles are errors in controlled vocabularies other than synonym rings  
+
[10:16] [[SimonSpero|Simon Spero]]: Maria: Cycles are errors in controlled vocabularies other than synonym rings  
  
[10:12] SimonSpero: @Gary How do you measure the weight of an ontology  
+
[10:12] [[SimonSpero|Simon Spero]]: @Gary How do you measure the weight of an ontology  
  
 
[10:12] [[GaryBergCross]]: @maria It might be more useful to speculate that light weight ones are  
 
[10:12] [[GaryBergCross]]: @maria It might be more useful to speculate that light weight ones are  
Line 448: Line 448:
 
discussion....  
 
discussion....  
  
[10:15] SimonSpero: @Gary: That's what I thought, but I've heard the, er, term misused  
+
[10:15] [[SimonSpero|Simon Spero]]: @Gary: That's what I thought, but I've heard the, er, term misused  
  
 
[10:17] [[GaryBergCross]]: @Simon Yes, I am more comfortable with the idea of a light ontology than a  
 
[10:17] [[GaryBergCross]]: @Simon Yes, I am more comfortable with the idea of a light ontology than a  
Line 454: Line 454:
 
heavy one, which is why I use quotes.  
 
heavy one, which is why I use quotes.  
  
[10:27] LeoObrst: @Gary et al: granularity is a factor distinguishing lightweight from heavyweight  
+
[10:27] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: @Gary et al: granularity is a factor distinguishing lightweight from heavyweight  
  
 
ontologies, and is dependent on the intended application. If one does not need to distinguish  
 
ontologies, and is dependent on the intended application. If one does not need to distinguish  
Line 470: Line 470:
 
Concepts get detailed in more formal ontologies.  
 
Concepts get detailed in more formal ontologies.  
  
[10:39] LeoObrst: @Gary: yes, you always have that distinction: a very large ontology could be very  
+
[10:39] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: @Gary: yes, you always have that distinction: a very large ontology could be very  
  
 
simple, but cover a lot of simple classes, whereas a very precise ontology may just cover 3-4 of  
 
simple, but cover a lot of simple classes, whereas a very precise ontology may just cover 3-4 of  
Line 478: Line 478:
 
the actual region it maps.  
 
the actual region it maps.  
  
[10:36] MariaPoveda: @Leo @Gary, could it be "expressivity"? I'n not sure about the term either...  
+
[10:36] [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]]: @Leo @Gary, could it be "expressivity"? I'n not sure about the term either...  
  
[10:39] MariaPoveda: something like this  
+
[10:39] [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]]: something like this  
  
 
[http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/ontologies-come-of-age-mit-press-(with-citation)_files/image005.gif http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/ontologies-come-of-age-mit-press-(with-citation)_files/image005.gif] ?  
 
[http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/ontologies-come-of-age-mit-press-(with-citation)_files/image005.gif http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/ontologies-come-of-age-mit-press-(with-citation)_files/image005.gif] ?  
  
[10:41] LeoObrst: @Maria: Or this: ;)  
+
[10:41] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: @Maria: Or this: ;)  
  
 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2006_01_12#nidIT2. See slide 9, the Ontology Spectrum.  
 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2006_01_12#nidIT2. See slide 9, the Ontology Spectrum.  
  
[10:46] MariaPoveda: @Leo thanks  
+
[10:46] [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]]: @Leo thanks  
  
[10:16] ToddSchneider: Leo, Steve. Terry, Has anybody discussed the notions of 'intrinsic' and  
+
[10:16] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Leo, Steve. Terry, Has anybody discussed the notions of 'intrinsic' and  
  
 
extrinsic' criteria w.r.t. particular lifecycle phases?  
 
extrinsic' criteria w.r.t. particular lifecycle phases?  
  
[10:18] ToddSchneider: It would seem that intrinsic criteria/evaluations are more relevant during  
+
[10:18] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: It would seem that intrinsic criteria/evaluations are more relevant during  
  
 
early lifecycle phases, while extrinsic are more relevant to later lifecycle phases.  
 
early lifecycle phases, while extrinsic are more relevant to later lifecycle phases.  
Line 504: Line 504:
 
wind up with something in between.  
 
wind up with something in between.  
  
[10:20] MichaelDenny: @ToddSchneider Perhaps just the opposite. One may begin with concerns about  
+
[10:20] [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]]: @ToddSchneider Perhaps just the opposite. One may begin with concerns about  
  
 
the domain semantics (extrinsic) and then worry about how best to implement those in a formal  
 
the domain semantics (extrinsic) and then worry about how best to implement those in a formal  
Line 512: Line 512:
 
[10:21] [[GaryBergCross]]: @Michael +1 we agree.  
 
[10:21] [[GaryBergCross]]: @Michael +1 we agree.  
  
[10:19] SteveRay: @Todd: Agreed  
+
[10:19] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Todd: Agreed  
  
[10:19] TerryLongstreth: @Todd Not necessarily more relevant, but certainly more available  
+
[10:19] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: @Todd Not necessarily more relevant, but certainly more available  
  
[10:19] FabianNeuhaus: @Todd. I think inconsistency might be relevant at any stage :-)  
+
[10:19] [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]: @Todd. I think inconsistency might be relevant at any stage :-)  
  
[10:20] SteveRay: @Fabian: But you would have eliminated the inconsistency early in the lifecycle...  
+
[10:20] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Fabian: But you would have eliminated the inconsistency early in the lifecycle...  
  
[10:21] TerryLongstreth: @Todd (rephrase) Intrinsics (of which I would include syntax checking) are  
+
[10:21] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: @Todd (rephrase) Intrinsics (of which I would include syntax checking) are  
  
 
probably tested from the outset of a project.  
 
probably tested from the outset of a project.  
  
[10:21] ToddSchneider: Fabian, Yes, but the manifestation of inconsistency will be different, hence  
+
[10:21] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Fabian, Yes, but the manifestation of inconsistency will be different, hence  
  
 
the associated evaluation criteria should be expected to be different.  
 
the associated evaluation criteria should be expected to be different.  
  
[10:20] FabianNeuhaus: @Steve: any change to the ontology might potentially lead to inconsistency.  
+
[10:20] [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]: @Steve: any change to the ontology might potentially lead to inconsistency.  
  
 
That can happen at any stage of the life cycle.  
 
That can happen at any stage of the life cycle.  
  
[10:21] SteveRay: @Fabian: Of course. I was half serious.  
+
[10:21] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Fabian: Of course. I was half serious.  
  
[10:22] FabianNeuhaus: @Steve. Sorry. the humor got lost in the medium :-)  
+
[10:22] [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]: @Steve. Sorry. the humor got lost in the medium :-)  
  
[10:23] SteveRay: @Fabian: I'll try to use :) more often.  
+
[10:23] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Fabian: I'll try to use :) more often.  
  
[10:21] AmandaVizedom: @Todd: I don't think so; I've seen too many projects go off on the (wildly)  
+
[10:21] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Todd: I don't think so; I've seen too many projects go off on the (wildly)  
  
 
wrong track because they haven't defined their requirements (or shared them across sub-teams) up  
 
wrong track because they haven't defined their requirements (or shared them across sub-teams) up  
Line 548: Line 548:
 
something with no potential to meet the need even if perfectly executed.  
 
something with no potential to meet the need even if perfectly executed.  
  
[10:22] LeoObrst: @Fabian, Amanda: Yes, one might have a perfectly consistent ontology with good  
+
[10:22] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: @Fabian, Amanda: Yes, one might have a perfectly consistent ontology with good  
  
 
structural metrics that is just nonsense, because it doesn't conform to the world. When we made this  
 
structural metrics that is just nonsense, because it doesn't conform to the world. When we made this  
Line 556: Line 556:
 
device to talk about the space.  
 
device to talk about the space.  
  
[10:26] ToddSchneider: Amanda, MichaelDenny, There is the design phase, prior to any development,  
+
[10:26] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Amanda, [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]], There is the design phase, prior to any development,  
  
 
where the issues you each raised would be addressed.  
 
where the issues you each raised would be addressed.  
  
[10:28] AmandaVizedom: @Todd: Yes, and it's important to make explicit that a good methodology  
+
[10:28] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Todd: Yes, and it's important to make explicit that a good methodology  
  
 
includes such a phase (design and/or requirements identification). Too many people never even think  
 
includes such a phase (design and/or requirements identification). Too many people never even think  
Line 566: Line 566:
 
of doing it for ontologies.  
 
of doing it for ontologies.  
  
[10:23] DougFoxvog: @Simon @Maria: cycles in a controlled vocabulary comprise what WordNet calls a  
+
[10:23] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @Simon @Maria: cycles in a controlled vocabulary comprise what [[WordNet]] calls a  
  
 
synset. In ontological terms, they are equivalence sets. One can have narrow contexts in which the  
 
synset. In ontological terms, they are equivalence sets. One can have narrow contexts in which the  
Line 576: Line 576:
 
cycle to be equivalent.  
 
cycle to be equivalent.  
  
[10:24] MariaPoveda: http://oa.upm.es/6456/1/Evaluation_of_Taxonomic_K.pdf here there are some  
+
[10:24] [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]]: http://oa.upm.es/6456/1/Evaluation_of_Taxonomic_K.pdf here there are some  
  
 
example of what have been identify as errors in taxonomies  
 
example of what have been identify as errors in taxonomies  
Line 584: Line 584:
 
Design Patterns or are there additional factors to consider for ODPs?  
 
Design Patterns or are there additional factors to consider for ODPs?  
  
[10:25] AmandaVizedom: @Gary: Yes. ;-)  
+
[10:25] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Gary: Yes. ;-)  
  
[10:25] MariaPoveda: yes, as in load of situations, if the goal of the developer is to do that it is  
+
[10:25] [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]]: yes, as in load of situations, if the goal of the developer is to do that it is  
  
 
correct, the problem is when people (most of the time not ontologists) end up with that models by mistake  
 
correct, the problem is when people (most of the time not ontologists) end up with that models by mistake  
  
[10:26] MariaPoveda: so IMHO I would not look for things that are always and error because it is  
+
[10:26] [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]]: so IMHO I would not look for things that are always and error because it is  
  
 
going to be almost impossible because some one might want to do that  
 
going to be almost impossible because some one might want to do that  
  
[10:26] MariaPoveda: but find situation that might be an error, identify them and decide whether  
+
[10:26] [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]]: but find situation that might be an error, identify them and decide whether  
  
 
they should be corrected or not  
 
they should be corrected or not  
  
[10:27] PeterYim: == MichaelDenny / [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] presenting ... see: the [4-Track-D] slides  
+
[10:27] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]] / [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] presenting ... see: the [4-Track-D] slides  
  
[10:36] AmandaVizedom: @MichaelDenny: I agree and think your point is important; it seems as though  
+
[10:36] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @MichaelDenny: I agree and think your point is important; it seems as though  
  
 
many (most?) evaluation factors will be relevant at many (most?) points in the lifecycle, but  
 
many (most?) evaluation factors will be relevant at many (most?) points in the lifecycle, but  
Line 606: Line 606:
 
perhaps call for different treatment at different points.  
 
perhaps call for different treatment at different points.  
  
[10:40] AmandaVizedom: @MichaelDenny: (ref. MichaelDenny's remarks during the presentation, that he  
+
[10:40] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @MichaelDenny: (ref. MichaelDenny's remarks during the presentation, that he  
  
 
may not consider "visualization" a factor in the software that addresses ontology quality) Visual  
 
may not consider "visualization" a factor in the software that addresses ontology quality) Visual  
Line 618: Line 618:
 
vs. "ontology visualization" and/or "visual ontology construction."  
 
vs. "ontology visualization" and/or "visual ontology construction."  
  
[10:40] TerryLongstreth: @Amanda +1  
+
[10:40] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: @Amanda +1  
  
[10:42] MikeBennett: @Amanda +2. Presentation to SMEs may take one of several forms, since non  
+
[10:42] [[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: @Amanda +2. Presentation to SMEs may take one of several forms, since non  
  
 
technical people, being people, have one of several modalities they may be comfortable with: visual  
 
technical people, being people, have one of several modalities they may be comfortable with: visual  
Line 628: Line 628:
 
controlled natural language.  
 
controlled natural language.  
  
[10:43] TerryLongstreth: about extrinsic vs intrinsic (or the hybrid) is inspecting and judging a  
+
[10:43] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: about extrinsic vs intrinsic (or the hybrid) is inspecting and judging a  
  
 
visual representation of the CLIF based ontology an extrinsic or intrinsic test?  
 
visual representation of the CLIF based ontology an extrinsic or intrinsic test?  
  
[10:56] AmandaVizedom: @Terry: it depends what you are inspecting and judging it for.  
+
[10:56] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Terry: it depends what you are inspecting and judging it for.  
  
[10:43] PeterYim: == Open Discussion about the tracks' syntheses ...  
+
[10:43] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == Open Discussion about the tracks' syntheses ...  
  
[10:52] SteveRay: @Fabian: It's hard to imagine good performance for an ontology-based system if the  
+
[10:52] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Fabian: It's hard to imagine good performance for an ontology-based system if the  
  
 
ontology doesn't align with reality.  
 
ontology doesn't align with reality.  
  
[10:52] DougFoxvog: @Leo: the need is not always conformance to the "real world", but conformance to  
+
[10:52] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @Leo: the need is not always conformance to the "real world", but conformance to  
  
 
the world of the domain. One could create an ontology for a role-playing game that uses ontology for  
 
the world of the domain. One could create an ontology for a role-playing game that uses ontology for  
Line 646: Line 646:
 
real-world physics, but adds fictional biological creatures, and fantastical powers.  
 
real-world physics, but adds fictional biological creatures, and fantastical powers.  
  
[10:53] DougFoxvog: @Steve: see my above statement.  
+
[10:53] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @Steve: see my above statement.  
  
[10:53] SteveRay: @Doug: Yes, let me amend my use of the word "reality" to mean "the domain being modeled"  
+
[10:53] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Doug: Yes, let me amend my use of the word "reality" to mean "the domain being modeled"  
  
[10:56] LeoObrst: @Doug: yes, this gets into the "reality" of the domain, and so might be better  
+
[10:56] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: @Doug: yes, this gets into the "reality" of the domain, and so might be better  
  
 
considered as verisimilitude to the domain, if the domain is e.g., fictional.  
 
considered as verisimilitude to the domain, if the domain is e.g., fictional.  
  
[10:55] AmandaVizedom: @Steve: Some "ontologies" do fairly well in their initial the context for  
+
[10:55] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Steve: Some "ontologies" do fairly well in their initial the context for  
  
 
which they are originally created, because of implicit assumption shared in that context, but are  
 
which they are originally created, because of implicit assumption shared in that context, but are  
Line 662: Line 662:
 
the explicitly captured ontology is considered*.  
 
the explicitly captured ontology is considered*.  
  
[10:57] SteveRay: @Amanda: What you describe sounds to me like the ontology is simply incomplete, if  
+
[10:57] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Amanda: What you describe sounds to me like the ontology is simply incomplete, if  
  
 
there are assumptions that are not reflected in the model. That, to me, is different from not being  
 
there are assumptions that are not reflected in the model. That, to me, is different from not being  
Line 668: Line 668:
 
aligned with the domain being modeled.  
 
aligned with the domain being modeled.  
  
[10:57] MikeBennett: All these considerations about the reality of the domain, have two possible  
+
[10:57] [[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: All these considerations about the reality of the domain, have two possible  
  
 
implications: quality criteria for the thing you are developing for; and considerations when others  
 
implications: quality criteria for the thing you are developing for; and considerations when others  
Line 674: Line 674:
 
are developing something and want to consider whether or not to reuse that ontology.  
 
are developing something and want to consider whether or not to reuse that ontology.  
  
[10:58] AliHashemi: @Steve - this comes back to the point of granularity and precision, right?  
+
[10:58] [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]]: @Steve - this comes back to the point of granularity and precision, right?  
  
[10:58] AmandaVizedom: @Terry: *assuming*, that is, that the visualization technique preserves the  
+
[10:58] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Terry: *assuming*, that is, that the visualization technique preserves the  
  
 
structure and content of the ontology.  
 
structure and content of the ontology.  
  
[10:58] AliHashemi: a lightweight ontology will almost certainly leave many things left unsaid  
+
[10:58] [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]]: a lightweight ontology will almost certainly leave many things left unsaid  
  
[10:59] SteveRay: @Ali: Yes, I agree. All of this falls within the "correctness" of an ontology,  
+
[10:59] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Ali: Yes, I agree. All of this falls within the "correctness" of an ontology,  
  
 
IMHO.  
 
IMHO.  
  
[10:59] AliHashemi: From the verbal discussion that ensued, it's unclear to me how the "conformance  
+
[10:59] [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]]: From the verbal discussion that ensued, it's unclear to me how the "conformance  
  
 
to the reality of the target domain" is reflected in our tracks.  
 
to the reality of the target domain" is reflected in our tracks.  
  
[10:59] DougFoxvog: @Ali: *Every* ontology will certainly leave many things unsaid.  
+
[10:59] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @Ali: *Every* ontology will certainly leave many things unsaid.  
  
[10:59] AliHashemi: @Doug, agreed. So I'm not sure it's useful to simply state that an ontology is  
+
[10:59] [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]]: @Doug, agreed. So I'm not sure it's useful to simply state that an ontology is  
  
 
complete if they didn't "completely" model their domain  
 
complete if they didn't "completely" model their domain  
  
[10:59] SteveRay: @Ali: See my comment at [10:52]  
+
[10:59] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Ali: See my comment at [10:52]  
  
[11:00] AliHashemi: incomplete*  
+
[11:00] [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]]: incomplete*  
  
[11:00] MikeBennett: Apologies, I have to drop off now.  
+
[11:00] [[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]: Apologies, I have to drop off now.  
  
[11:01] TerryLongstreth: An important reason to continue to talk about implicit vs. explicit is to  
+
[11:01] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: An important reason to continue to talk about implicit vs. explicit is to  
  
 
minimize the opportunity for misinterpreting results. If the ontology picture (from my [10:14]) is  
 
minimize the opportunity for misinterpreting results. If the ontology picture (from my [10:14]) is  
Line 712: Line 712:
 
intrinsically evaluated, to put bounds on the range of valid inferences that can be drawn from it.  
 
intrinsically evaluated, to put bounds on the range of valid inferences that can be drawn from it.  
  
[11:02] AmandaVizedom: @Steve: original use might not have included machine reasoning; artifact may  
+
[11:02] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Steve: original use might not have included machine reasoning; artifact may  
  
 
therefor have inconsistencies in the explicit content that aren't caught (the original users may  
 
therefor have inconsistencies in the explicit content that aren't caught (the original users may  
Line 722: Line 722:
 
As soon as the formal semantics are applied, e.g., by machine validation, inconsistencies are apparent.  
 
As soon as the formal semantics are applied, e.g., by machine validation, inconsistencies are apparent.  
  
[11:04] SteveRay: @Amanda: In that case, the incompleteness is in the evaluation.  
+
[11:04] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Amanda: In that case, the incompleteness is in the evaluation.  
  
[11:05] AmandaVizedom: @Steve, in the initial evaluation, yes. When a new party considers this  
+
[11:05] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Steve, in the initial evaluation, yes. When a new party considers this  
  
 
artifact for reuse, *their* evaluation should catch it.  
 
artifact for reuse, *their* evaluation should catch it.  
  
[11:02] DougFoxvog: Note that in a *knowledge base*, that uses an ontology, data need not be limited  
+
[11:02] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: Note that in a *knowledge base*, that uses an ontology, data need not be limited  
  
 
to identification and properties of individuals. Additional properties of classes and rules for the  
 
to identification and properties of individuals. Additional properties of classes and rules for the  
Line 734: Line 734:
 
context can also be defined.  
 
context can also be defined.  
  
[11:04] TerryLongstreth: @SteveRay : you might want to say correctly constructed, or perhaps well-formed.  
+
[11:04] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: @SteveRay : you might want to say correctly constructed, or perhaps well-formed.  
  
[11:05] AliHashemi: @Terry, I like the notion of a well-formed ontology  
+
[11:05] [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]]: @Terry, I like the notion of a well-formed ontology  
  
[11:11] TerryLongstreth: Why concern for well-formedness? It's necessary to insure that the semantic  
+
[11:11] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: Why concern for well-formedness? It's necessary to insure that the semantic  
  
 
properties/extrinsics are correctly represented  
 
properties/extrinsics are correctly represented  
  
[11:06] DougFoxvog: @Amanda: It's true that inconsistencies can be made apparent when formal  
+
[11:06] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @Amanda: It's true that inconsistencies can be made apparent when formal  
  
 
semantics are applied. But these can often be "automatically" determined when missing statements  
 
semantics are applied. But these can often be "automatically" determined when missing statements  
Line 752: Line 752:
 
disjointness in a reasoning system, these all popped out.  
 
disjointness in a reasoning system, these all popped out.  
  
[11:08] DougFoxvog: A system can count the use of disjointness and similar assertions as indicators  
+
[11:08] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: A system can count the use of disjointness and similar assertions as indicators  
  
 
and suggest that low use indicates incompleteness of an ontology.  
 
and suggest that low use indicates incompleteness of an ontology.  
  
[10:55] PeterYim: == FabianNeuhaus / AmandaVizedom presenting ... see: the [5-Communique] slides  
+
[10:55] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]] / [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]] presenting ... see: the [5-Communique] slides  
  
[11:03] SteveRay: @Fabian: (Regarding the communique). On slide 6, you don't seem to include "Is the  
+
[11:03] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Fabian: (Regarding the communique). On slide 6, you don't seem to include "Is the  
  
 
ontology well constructed?" which is what all the intrinsic evaluation is about.  
 
ontology well constructed?" which is what all the intrinsic evaluation is about.  
  
[11:04] AliHashemi: @Fabian, will there also be a finer-grained discussion of how the various  
+
[11:04] [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]]: @Fabian, will there also be a finer-grained discussion of how the various  
  
 
metrics and evaluation approaches map to the various types of ontologies?  
 
metrics and evaluation approaches map to the various types of ontologies?  
  
[11:07] PeterYim: == Open Discussion about the Communique Approach ...  
+
[11:07] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == Open Discussion about the Communique Approach ...  
  
[11:08] MatthewWest: One of the things that I think that would be very useful in structuring the  
+
[11:08] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: One of the things that I think that would be very useful in structuring the  
  
 
Communique is the use of a net of problems/net of solutions approach. It can help to gather together  
 
Communique is the use of a net of problems/net of solutions approach. It can help to gather together  
Line 774: Line 774:
 
and sift through the mass of detail we have.  
 
and sift through the mass of detail we have.  
  
[11:09] AmandaVizedom: @Matthew: thanks for that suggestion; we will look into that.  
+
[11:09] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Matthew: thanks for that suggestion; we will look into that.  
  
[11:15] MatthewWest: You can find a very simple net of problems here on Page 12  
+
[11:15] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: You can find a very simple net of problems here on Page 12  
  
 
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/documents/princ03.pdf A simple net of solutions is on P40.  
 
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/documents/princ03.pdf A simple net of solutions is on P40.  
  
[11:09] ToddSchneider: Amanda, Fabian, Were does the notion of lifecycle come in?  
+
[11:09] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Amanda, Fabian, Were does the notion of lifecycle come in?  
  
[11:19] ToddSchneider: To provide value this summit should provide some guidance as to when a  
+
[11:19] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: To provide value this summit should provide some guidance as to when a  
  
 
particular evaluation/validation, or collection there of, should be applied w.r.t. the system  
 
particular evaluation/validation, or collection there of, should be applied w.r.t. the system  
Line 788: Line 788:
 
lifecycle.  
 
lifecycle.  
  
[11:10] AliHashemi: @All - will we be referring back to the Ontology Usage that was developed in the  
+
[11:10] [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]]: @All - will we be referring back to the Ontology Usage that was developed in the  
  
 
previous Summits? This would help select subsets of the very broad ranges of tools, approaches and  
 
previous Summits? This would help select subsets of the very broad ranges of tools, approaches and  
Line 794: Line 794:
 
metrics developed in this summit.  
 
metrics developed in this summit.  
  
[11:11] AliHashemi: cf -  
+
[11:11] [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]]: cf -  
  
 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ApplicationFramework_Synthesis  
 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ApplicationFramework_Synthesis  
  
[11:12] FabianNeuhaus: It seems the call was dropped  
+
[11:12] [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]: It seems the call was dropped  
  
[11:13] DougFoxvog: The conference hung up in the middle of Amanda's talking  
+
[11:13] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: The conference hung up in the middle of Amanda's talking  
  
[11:13] SteveRay: Did everyone just lose a connection? I suppose so.  
+
[11:13] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: Did everyone just lose a connection? I suppose so.  
  
[11:13] SimonSpero: Please hold. operators are standing by.  
+
[11:13] [[SimonSpero|Simon Spero]]: Please hold. operators are standing by.  
  
[11:13] LeoObrst: Yikes! Peter must be dropped.  
+
[11:13] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: Yikes! Peter must be dropped.  
  
[11:13] AmandaVizedom: Hopefully Peter will return soon...  
+
[11:13] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: Hopefully Peter will return soon...  
  
[11:13] SteveRay: Calming music.  
+
[11:13] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: Calming music.  
  
[11:13] DougFoxvog: We're back  
+
[11:13] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: We're back  
  
[11:13] SimonSpero: Everyone stop talking about Peter  
+
[11:13] [[SimonSpero|Simon Spero]]: Everyone stop talking about Peter  
  
[11:14] anonymous morphed into LamarHenderson  
+
[11:14] anonymous morphed into [[LamarHenderson|Lamar Henderson]]
  
[11:14] AmandaVizedom: My point is: I think the lifecycle will appear most in the context of best practices.  
+
[11:14] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: My point is: I think the lifecycle will appear most in the context of best practices.  
  
[11:16] DougFoxvog: Should lifecycle be orthogonal to ontology validation/verification feature? If  
+
[11:16] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: Should lifecycle be orthogonal to ontology validation/verification feature? If  
  
 
not, could we specify which components are needed at which points in the lifecycle?  
 
not, could we specify which components are needed at which points in the lifecycle?  
  
[11:20] AmandaVizedom: @DougFoxvog, we might, but we would not want to try to enumerate this in the  
+
[11:20] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @DougFoxvog, we might, but we would not want to try to enumerate this in the  
  
 
Communique. This is similar to the question of what evaluation factors are relevant to what sorts of uses.  
 
Communique. This is similar to the question of what evaluation factors are relevant to what sorts of uses.  
  
[11:20] MichaelDenny: @DougFoxvog This is what the survey attempts to do by sorting some 100  
+
[11:20] [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]]: @DougFoxvog This is what the survey attempts to do by sorting some 100  
  
 
software capabilities adressing ontology quality/fitness into seven phases of the lifecycle.  
 
software capabilities adressing ontology quality/fitness into seven phases of the lifecycle.  
  
[11:22] AmandaVizedom: Both are areas of high value. I hope we make progress on them during the  
+
[11:22] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: Both are areas of high value. I hope we make progress on them during the  
  
 
Summit. I don't think we can or should try to enumerate all specifics of such factors in the  
 
Summit. I don't think we can or should try to enumerate all specifics of such factors in the  
Line 840: Line 840:
 
future content.  
 
future content.  
  
[11:22] AliHashemi: @Amanda, might they be enumerated on the synthesis pages?  
+
[11:22] [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]]: @Amanda, might they be enumerated on the synthesis pages?  
  
[11:23] AmandaVizedom: @Ali, yes, I hope so. They might also turn into additional summit outputs, in  
+
[11:23] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Ali, yes, I hope so. They might also turn into additional summit outputs, in  
  
 
one form or another!  
 
one form or another!  
  
[11:14] PeterYim: == [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] / MikeDean presenting ... see: the [6-Hackathon-Clinics ] slides  
+
[11:14] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] / [[MikeDean|Mike Dean]] presenting ... see: the [6-Hackathon-Clinics ] slides  
  
[11:19] AnatolyLevenchuk: We issued today version 1.2 of .15926 Editor (this is like Protege for ISO  
+
[11:19] [[AnatolyLevenchuk|Anatoly Levenchuk]]: We issued today version 1.2 of .15926 Editor (this is like Protege for ISO  
  
 
15926 ontology, while RDF/OWL is also supported): http://techinvestlab.ru/dot15926Editor -- it will  
 
15926 ontology, while RDF/OWL is also supported): http://techinvestlab.ru/dot15926Editor -- it will  
Line 862: Line 862:
 
interesting exercise.  
 
interesting exercise.  
  
[11:23] DougFoxvog: I note that sending "gold standard" ontologies through evaluation tools may very  
+
[11:23] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: I note that sending "gold standard" ontologies through evaluation tools may very  
  
 
well determine problems with the ontologies labeled "gold standard". Such use will not only be  
 
well determine problems with the ontologies labeled "gold standard". Such use will not only be  
Line 868: Line 868:
 
useful for evaluating the tools, but also the "gold standards".  
 
useful for evaluating the tools, but also the "gold standards".  
  
[11:25] TerryLongstreth: @Peter: I'd be careful with the term SME. It conjures images of greybeards,  
+
[11:25] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: @Peter: I'd be careful with the term SME. It conjures images of greybeards,  
  
 
but in an IT environment, the people most interested in the correctness of function are usually  
 
but in an IT environment, the people most interested in the correctness of function are usually  
Line 874: Line 874:
 
called operators or users.  
 
called operators or users.  
  
[11:25] DavidLeal: The CEN SERES workshop will produce an ontology for materials data before May. We  
+
[11:25] [[DavidLeal|David Leal]]: The CEN SERES workshop will produce an ontology for materials data before May. We  
  
 
have participants also involved with the US Material Genome Initiative, so this ontology may have a  
 
have participants also involved with the US Material Genome Initiative, so this ontology may have a  
Line 882: Line 882:
 
ontology validation tools could be used on this ontology.  
 
ontology validation tools could be used on this ontology.  
  
[11:28] DavidLeal: Materials ontologies are a bit of a challenge for industry understandability,  
+
[11:28] [[DavidLeal|David Leal]]: Materials ontologies are a bit of a challenge for industry understandability,  
  
 
because the word "material" is used to mean both batch of stuff and a type of stuff - sometimes in  
 
because the word "material" is used to mean both batch of stuff and a type of stuff - sometimes in  
Line 888: Line 888:
 
the same sentence.  
 
the same sentence.  
  
[11:29] [[GaryBergCross]]: EarthCube is interested in various kinds of "material entities."  
+
[11:29] [[GaryBergCross]]: [[EarthCube|Earth Cube]] is interested in various kinds of "material entities."  
  
[11:31] DougFoxvog: @DavidLeal: Materials ontologies need to realize that some properties of  
+
[11:31] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @DavidLeal: Materials ontologies need to realize that some properties of  
  
 
materials are properties of the "stuff" independent of the state of affairs (temperature, pressure,  
 
materials are properties of the "stuff" independent of the state of affairs (temperature, pressure,  
Line 898: Line 898:
 
temp/pressure/other environment, while others are extrinsic, depending on the physical object  
 
temp/pressure/other environment, while others are extrinsic, depending on the physical object  
  
[11:31] DavidLeal: and the depend upon the history of the environment - materials have memory!  
+
[11:31] [[DavidLeal|David Leal]]: and the depend upon the history of the environment - materials have memory!  
  
[11:32] DougFoxvog: @David: the material memory is in its microscopic structure. Since that is hard  
+
[11:32] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @David: the material memory is in its microscopic structure. Since that is hard  
  
 
to specify, specifying the history of events helps.  
 
to specify, specifying the history of events helps.  
Line 914: Line 914:
 
submitted for a test.  
 
submitted for a test.  
  
[11:29] AmandaVizedom: @Gary: Seems like a good candidate.  
+
[11:29] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Gary: Seems like a good candidate.  
  
[11:30] AmandaVizedom: @Gary ... we'd need to get unstuck on the use case specification.  
+
[11:30] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Gary ... we'd need to get unstuck on the use case specification.  
  
 
[11:30] [[GaryBergCross]]: @Amanda Let us see if we can get USGS interested in moving forward from their data.  
 
[11:30] [[GaryBergCross]]: @Amanda Let us see if we can get USGS interested in moving forward from their data.  
  
[11:28] LeoObrst: Wow, we certainly have a lot here!  
+
[11:28] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: Wow, we certainly have a lot here!  
  
[11:30] PeterYim: == Q&A and Open Discussion ...  
+
[11:30] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == Q&A and Open Discussion ...  
  
[11:31] MariaPoveda: bye :-)  
+
[11:31] [[MariaPoveda|Maria Poveda]]: bye :-)  
  
[11:33] PeterYim: join us again, same time next week, for OntologySummit2013 session-07: "Extrinsic  
+
[11:33] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: join us again, same time next week, for [[OntologySummit2013|Ontology Summit 2013]] session-07: "Extrinsic  
  
Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - II" - Co-chairs: [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]] & TerryLongstreth -  
+
Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - II" - Co-chairs: [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]] & [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]] -  
  
 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_02_28  
 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_02_28  
  
[11:33] JoanneLuciano: thanks!  
+
[11:33] [[JoanneLuciano|Joanne Luciano]]: thanks!  
  
[11:33] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:31 am PST --  
+
[11:33] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: -- session ended: 11:31 am PST --  
  
 
-- end of in-session chat-transcript --  
 
-- end of in-session chat-transcript --  
Line 952: Line 952:
 
** to subscribe to this discussion list: send a blank message from your subscribing email address to <ontology-summit-join@ontolog.cim3.net> or visit http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ and subscribe yourself there  
 
** to subscribe to this discussion list: send a blank message from your subscribing email address to <ontology-summit-join@ontolog.cim3.net> or visit http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ and subscribe yourself there  
 
* Ontology Summit 2013 Community Library - http://www.zotero.org/groups/ontologysummit2013  
 
* Ontology Summit 2013 Community Library - http://www.zotero.org/groups/ontologysummit2013  
* Homepage of the Summit - see: OntologySummit  
+
* Homepage of the Summit - see: [[OntologySummit|Ontology Summit]]
  
 
----
 
----
Line 1,011: Line 1,011:
  
 
* Attended: (including those who registered to attend)  
 
* Attended: (including those who registered to attend)  
** MatthewWest (chair)  
+
** [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] (chair)  
 
** [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]] (in absentia)  
 
** [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]] (in absentia)  
** LeoObrst  
+
** [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]
** SteveRay  
+
** [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]
** TerryLongstreth  
+
** [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]
 
** [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]  
 
** [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]  
** MikeBennett  
+
** [[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]
** MichaelDenny  
+
** [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]]
** AmandaVizedom  
+
** [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]
** FabianNeuhaus  
+
** [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]
** MikeDean  
+
** [[MikeDean|Mike Dean]]
 
** [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]  
 
** [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]  
** AliHashemi  
+
** [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]]
** AnatolyLevenchuk  
+
** [[AnatolyLevenchuk|Anatoly Levenchuk]]
 
** [[AstridDuqueRamos]]  
 
** [[AstridDuqueRamos]]  
** BruceBray  
+
** [[BruceBray|Bruce Bray]]
** ClarePaul  
+
** [[ClarePaul|Clare Paul]]
** DavidLeal  
+
** [[DavidLeal|David Leal]]
** DougFoxvog  
+
** [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]
** DuaneNickull  
+
** [[DuaneNickull|Duane Nickull]]
** FrankLoebe  
+
** [[FrankLoebe|Frank Loebe]]
 
** [[GaryBergCross]]  
 
** [[GaryBergCross]]  
** HansPolzer  
+
** [[HansPolzer|Hans Polzer]]
** JeanneHolm  
+
** [[JeanneHolm|Jeanne Holm]]
** JieZheng  
+
** [[JieZheng|Jie Zheng]]
** JoanneLuciano  
+
** [[JoanneLuciano|Joanne Luciano]]
** JoelBender  
+
** [[JoelBender|Joel Bender]]
 
** [[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]]  
 
** [[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]]  
** LamarHenderson  
+
** [[LamarHenderson|Lamar Henderson]]
** MarcelaVegetti  
+
** [[MarcelaVegetti|Marcela Vegetti]]
** MariaCopeland  
+
** [[MariaCopeland|Maria Copeland]]
 
** [[MariaPovedaVillalon]]  
 
** [[MariaPovedaVillalon]]  
** MikeRiben  
+
** [[MikeRiben|Mike Riben]]
** RichardMartin  
+
** [[RichardMartin|Richard Martin]]
** SimonSpero  
+
** [[SimonSpero|Simon Spero]]
** TerryLongstreth  
+
** [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]
** TillMossakowski  
+
** [[TillMossakowski|Till Mossakowski]]
** TomTinsley  
+
** [[TomTinsley|Tom Tinsley]]
** YuriyMilov  
+
** [[YuriyMilov|Yuriy Milov]]
** PaulPope  
+
** [[PaulPope|Paul Pope]]
** BobSmith  
+
** [[BobSmith|Bob Smith]]
 
** [[RosarioUcedaSosa]]  
 
** [[RosarioUcedaSosa]]  
** PavithraKenjige  
+
** [[PavithraKenjige|Pavithra Kenjige]]
  
 
* Expecting:  
 
* Expecting:  
 
** ...  
 
** ...  
** ''please add yourself to the list (above) if you are a member of the [[WikiHomePage|Ontolog]] or OntologySummit community, or, rsvp to <peter.yim@cim3.com> with your affiliation.''  
+
** ''please add yourself to the list (above) if you are a member of the [[WikiHomePage|Ontolog]] or [[OntologySummit|Ontology Summit]] community, or, rsvp to <peter.yim@cim3.com> with your affiliation.''  
  
 
* Regrets:  
 
* Regrets:  
 
** [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]] (on a plane at this time)  
 
** [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]] (on a plane at this time)  
** RamSriram  
+
** [[RamSriram|Ram D. Sriram]]
 
** [[JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis]]  
 
** [[JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis]]  
** NancyWiegand  
+
** [[NancyWiegand|Nancy Wiegand]]
 
** [[MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa]]  
 
** [[MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa]]  
 
** ...  
 
** ...  

Latest revision as of 01:42, 9 January 2016

[ ]

Contents

[edit] Ontology Summit 2013: Panel Session-06 - Thu 2013-02-21     (1)

Summit Theme: "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"     (1A)

  • Summit General Co-chairs: Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto, Canada) and Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK)     (1B)

Session Topic: Ontology Summit 2013: Synthesis-I     (1C)

Briefings:     (1E)

  • Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK) & Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto, Canada) - "General Assessment & Fine-tuning of Ontology Summit 2013 Direction & Approach" [ slides]     (1F)
  • Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE) & Dr. SteveRay (CMU) - "Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-1" slides     (1G)
  • Mr. TerryLongstreth (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. ToddSchneider (Raytheon) - "Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-1" slides     (1H)
  • Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction) & Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council; Hypercube) - "Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-1" slides     (1I)
  • Dr. MichaelDenny (MITRE) & Mr. PeterYim (Ontolog; CIM3) - "Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-1" slides     (1J)
  • Dr. AmandaVizedom (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. FabianNeuhaus (NIST) - "Approach to the Ontology Summit 2013 Communique" slides     (1K)
  • Mr. MikeDean (Raytheon BBN) & Mr. PeterYim (Ontolog; CIM3) - "Approach to the "Hackathon" & "Clinics" Activities" slides     (1L)

[edit] Abstract     (1N)

OntologySummit2013 Session-06: "Synthesis-I" - intro slides     (1N1)

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."     (1N2)

This is our 6th event, and we are a third of the way through the virtual sessions for the Summit. Each of the four tracks have hosted very exciting presentations that address the key Summit themes -- Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation, Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation, Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria, and Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies.     (1N3)

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.     (1N4)

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 Communiqu��.     (1N5)

In today's session, we will focus on the synthesis of all of these ideas as input into an initial draft of the Summit Communiqu��. We will also have a discussion on some new features of this year's Symposium -- a hackathon for ontology evaluation software support and the idea of ontology evaluation clinics for ontologies that people want evaluated.     (1N6)

More details about this Ontology Summit is available at: OntologySummit2013 (homepage for this summit)     (1N7)

OntologySummit2013 - Panel Session-06     (1O1)

  • Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call     (1O2)
  • 1. Opening by the chair (MatthewWest) [5 min.] ... [ slides ]     (1O3)
  • 2. General assessment on how things are developing and fine tuning of direction/approach (MatthewWest and MichaelGruninger) [5 min.]     (1O4)
  • 3. Track Synthesis I (presentation of the interim deliverables by each pair of track co-champions) [10 min/track]     (1O5)
    • 3.1 Track A: Synthesis-1 (LeoObrst and SteveRay)     (1O5A)
    • 3.2 Track B: Synthesis-1 (TerryLongstreth and ToddSchneider)     (1O5B)
    • 3.3 Track C: Synthesis-1 (MatthewWest and MikeBennett)     (1O5C)
    • 3.4 Track D: Synthesis-1 (MichaelDenny and PeterYim)     (1O5D)
    • 3.5 Q&A and discussion on the tracks syntheses [~10 min.] ... please refer to process above     (1O5E)
  • 4. Approach to the Communique and a proposed Communique Outline (AmandaVizedom and FabianNeuhaus) [15 min.]     (1O6)
  • 5. Approach to the "hackathon" & "clinics" (MikeDean and PeterYim) [15 min.]     (1O7)
    • 5.1 Q&A and discussion on this topic, including brainstorming on possible "hackathon/clinic" projects [~10 min.]     (1O7A)
  • 6. Summary/wrap-up/announcements [5 min.]     (1O8)

[edit] Proceedings     (1P)

Please refer to the above     (1P1)

[edit] IM Chat Transcript captured during the session    (1P2)

see raw transcript here.     (1P2A)

(for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)     (1P2B)

Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.     (1P2C)

-- begin in-session chat-transcript --     (1P2D)


Chat transcript from room: summit_20130221     (1P2E)

2013-02-21 GMT-08:00 [PST]     (1P2F)


[8:36] Peter P. Yim: Welcome to the     (1P2G)

Ontology Summit 2013: Panel Session-06 - Thu 2013-02-21     (1P2H)

Summit Theme: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle     (1P2I)

Session Topic: Ontology Summit 2013: Synthesis-I     (1P2K)

Panelists / Briefings:     (1P2M)

- "General Assessment & Fine-tuning of Ontology Summit 2013 Direction & Approach"     (1P2O)

- "Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-1"     (1P2Q)

- "Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-1"     (1P2S)

- "Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-1"     (1P2U)

- "Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-1"     (1P2W)

- "Approach to the Ontology Summit 2013 Communique"     (1P2Y)

- "Approach to the "Hackathon" & "Clinics" Activities"     (1P2AA)

Logistics:     (1P2AB)

  • (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName (in WikiWord format)     (1P2AD)
    • 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,)     (1P2AH1)

if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it.     (1P2AI)

Proceedings:     (1P2AO)

[9:25] anonymous morphed into Maria Poveda     (1P2AP)

[9:27] Steve Ray: Hi Maria, glad you could join us today.     (1P2AQ)

[9:28] anonymous morphed into Michael Denny     (1P2AR)

[9:30] anonymous morphed into Lamar Henderson     (1P2AT)

[9:30] Steve Ray: Skype is acting up again. Drops me after about 2 seconds...     (1P2AU)

[9:31] Steve Ray: Google Voice works...     (1P2AV)

[9:42] Joanne Luciano: can't get in on skype :-(     (1P2AW)

[9:45] Peter P. Yim: @Joanne - please try restarting skype (or restarting your machine) or call one of     (1P2AX)

the phone numbers ... skype should be working as quite a few (over 15) are connected via skype as we speak     (1P2AY)

[9:32] Duane Nickull: Good Morning all!     (1P2AZ)

[9:33] Anatoly Levenchuk: To Duane: we have 21:13 here in Moscow. Good night! :-)     (1P2AAA)

[9:35] Peter P. Yim: == Matthew West opens the session on behalf of the General Co-chairs     (1P2AAB)

... see: the [0-Chair] slides     (1P2AAC)

[9:39] Amanda Vizedom: re: Matthew's slide 4: ...or, it may be conscious knowledge on the part of an     (1P2AAH)

individual reviewer, but it isn't shared knowledge. Thus, issues of consistency and guidance for the     (1P2AAI)

field, etc.     (1P2AAJ)

[9:42] Doug Foxvog: @Amanda: the ref. to "Matthew's slide 4" should be to Steve/Leo's slide 4.     (1P2AAK)

[9:48] Amanda Vizedom: @Doug: No, in that comment I was responding to Matthew's comment about how we     (1P2AAL)

[9:44] anonymous morphed into Tom Tinsley     (1P2AAO)

[9:39] Peter P. Yim: == Leo Obrst / Steve Ray presenting ... see: the [1-Track-A] slides     (1P2AAP)

[9:41] Amanda Vizedom: re: Leo's slide 2: In-Between > Both     (1P2AAQ)

[9:44] Fabian Neuhaus: @Leo: slide 2: I think there is an important difference between relationship     (1P2AAR)

between ontology and world (e.g, whether the ontology represents reality accurately) and whether the     (1P2AAS)

ontology meets black box requirements of an IT system. The first can be evaluated independently of     (1P2AAT)

requirements, the second is always relative to the requirements from an IT system. In the first case     (1P2AAU)

the ontology is not opaque to the tester, in the second it isn't [correction: "it might be" (ref.     (1P2AAV)

below)]. Thus, these should not be lumped together as "extrinsic"     (1P2AAW)

[9:58] Steve Ray: @Fabian, your first comment at 9:44 you had two negatives. Could you restate? (The     (1P2AAX)

sentence beginning "In the first case...")     (1P2AAY)

[9:59] Fabian Neuhaus: Sorry. I meant to write: "In the first case the ontology is not opaque to the     (1P2AAZ)

tester, in the second it might be (as blackbox testing). Thus, these should not be lumped together     (1P2AAAA)

as "extrinsic"     (1P2AAAB)

[10:00] Leo Obrst: @Fabian: (slide 2): Yes, indeed. I don't think we lump these together as     (1P2AAAC)

extrinsic, if you look at the other slides. The first focuses on mostly intrinsic-->land of     (1P2AAAD)

in-between. The second focuses on the extrinsic regions.     (1P2AAAE)

[10:01] Joanne Luciano: @LeoObrst --> I would say land of in-betweenS (plural)     (1P2AAAF)

[10:02] Steve Ray: OK. As Leo said, he and I are using "Intrinsic" and "Extrinsic" as useful extreme     (1P2AAAG)

concepts, and few if any evaluations will be at either extreme.     (1P2AAAH)

[9:51] Amanda Vizedom: @Fabian: I think that there are aspects of the first that can be evaluated     (1P2AAAI)

independently, but not nearly enough to select/eval ontologies for most uses -- they don't just need     (1P2AAAJ)

to represent the world, but the parts and aspects of the world with which the domain / users     (1P2AAAK)

[9:52] Fabian Neuhaus: @Amanda. I agree. However, ontology evaluation is not only done for the     (1P2AAAM)

purpose of choice. It is, for example, done during the development process.     (1P2AAAN)

[9:53] Michael Denny: @FabianNeuhaus +1 Fitness for an application versus fitness as conformance to     (1P2AAAO)

world reality.     (1P2AAAP)

[9:54] Fabian Neuhaus: @MichaelDenny: Exactly!     (1P2AAAQ)

[9:49] Mike Bennett: I think Fabian's point has interesting implications for the creation of formal     (1P2AAAR)

methodologies for ontology development and evaluation - in particular the ontology-world     (1P2AAAS)

relationship should be fundamental to what process paths to follow in such a methodology.     (1P2AAAT)

[9:57] Amanda Vizedom: @Fabian, Michael: I agree that such elements of "conformance to world reality"     (1P2AAAU)

can be independently assessed. I argue, however, that in order to evaluate "conformance to world     (1P2AAAV)

reality" usefully, you need to know what portion of world is supposed to be modeled. As with     (1P2AAAW)

scientific theories, ontologies cover not only what we recognize at large scale as domains, but     (1P2AAAX)

particular kinds of relationships and interactions, and the characteristics of things that partake     (1P2AAAY)

[9:58] Mike Bennett: @Amanda +1 - there's the basic model theoretic relation of whether it's really     (1P2AAAAA)

an ontology of the world or some application, and for the former, there's the scope and the     (1P2AAAAB)

ontological commitments that would be appropriate to that scope.     (1P2AAAAC)

[9:59] Joanne Luciano: +100 (have to know purpose before can evaluate)     (1P2AAAAD)

[9:45] Amanda Vizedom: @Leo: would you put some aspects of reasoning support in Region 1 (Intrinsic)?     (1P2AAAAE)

I think I would, even though performing the reasoning requires more than the ontology. Probably     (1P2AAAAF)

somewhat about the language and somewhat about what content is actually represented. I'm thinking     (1P2AAAAG)

about questions like: is there support for representation of (& reasoning about) uncertainty? Is     (1P2AAAAH)

there support for provenance information capture, such that it, too can be reasoned about?     (1P2AAAAI)

[10:02] Leo Obrst: @Amanda: yes, real reasoning figures across the 3 regions.     (1P2AAAAJ)

[9:47] Amanda Vizedom: @Leo: I would also see adequacy of coverage as Region 2, insofar as you can't     (1P2AAAAK)

tell what aspects of the world are wanted without knowing about the domain / usage.     (1P2AAAAL)

[10:04] Leo Obrst: @Amanda: (re. your second point) Yes, adequacy of coverage primarily falls under     (1P2AAAAM)

Region 2, where domain knowledge and ontology-world correspondence is very important.     (1P2AAAAN)

[9:46] Todd Schneider: Leo, Steve, Why are 'Transitivity, symmetry, reflexivity, equivalence' listed     (1P2AAAAO)

as meta-properties [to an ontology]?     (1P2AAAAP)

[9:48] Doug Foxvog: @Todd: "transitivity, symmetry, & reflexivity" are properties of properties; thus     (1P2AAAAQ)

meta-properties. Equivalence can be a property of properties as well as one of types and individuals.     (1P2AAAAR)

[9:48] anonymous morphed into GaryBergCross     (1P2AAAAT)

[9:51] Doug Foxvog: Region 3 (purely extrinsic) would disallow a query as to whether two classes are     (1P2AAAAU)

disjoint. However, since it allows queries, couldn't it ask if a hypothetical thing (perhaps by     (1P2AAAAV)

reifying it) could be an instance of those two classes -- in order to determine disjointness?     (1P2AAAAW)

[10:05] Fabian Neuhaus: @Leo: I just don't think that this is a helpful way to slice up the cake. The     (1P2AAAAX)

way you describe it there is a sliding scale between two extremes with considering only internal     (1P2AAAAY)

properties on one side and considering behavior on the other side. Evaluating the ontology on     (1P2AAAAZ)

whether the ontology describes reality properly is not "in the middle between the extremes" it is a     (1P2AAAAAA)

different thing entirely.     (1P2AAAAAB)

[10:08] Steve Ray: @Fabian: I don't agree - this is one of the performance characteristics a user     (1P2AAAAAC)

would want to assure is met.     (1P2AAAAAD)

[10:07] Todd Schneider: All, from an IT perspective use of the term 'reality' to describe intended     (1P2AAAAAE)

interpretations or uses (of the IT system) is misleading.     (1P2AAAAAF)

[10:11] Leo Obrst: @Fabian: well, we discussed this and felt that by providing pole perspectives,     (1P2AAAAAG)

that this would help. One would probably say that conformance of the ontology to reality is truly     (1P2AAAAAH)

something that spans all 3 regions, since by definition that is what an ontology as an engineering     (1P2AAAAAI)

construct is all about. One might gauge that in different ways. For example, if one has 2 predicates     (1P2AAAAAJ)

or 2 classes and 1 property for an ontology that is supposed to represent a complex domain, one     (1P2AAAAAK)

might gauge it from a narrow intrinsic perspective as being insufficient. That of course is a simple     (1P2AAAAAL)

case one hardly ever finds.     (1P2AAAAAM)

[10:14] Amanda Vizedom: @Fabian, @Leo: I would agree that it doesn't feel like a scale. The second     (1P2AAAAAN)

kind of evaluation isn't really "between" the other two. Rather, it's a different kind of activity     (1P2AAAAAO)

that incorporates some of the kinds of knowledge that go into the first and third (i.e., ontology     (1P2AAAAAP)

theory and understanding of the intended use, respectively), plus some other kinds. To some extent,     (1P2AAAAAQ)

you could view this in a Venn diagram manner, where each area represent the kinds of knowledge and     (1P2AAAAAR)

tools you need in order to do one of these three types of evaluation. In that case, 1 and 3 would     (1P2AAAAAS)

intersect, and 2 would include, but not be limited to, that intersection. It might also include     (1P2AAAAAT)

knowledge of human factors research, experimental techniques, and various ways of achieving SME     (1P2AAAAAU)

validation, etc.     (1P2AAAAAV)

[10:16] Fabian Neuhaus: @Amanda: I agree. You can easily build an ontology that scores well on     (1P2AAAAAW)

intrinsic metrics and shows the intended behavior in the sense of answering queries fine, but     (1P2AAAAAX)

contains factual errors.     (1P2AAAAAY)

[10:11] Frank Loebe: @Fabian: Are you aware of any methodology / approach for evaluating an ontology     (1P2AAAAAZ)

regarding its performance of describing reality? Or was anything discussed in the previous summit     (1P2AAAAAAA)

sessions (not all of which I could follow / catch up with)?     (1P2AAAAAAB)

[10:13] Fabian Neuhaus: @Frank: Werner Ceusters addresses that to a degree in his methodology.     (1P2AAAAAAC)

[10:08] Fabian Neuhaus: @Todd: that's not what I mean by reality.     (1P2AAAAAAD)

[10:09] Todd Schneider: Fabian, so much for interpretation clarity:) But I was also referring to     (1P2AAAAAAE)

Leo's & Steve's slides and in general.     (1P2AAAAAAF)

[10:28] Till Mossakowski: a question about the track A talk (slide 7): is it possible to download     (1P2AAAAAAG)

[[ConferenceCall_2013_01_31|OntoQA]] somewhere?     (1P2AAAAAAH)

[10:33] Leo Obrst: @Till: I'm not sure. We'll query Samir Tartir and the other [[ConferenceCall_2013_01_31|OntoQA]] folks.     (1P2AAAAAAI)

[9:52] anonymous morphed into Ken Baclawski     (1P2AAAAAAJ)

[9:54] Peter P. Yim: == Terry Longstreth / Todd Schneider presenting ... see: the [2-Track-B] slides     (1P2AAAAAAK)

[10:04] Peter P. Yim: == Mike Bennett / Matthew West presenting ... see: the [3-Track-C] slides     (1P2AAAAAAL)

[10:08] GaryBergCross: I'm surprised that people haven't mention the difference between evaluating     (1P2AAAAAAM)

light weight ontologies vs. 'heavy" ones with lots of axioms.     (1P2AAAAAAN)

[10:09] Maria Poveda: @Gary could it be the first one a subset of the second option?     (1P2AAAAAAO)

[10:09] Maria Poveda: I mean in a heavyweight ontology you can make the mistake you do in a taxonomy     (1P2AAAAAAP)

for example, and many other     (1P2AAAAAAQ)

[10:13] Simon Spero: @Maria: @What is the mistake of a taxonomy     (1P2AAAAAAR)

[10:14] Simon Spero: @Maria: Apart from assuming that a taxonomy is necessarily an ontology     (1P2AAAAAAS)

[10:14] Maria Poveda: @simon for example to set a subclassOf axiom wrong or to include a class in two     (1P2AAAAAAT)

levels of the hierarchy     (1P2AAAAAAU)

[10:14] Maria Poveda: @Simon, some authors also consider cycles as errors, they are not always, but     (1P2AAAAAAV)

in some cases they are     (1P2AAAAAAW)

[10:16] Simon Spero: Maria: Cycles are errors in controlled vocabularies other than synonym rings     (1P2AAAAAAX)

[10:12] Simon Spero: @Gary How do you measure the weight of an ontology     (1P2AAAAAAY)

[10:12] GaryBergCross: @maria It might be more useful to speculate that light weight ones are     (1P2AAAAAAZ)

transparent to the end user who have an understanding of those requirements rather than formal     (1P2AAAAAAAA)

requirements that a Knowledge Engineer understands as part of development.     (1P2AAAAAAAB)

discussion....     (1P2AAAAAAAD)

[10:15] Simon Spero: @Gary: That's what I thought, but I've heard the, er, term misused     (1P2AAAAAAAE)

[10:17] GaryBergCross: @Simon Yes, I am more comfortable with the idea of a light ontology than a     (1P2AAAAAAAF)

heavy one, which is why I use quotes.     (1P2AAAAAAAG)

[10:27] Leo Obrst: @Gary et al: granularity is a factor distinguishing lightweight from heavyweight     (1P2AAAAAAAH)

ontologies, and is dependent on the intended application. If one does not need to distinguish     (1P2AAAAAAAI)

between 2 subclasses, e.g., one only needs to represent their parent class. This might be good for a     (1P2AAAAAAAJ)

simple search and indexing application.     (1P2AAAAAAAK)

[10:33] GaryBergCross: @Leo Granularity might not be the right concept, but I think that I know what     (1P2AAAAAAAL)

you mean. The reason I don't think this as granular is that one might have 20 sub-types or parts or     (1P2AAAAAAAM)

scale levels in a light model but only get to 3-4 in a more formal one that is better modeled.     (1P2AAAAAAAN)

Concepts get detailed in more formal ontologies.     (1P2AAAAAAAO)

[10:39] Leo Obrst: @Gary: yes, you always have that distinction: a very large ontology could be very     (1P2AAAAAAAP)

simple, but cover a lot of simple classes, whereas a very precise ontology may just cover 3-4 of     (1P2AAAAAAAQ)

those classes, so a kind of zooming in. It really is granularity and precision. Think of a map and     (1P2AAAAAAAR)

the actual region it maps.     (1P2AAAAAAAS)

[10:36] Maria Poveda: @Leo @Gary, could it be "expressivity"? I'n not sure about the term either...     (1P2AAAAAAAT)

[10:39] Maria Poveda: something like this     (1P2AAAAAAAU)

[10:41] Leo Obrst: @Maria: Or this: ;)     (1P2AAAAAAAW)

[10:46] Maria Poveda: @Leo thanks     (1P2AAAAAAAY)

[10:16] Todd Schneider: Leo, Steve. Terry, Has anybody discussed the notions of 'intrinsic' and     (1P2AAAAAAAZ)

extrinsic' criteria w.r.t. particular lifecycle phases?     (1P2AAAAAAAAA)

[10:18] Todd Schneider: It would seem that intrinsic criteria/evaluations are more relevant during     (1P2AAAAAAAAB)

early lifecycle phases, while extrinsic are more relevant to later lifecycle phases.     (1P2AAAAAAAAC)

[10:20] GaryBergCross: @Todd I can see it working the other way. One starts by having a lighter wt     (1P2AAAAAAAAD)

ontology that used terms from the domain and is very extrinsic and only later is formalized. You     (1P2AAAAAAAAE)

wind up with something in between.     (1P2AAAAAAAAF)

[10:20] Michael Denny: @ToddSchneider Perhaps just the opposite. One may begin with concerns about     (1P2AAAAAAAAG)

the domain semantics (extrinsic) and then worry about how best to implement those in a formal     (1P2AAAAAAAAH)

ontology (intrinsic).     (1P2AAAAAAAAI)

[10:21] GaryBergCross: @Michael +1 we agree.     (1P2AAAAAAAAJ)

[10:19] Steve Ray: @Todd: Agreed     (1P2AAAAAAAAK)

[10:19] Terry Longstreth: @Todd Not necessarily more relevant, but certainly more available     (1P2AAAAAAAAL)

[10:19] Fabian Neuhaus: @Todd. I think inconsistency might be relevant at any stage :-)     (1P2AAAAAAAAM)

[10:20] Steve Ray: @Fabian: But you would have eliminated the inconsistency early in the lifecycle...     (1P2AAAAAAAAN)

[10:21] Terry Longstreth: @Todd (rephrase) Intrinsics (of which I would include syntax checking) are     (1P2AAAAAAAAO)

probably tested from the outset of a project.     (1P2AAAAAAAAP)

[10:21] Todd Schneider: Fabian, Yes, but the manifestation of inconsistency will be different, hence     (1P2AAAAAAAAQ)

the associated evaluation criteria should be expected to be different.     (1P2AAAAAAAAR)

[10:20] Fabian Neuhaus: @Steve: any change to the ontology might potentially lead to inconsistency.     (1P2AAAAAAAAS)

That can happen at any stage of the life cycle.     (1P2AAAAAAAAT)

[10:21] Steve Ray: @Fabian: Of course. I was half serious.     (1P2AAAAAAAAU)

[10:22] Fabian Neuhaus: @Steve. Sorry. the humor got lost in the medium :-)     (1P2AAAAAAAAV)

[10:23] Steve Ray: @Fabian: I'll try to use :) more often.     (1P2AAAAAAAAW)

[10:21] Amanda Vizedom: @Todd: I don't think so; I've seen too many projects go off on the (wildly)     (1P2AAAAAAAAX)

wrong track because they haven't defined their requirements (or shared them across sub-teams) up     (1P2AAAAAAAAY)

front. I have been a pained neighbor-observer to one that when through three different start-end     (1P2AAAAAAAAZ)

year-long contracts like this, during each round of which the new contractor went off building     (1P2AAAAAAAAAA)

something with no potential to meet the need even if perfectly executed.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAB)

[10:22] Leo Obrst: @Fabian, Amanda: Yes, one might have a perfectly consistent ontology with good     (1P2AAAAAAAAAC)

structural metrics that is just nonsense, because it doesn't conform to the world. When we made this     (1P2AAAAAAAAAD)

a scale, we really weren't necessarily thinking of a 2D scale. It really was more of a rhetorical     (1P2AAAAAAAAAE)

device to talk about the space.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAF)

[10:26] Todd Schneider: Amanda, Michael Denny, There is the design phase, prior to any development,     (1P2AAAAAAAAAG)

where the issues you each raised would be addressed.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAH)

[10:28] Amanda Vizedom: @Todd: Yes, and it's important to make explicit that a good methodology     (1P2AAAAAAAAAI)

includes such a phase (design and/or requirements identification). Too many people never even think     (1P2AAAAAAAAAJ)

of doing it for ontologies.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAK)

[10:23] Doug Foxvog: @Simon @Maria: cycles in a controlled vocabulary comprise what WordNet calls a     (1P2AAAAAAAAAL)

synset. In ontological terms, they are equivalence sets. One can have narrow contexts in which the     (1P2AAAAAAAAAM)

only instances of the more general concept are also instances of the narrower one. This can be     (1P2AAAAAAAAAN)

expressed in a domain ontology by creating a subclass cycle -- which defines all classes in the     (1P2AAAAAAAAAO)

cycle to be equivalent.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAP)

example of what have been identify as errors in taxonomies     (1P2AAAAAAAAAR)

[10:24] GaryBergCross: Q. Do these evaluation approaches and concepts apply equally to Ontology     (1P2AAAAAAAAAS)

Design Patterns or are there additional factors to consider for ODPs?     (1P2AAAAAAAAAT)

[10:25] Amanda Vizedom: @Gary: Yes. ;-)     (1P2AAAAAAAAAU)

[10:25] Maria Poveda: yes, as in load of situations, if the goal of the developer is to do that it is     (1P2AAAAAAAAAV)

correct, the problem is when people (most of the time not ontologists) end up with that models by mistake     (1P2AAAAAAAAAW)

[10:26] Maria Poveda: so IMHO I would not look for things that are always and error because it is     (1P2AAAAAAAAAX)

going to be almost impossible because some one might want to do that     (1P2AAAAAAAAAY)

[10:26] Maria Poveda: but find situation that might be an error, identify them and decide whether     (1P2AAAAAAAAAZ)

they should be corrected or not     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAA)

[10:27] Peter P. Yim: == Michael Denny / Peter P. Yim presenting ... see: the [4-Track-D] slides     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAB)

[10:36] Amanda Vizedom: @MichaelDenny: I agree and think your point is important; it seems as though     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAC)

many (most?) evaluation factors will be relevant at many (most?) points in the lifecycle, but     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAD)

perhaps call for different treatment at different points.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAE)

[10:40] Amanda Vizedom: @MichaelDenny: (ref. MichaelDenny's remarks during the presentation, that he     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAF)

may not consider "visualization" a factor in the software that addresses ontology quality) Visual     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAG)

building, or visualization, might be important for developer understanding OR for SME validation.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAH)

The survey could ask about this kind of capability at different levels of specificity, though (i.e.,     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAI)

render ontology in format intelligible to non-ontologists and facilitate input or review from same     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAJ)

vs. "ontology visualization" and/or "visual ontology construction."     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAK)

[10:42] Mike Bennett: @Amanda +2. Presentation to SMEs may take one of several forms, since non     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAM)

technical people, being people, have one of several modalities they may be comfortable with: visual     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAN)

Boxes and lines per Vision/whiteboard; tables or spreadsheets of terms and definitions; and     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAO)

controlled natural language.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAP)

[10:43] Terry Longstreth: about extrinsic vs intrinsic (or the hybrid) is inspecting and judging a     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAQ)

visual representation of the CLIF based ontology an extrinsic or intrinsic test?     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAR)

[10:56] Amanda Vizedom: @Terry: it depends what you are inspecting and judging it for.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAS)

[10:43] Peter P. Yim: == Open Discussion about the tracks' syntheses ...     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAT)

[10:52] Steve Ray: @Fabian: It's hard to imagine good performance for an ontology-based system if the     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAU)

ontology doesn't align with reality.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAV)

[10:52] Doug Foxvog: @Leo: the need is not always conformance to the "real world", but conformance to     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAW)

the world of the domain. One could create an ontology for a role-playing game that uses ontology for     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAX)

real-world physics, but adds fictional biological creatures, and fantastical powers.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAY)

[10:53] Doug Foxvog: @Steve: see my above statement.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAZ)

[10:53] Steve Ray: @Doug: Yes, let me amend my use of the word "reality" to mean "the domain being modeled"     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAA)

[10:56] Leo Obrst: @Doug: yes, this gets into the "reality" of the domain, and so might be better     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAB)

considered as verisimilitude to the domain, if the domain is e.g., fictional.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAC)

[10:55] Amanda Vizedom: @Steve: Some "ontologies" do fairly well in their initial the context for     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAD)

which they are originally created, because of implicit assumption shared in that context, but are     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAE)

impossible to reuse in part because of basic problems, including conformance to reality *when just     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAF)

the explicitly captured ontology is considered*.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAG)

[10:57] Steve Ray: @Amanda: What you describe sounds to me like the ontology is simply incomplete, if     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAH)

there are assumptions that are not reflected in the model. That, to me, is different from not being     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAI)

aligned with the domain being modeled.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAJ)

[10:57] Mike Bennett: All these considerations about the reality of the domain, have two possible     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAK)

implications: quality criteria for the thing you are developing for; and considerations when others     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAL)

are developing something and want to consider whether or not to reuse that ontology.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAM)

[10:58] Ali Hashemi: @Steve - this comes back to the point of granularity and precision, right?     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAN)

[10:58] Amanda Vizedom: @Terry: *assuming*, that is, that the visualization technique preserves the     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAO)

structure and content of the ontology.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAP)

[10:58] Ali Hashemi: a lightweight ontology will almost certainly leave many things left unsaid     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAQ)

[10:59] Steve Ray: @Ali: Yes, I agree. All of this falls within the "correctness" of an ontology,     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAR)

[10:59] Ali Hashemi: From the verbal discussion that ensued, it's unclear to me how the "conformance     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAT)

to the reality of the target domain" is reflected in our tracks.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAU)

[10:59] Doug Foxvog: @Ali: *Every* ontology will certainly leave many things unsaid.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAV)

[10:59] Ali Hashemi: @Doug, agreed. So I'm not sure it's useful to simply state that an ontology is     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAW)

complete if they didn't "completely" model their domain     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAX)

[10:59] Steve Ray: @Ali: See my comment at [10:52]     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAY)

[11:00] Mike Bennett: Apologies, I have to drop off now.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAA)

[11:01] Terry Longstreth: An important reason to continue to talk about implicit vs. explicit is to     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAB)

minimize the opportunity for misinterpreting results. If the ontology picture (from my [10:14]) is     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAC)

judged by the SME to be logically correct and aesthetically pleasing, it still needs to be validated     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAD)

against the CLIF representation for logical equivalence, and the CLIF version has to be     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAE)

intrinsically evaluated, to put bounds on the range of valid inferences that can be drawn from it.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAF)

[11:02] Amanda Vizedom: @Steve: original use might not have included machine reasoning; artifact may     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAG)

therefor have inconsistencies in the explicit content that aren't caught (the original users may     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAH)

interpret not according to the formal semantics, but rather according to some conventional treatment     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAI)

local to them. They often don't realize this and put their artifact out there as a reusable ontology.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAJ)

As soon as the formal semantics are applied, e.g., by machine validation, inconsistencies are apparent.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAK)

[11:04] Steve Ray: @Amanda: In that case, the incompleteness is in the evaluation.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAL)

[11:05] Amanda Vizedom: @Steve, in the initial evaluation, yes. When a new party considers this     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAM)

artifact for reuse, *their* evaluation should catch it.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAN)

[11:02] Doug Foxvog: Note that in a *knowledge base*, that uses an ontology, data need not be limited     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAO)

to identification and properties of individuals. Additional properties of classes and rules for the     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAP)

context can also be defined.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAQ)

[11:04] Terry Longstreth: @SteveRay : you might want to say correctly constructed, or perhaps well-formed.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAR)

[11:05] Ali Hashemi: @Terry, I like the notion of a well-formed ontology     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAS)

[11:11] Terry Longstreth: Why concern for well-formedness? It's necessary to insure that the semantic     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAT)

properties/extrinsics are correctly represented     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAU)

[11:06] Doug Foxvog: @Amanda: It's true that inconsistencies can be made apparent when formal     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAV)

semantics are applied. But these can often be "automatically" determined when missing statements     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAW)

(e.g., disjointness) are specified. The Cell Line Ontology until Dec. 2011 had a number of common     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAX)

subclasses of PlantCell and AnimalCell (and likewise of other disjoint class pairs). Upon specifying     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAY)

disjointness in a reasoning system, these all popped out.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAZ)

[11:08] Doug Foxvog: A system can count the use of disjointness and similar assertions as indicators     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAA)

and suggest that low use indicates incompleteness of an ontology.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAB)

[10:55] Peter P. Yim: == Fabian Neuhaus / Amanda Vizedom presenting ... see: the [5-Communique] slides     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAC)

[11:03] Steve Ray: @Fabian: (Regarding the communique). On slide 6, you don't seem to include "Is the     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAD)

ontology well constructed?" which is what all the intrinsic evaluation is about.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAE)

[11:04] Ali Hashemi: @Fabian, will there also be a finer-grained discussion of how the various     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAF)

metrics and evaluation approaches map to the various types of ontologies?     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAG)

[11:07] Peter P. Yim: == Open Discussion about the Communique Approach ...     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAH)

[11:08] Matthew West: One of the things that I think that would be very useful in structuring the     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAI)

Communique is the use of a net of problems/net of solutions approach. It can help to gather together     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAJ)

and sift through the mass of detail we have.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAK)

[11:09] Amanda Vizedom: @Matthew: thanks for that suggestion; we will look into that.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAL)

[11:15] Matthew West: You can find a very simple net of problems here on Page 12     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAM)

[11:09] Todd Schneider: Amanda, Fabian, Were does the notion of lifecycle come in?     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAO)

[11:19] Todd Schneider: To provide value this summit should provide some guidance as to when a     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAP)

particular evaluation/validation, or collection there of, should be applied w.r.t. the system     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAQ)

[11:10] Ali Hashemi: @All - will we be referring back to the Ontology Usage that was developed in the     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAS)

previous Summits? This would help select subsets of the very broad ranges of tools, approaches and     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAT)

metrics developed in this summit.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAU)

[11:12] Fabian Neuhaus: It seems the call was dropped     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAX)

[11:13] Doug Foxvog: The conference hung up in the middle of Amanda's talking     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAY)

[11:13] Steve Ray: Did everyone just lose a connection? I suppose so.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAZ)

[11:13] Simon Spero: Please hold. operators are standing by.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA)

[11:13] Leo Obrst: Yikes! Peter must be dropped.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAB)

[11:13] Amanda Vizedom: Hopefully Peter will return soon...     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAC)

[11:13] Steve Ray: Calming music.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAD)

[11:13] Simon Spero: Everyone stop talking about Peter     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAF)

[11:14] anonymous morphed into Lamar Henderson     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAG)

[11:14] Amanda Vizedom: My point is: I think the lifecycle will appear most in the context of best practices.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH)

[11:16] Doug Foxvog: Should lifecycle be orthogonal to ontology validation/verification feature? If     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAI)

not, could we specify which components are needed at which points in the lifecycle?     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAJ)

[11:20] Amanda Vizedom: @DougFoxvog, we might, but we would not want to try to enumerate this in the     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAK)

Communique. This is similar to the question of what evaluation factors are relevant to what sorts of uses.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAL)

[11:20] Michael Denny: @DougFoxvog This is what the survey attempts to do by sorting some 100     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAM)

software capabilities adressing ontology quality/fitness into seven phases of the lifecycle.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAN)

[11:22] Amanda Vizedom: Both are areas of high value. I hope we make progress on them during the     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAO)

Summit. I don't think we can or should try to enumerate all specifics of such factors in the     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAP)

Communique. The findings and conclusions, however, should be reflected in the best practices and     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAQ)

[11:22] Ali Hashemi: @Amanda, might they be enumerated on the synthesis pages?     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAS)

[11:23] Amanda Vizedom: @Ali, yes, I hope so. They might also turn into additional summit outputs, in     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAT)

one form or another!     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAU)

[11:14] Peter P. Yim: == Peter P. Yim / Mike Dean presenting ... see: the [6-Hackathon-Clinics ] slides     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAV)

[11:19] Anatoly Levenchuk: We issued today version 1.2 of .15926 Editor (this is like Protege for ISO     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAW)

15926 ontology, while RDF/OWL is also supported): http://techinvestlab.ru/dot15926Editor -- it will     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAX)

be used during hackathon/clinics for multiple ontology evaluation activities within our     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAY)

Russian-speaking community (http://dot15926.livejournal.com/40280.html -- hackathon/clinics     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAZ)

announced in Russian).     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA)

[11:21] GaryBergCross: Evaluating an ontology developed by building out from an ODP might be an     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB)

interesting exercise.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC)

[11:23] Doug Foxvog: I note that sending "gold standard" ontologies through evaluation tools may very     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD)

well determine problems with the ontologies labeled "gold standard". Such use will not only be     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAE)

useful for evaluating the tools, but also the "gold standards".     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAF)

[11:25] Terry Longstreth: @Peter: I'd be careful with the term SME. It conjures images of greybeards,     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG)

but in an IT environment, the people most interested in the correctness of function are usually     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH)

called operators or users.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAI)

[11:25] David Leal: The CEN SERES workshop will produce an ontology for materials data before May. We     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJ)

have participants also involved with the US Material Genome Initiative, so this ontology may have a     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAK)

broad role. The ontology may be presented as an extension of ISO 15926. It would be very good if the     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL)

ontology validation tools could be used on this ontology.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM)

[11:28] David Leal: Materials ontologies are a bit of a challenge for industry understandability,     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN)

because the word "material" is used to mean both batch of stuff and a type of stuff - sometimes in     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO)

[11:29] GaryBergCross: Earth Cube is interested in various kinds of "material entities."     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQ)

[11:31] Doug Foxvog: @DavidLeal: Materials ontologies need to realize that some properties of     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR)

materials are properties of the "stuff" independent of the state of affairs (temperature, pressure,     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAS)

...), others are "intrinsic" as they do not depend upon the amount of material, but may depend on     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT)

temp/pressure/other environment, while others are extrinsic, depending on the physical object     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAU)

[11:31] David Leal: and the depend upon the history of the environment - materials have memory!     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAV)

[11:32] Doug Foxvog: @David: the material memory is in its microscopic structure. Since that is hard     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW)

to specify, specifying the history of events helps.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAX)

[11:26] GaryBergCross: It might be interesting to take a fairly loose, prototype or light ontology     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY)

and see if the evaluation gives us a way of understanding how to forge it into something good. Sort     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZ)

of agile engineering approach.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA)

[11:27] GaryBergCross: @ Amanda..perhaps we can work up the Hydro model to a form that would be     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB)

submitted for a test.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC)

[11:29] Amanda Vizedom: @Gary: Seems like a good candidate.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD)

[11:30] Amanda Vizedom: @Gary ... we'd need to get unstuck on the use case specification.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAE)

[11:30] GaryBergCross: @Amanda Let us see if we can get USGS interested in moving forward from their data.     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAF)

[11:28] Leo Obrst: Wow, we certainly have a lot here!     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG)

[11:30] Peter P. Yim: == Q&A and Open Discussion ...     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH)

[11:33] Peter P. Yim: join us again, same time next week, for Ontology Summit 2013 session-07: "Extrinsic     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJ)

Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - II" - Co-chairs: Todd Schneider & Terry Longstreth -     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAK)

[11:33] Peter P. Yim: -- session ended: 11:31 am PST --     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN)

-- end of in-session chat-transcript --     (1P2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO)

[edit] Additional Resources     (1Q)


For the record ...     (1Q6)

[edit] How To Join (while the session is in progress)     (1R)

  • Dial-in:     (1R4D)
    • Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... (long distance cost may apply)     (1R4D1)
    • Skype: joinconference (i.e. make a skype call to the contact with skypeID="joinconference") ... (generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer)     (1R4D2)
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#     (1R4D2A)
      • Unfamiliar with how to do this on Skype? ...     (1R4D2B)
        • 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.     (1R4D2B1)
      • Can't find Skype Dial pad? ...     (1R4D2C)
        • for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"     (1R4D2C1)
        • 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.)     (1R4D2C2)
  • Shared-screen support (VNC session), if applicable, will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/     (1R4E)
    • view-only password: "ontolog"     (1R4E1)
    • 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.     (1R4E2)
    • 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.     (1R4E3)
    • 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").     (1R4F1)
    • 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.     (1R4F2)
    • 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_20130221@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!     (1R4F3)
  • Discussions and Q & A:     (1R4G)
    • Nominally, when a presentation is in progress, the moderator will mute everyone, except for the speaker.     (1R4G1)
    • 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.)     (1R4G2)
    • 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.)     (1R4G3)
    • 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.)     (1R4G4)
  • 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.)     (1R4I)
  • 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.     (1R4K)

[edit] Attendees     (1S)


This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (1S4)