Actions

Ontolog Forum

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Ontology Summit 2013: Panel Session-09 - Thu 2013-03-14

Summit Theme: "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"

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

Session Topic: Ontology Development Methodologies for Reasoning Ontologies

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

Panelists / Briefings:

  • Dr. JoanneLuciano (RPI-TWC, US) - "A Generalized Framework for Ontology Evaluation (GOEF)" slides
  • Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE, US) - "Developing Quality Ontologies Used for Reasoning" slides

Archives

Abstract

OntologySummit2013 Session-09: "Ontology Development Methodologies for Reasoning Ontologies" - intro slides

This is our 9th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by NIST, Ontolog, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD with the support of our co-sponsors. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit is: "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle."

Currently, there is no agreed methodology for development of ontologies, and there are no universally agreed metrics for ontology evaluation. At the same time, everybody agrees that there are a lot of badly engineered ontologies out there, thus people use -- at least implicitly -- some criteria for the evaluation of ontologies.

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

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

In this 9th virtual panel session of the Summit, we will look at methodologies for developing ontologies used for reasoning applications.

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

Briefings

  • Dr. JoanneLuciano (RPI-TWC, US) - "A Generalized Framework for Ontology Evaluation (GOEF)" slides
    • Abstract: ... This talk willpresent an approach for a framework for Ontology evaluation and engineering. It presents the role of the use case for evaluating function, the standards requirements (business or external utility), and components, which are modules that can be individually validated. The approach can be utilized for modular development and test. It is suggested that a SADI service (sadiframework.org) would be a good implementation.
  • Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE, US) - "Developing Quality Ontologies Used for Reasoning" slides
    • Abstract: ... Ontologies are by default intended for reasoning over. Otherwise simpler semantic models should be used. This talk will discuss ontology development practices that lead to ontologies having greater quality. Intrinsic and extrinsic properties apply, and apply across the ontology lifecycle, but the ontology development cycle must include a projected architecture as to how it will be used. The architecture includes what the reasoning component will consist of, and the language it will use.

Agenda

OntologySummit2013 - Panel Session-09

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

Proceedings

Please refer to the above

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session

see raw transcript here.

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

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

-- begin in-session chat-transcript --

Chat transcript from room: summit_20130314

2013-03-14 GMT-08:00 [PDT]

[10:10] Peter P. Yim: Welcome to the

Ontology Summit 2013: Virtual Panel Session-09 - Thu 2013-03-14

Summit Theme: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle

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

Session Topic: Ontology Development Methodologies for Reasoning Ontologies

  • Session Co-chairs:

Mr. Mike Bennett (EDM Council; Hypercube, UK) and Dr. Matthew West (Information Junction, UK)

Panelists / Briefings:

  • Dr. Joanne Luciano (RPI-TWC, US) - "A Generalized Framework for Ontology Evaluation (GOEF)"
  • Dr. Leo Obrst (MITRE, US) - "Developing Quality Ontologies Used for Reasoning"

Logistics:

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

Attendees: Ali Hashemi, Amanda Vizedom, AstridDuqueRamos, Bob Smith, Bob Schloss, Bobbin Teegarden,

Dalia Varanka, Dennis Wisnosky, Doug Foxvog, Fabian Neuhaus, Fred Hosea, GaryBergCross, Hans Polzer,

James Michaelis, Joanne Luciano, Joel Bender, John Bilmanis, Ken Baclawski, Lamar Henderson, Leo Obrst,

Ludger Jansen, Matthew West, Megan Katsumi, Michael Denny, Michael Grüninger, Michel Dumontier,

Mike Bennett, Mike Dean, Pavithra Kenjige, Peter P. Yim, Richard Martin, RosarioUcedaSosa, Samir Tartir,

Steve Ray, Terry Longstreth, Todd Schneider, Torsten Hahmann, Yuriy Milov, vnc2

Proceedings:

[10:19] anonymous morphed into AstridDuqueRamos

[10:23] anonymous morphed into Bob Schloss

[10:24] Astrid: Hello Peter

[10:24] Astrid: I am not able to speak

[10:24] Astrid: I have problems with my microphone

[10:24] Astrid: But I will listen.

[10:25] Lamar Henderson morphed into Lamar Henderson

[10:25] anonymous morphed into Michel Dumontier

[10:26] Astrid morphed into Astrid Duque

[10:27] Peter P. Yim: No problem, Astrid ... I was suggesting that you (and everyone else who hasn't

already) to morph your name into the nominal WikiWord name (as per your identity on our wiki) - like

AstridDuqueRamos, or Joanne Luciano, Bob Smith, etc. ... thanks (that helps the automatic link

generation on the wiki)

[10:29] Astrid Duque morphed into AstridDuqueRamos

[10:29] Michel Dumontier: hi!

[10:30] Peter P. Yim: Hi Michel, welcome!

[10:30] Steve Ray: Lots of hiss on the line.

[10:30] Bob Schloss: On the telecon audio bridge, there is a heavy buzzing which is making it hard

for me to hear you, Peter, as well as the other person who is speaking.

[10:30] Bob Schloss: If I am the only person who hears the hissing, I can call in again.

[10:30] Mike Bennett: We all hear it. Also someone talking.

[10:30] Mike Bennett: This will clear when Peter mutes everyone

[10:31] Bob Schloss: It sounds like 2 telecon lines are crossed.....

[10:31] anonymous morphed into Ali Hashemi

[10:31] Amanda Vizedom: Yes, in the meantime, perhaps those who aren't speaking can self-mute (*6)

[10:31] anonymous1 morphed into Torsten Hahmann

[10:32] anonymous morphed into Doug Foxvog

[10:32] anonymous1 morphed into Michael Denny

[10:34] anonymous morphed into Ludger Jansen

[10:34] Peter P. Yim: == Mike Bennett opening the session on behalf of the co-chairs ... ... see: the

[0-Chair] slides

[10:35] anonymous morphed into RosarioUcedaSosa

[10:35] List of members: Ali Hashemi, Amanda Vizedom, AstridDuqueRamos, Bob Smith, Bob Schloss,

Dalia Varanka, Doug Foxvog, Fabian Neuhaus, Hans Polzer, James Michaelis, Joanne Luciano, John Bilmanis,

Lamar Henderson, Leo Obrst, Ludger Jansen, Matthew West, Megan Katsumi, Michael Denny, Michael Grüninger,

Michel Dumontier, Mike Bennett, Mike Dean, Peter P. Yim, Richard Martin, RosarioUcedaSosa, Samir Tartir,

Steve Ray, Terry Longstreth, Torsten Hahmann, vnc2

[10:37] Samir Tartir morphed into Samir Tartir

[10:38] anonymous: where can one download the slides

[10:39] Peter P. Yim: links to slides can be found under:

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_03_14#nid3NPF

[10:41] Peter P. Yim: == Joanne Luciano presenting ... see: the [ 1-Luciano ] slides

[10:48] GaryBergCross: Is the link for SADI service (sadi.org) on the page the correct???

[11:00] Mike Dean: @Gary SADI service is at http://sadiframework.org

[11:03] GaryBergCross: Mike, yes that is what I thought. The session page has it wrong.

[11:03] Peter P. Yim: @GaryBergCross, @MikeDean - thank you, the link has been updated on the session

page now

[10:51] Terry Longstreth: Joanne - can you give an open reference /url for the Cockburn Method?

[11:04] Joanne Luciano: http://alistair.cockburn.us/Basic+use+case+template the use case template

appears to be broken there --we have a local copy (and I'll send the to Alistair to let him know. I

think I forgot to do this when I was in contact with him a while ago:

http://tw.rpi.edu/media/latest/UseCase-Template_SeS (someone please try this RPI link and verify it

works). thanks

[11:05] Mike Bennett: That link works.

[11:06] Mike Dean: @Joanne http://tw.rpi.edu/media/latest/UseCase-Template_SeS works, downloading a

Microsoft Word template

[11:07] Megan Katsumi: Thanks!

[11:07] Joanne Luciano: @MikeBennett Thanks for checking.

[11:23] Joanne Luciano: For those downloading the use case template -- recall that is the "starting

point" -- that is what needs to be formalized so that an ontology (or part of one) can be evaluated

with respect to it.

[10:55] anonymous morphed into Bobbin Teegarden

[10:48] Hans Polzer: Regarding Joanne's presentation, I would suggest looking at a range of contexts

for ontology evaluation, not just a use case. Another way to look at this is as a set of use cases

that span the range of ontology application contexts

[10:51] Mike Bennett: @Hans I think that defines a difference between an ontology which is to be

developed for a specific application, and an ontology that is to be developed as a standard, which

would necessarily be use case agnostic. Though of course, if ontologies developed for applications

are designed to be broader than just one use case, then they can be reused by others. I think this

opens up an interesting line of discussion we can cover in the discussion.

[10:53] Matthew West: I know people who argue that Use Cases are inadequate as a statement of

requirements, because they are point requirements, whereas what you really want is to develop a

required capability. Use cases can be very helpful in informing such a required capability, and

later illustrating it, but are not a substitute.

[10:54] Amanda Vizedom: @Hans - alternative but compatible view (I think): identify elements or

characteristics of use cases that matter (or are hypothesized to matter) for ontology suitability,

so that these elements can be reused to analyze and describe other use cases. Some of these will

clearly be contextual, but the path to reuseful reasoning is better defined. As I understand it

(Joanne can confirm/disconfirm) this is part of the first-stage support that is envisioned for GOEF.

[10:56] Todd Schneider: Use cases can be used to discover requirements (i.e., an analysis tool).

[10:57] Hans Polzer: Use cases also have lots of implicit scope, which can lead to overlooked

requirement assumptions. On the other hand, a set of use cases can help understanding of a range of

application contexts, since "range" is often difficult to conceptualize while use cases are

typically presented as quasi-concrete examples.

[10:59] Amanda Vizedom: @Matthew: I would agree with that; there is an analysis stage between use

case description and technical requirements specification that utilizes knowledge of both the

operational background/need and the technical specifics.

[10:59] Terry Longstreth: Joanne question - Does your methodology necessarily reveal the existence of

an Ontology?

[11:12] Joanne Luciano: @TerryLongstreth, I don't understand your question. Let's discuss during the

discussion.

[11:00] Megan Katsumi: @Amanda: Can you clarify what you mean by elements or characteristics of use

cases?

[11:06] Amanda Vizedom: @Megan - I should probably let Joanne talk about what she means first. ;-) At

least, if I'm correct in saying that this is a reasonable way to describe what she is talking about

in the description of the 1st stage of the GOEF framework, in which the use case is analyzed and

specified. I think, from Joanne's description (and previous discussions), that this specification is

not open-ended but focuses on capturing particular aspects of the use case that are known or

believed to be needed as input in order to evaluate how well various candidate ontologies might fit

that use case.

[11:06] Joanne Luciano: my original presentation from 2008 is on slideshare (you'll notice I used

Leo's template for that (I was at MITRE).

[11:50] Joanne Luciano: should it come up. here's the link to the slideshare presentation:

http://www.slideshare.net/joanneluciano/luciano-pr-08849ontologyevaluationmethodsmetrics

(from 2008!) it was a proposal for internal research at MITRE.

[11:07] Joanne Luciano: I am listening to Leo and I still have a bad cold, so I'm happy to discuss

after during discussion.

[11:00] Peter P. Yim: == Leo Obrst presenting ... see: the [ 2-Obrst ] slides

[11:03] Fabian Neuhaus: Leo: could you tell us when you switch slides?

[11:09] Doug Foxvog: There can be problems with a separation into T-Box & A-Box. In nature guides,

for example, lots of statements are made of properties of classes (e.g., types of living thing).

These classes, themselves are instances of higher-order classes (Species, Genus, ... Phylum, etc.).

These types are both instances & classes. The same thing happens when talking about part types. The

classic Wine Ontology had huge problems in expressing properties of types of wine, ending up

defining the narrowest classes as instances of the next broader class, because of restrictions of

the A/T box restrictions it was operating under.

[11:10] Amanda Vizedom: @Megan, @Joanne, I'd expect, for example, that the kinds of things Leo is

discussing now (slides 2-3: how complex is the reasoning needed for the use case, if any?) would be

a subgroup of the use case characteristics that can be described and matter for ontology

suitability.

[11:11] Doug Foxvog: Leo discussing DL not being able to represent many rule types. I suggest that

this is a reason to avoid using DL languages.

[11:12] Mike Bennett: @Doug avoid in general, or avoid for specific requirements / usages of the

ontology?

[11:14] Amanda Vizedom: @doug +1 regarding the Wine Ontology example. It is a good example of the

approach suggested, and choices forced, by a particular kind of DL-based language. It is also a good

example of why for most reasoning, or cross-specialty integration, applications, that approach is

crippling.

[11:14] Doug Foxvog: @Mike: I suggest avoiding unless the only use of the "ontology" is to be used as

a taxonomy. If you use rules or want to integrate, a more powerful language is called for, imho.

[11:15] Mike Bennett: @Doug - thanks. I guess that comes under the heading of what Leo calls "not an

ontology" :)

[11:15] Doug Foxvog: @Mike: +1

[11:17] anonymous morphed into Pavithra Kenjige

[11:19] Doug Foxvog: Re Slide 7, "tractable reasoning": even a higher order language can exhibit

tractable reasoning, when the rules reasoned over permit it. Note that normal computer languages are

intractable, but people still program using them. A programmer would not want to program in a

guaranteed tractable language.

[11:18] Pavithra Kenjige: Requirements are written in statements can be shown as use cases and

scenarios to capture how user use a system to meet those requirements

[11:20] Pavithra Kenjige: So in my opinion, Use Cases and scenarios and test cases that are based on

Use Cases & scenarios are verification or evaluation of meeting the requirements

[11:21] Joanne Luciano: I think SADI services can help - I'd like to incorporate GOEF development

into https://github.com/timrdf/DataFAQs/wiki I'd love to have some "clinics" to discuss and develop

the implementation. I have a paper in the works that will use the iChoose example throughout. The

current draft version doesn't have a single example (because these ideas have only been able to be

developed in fits and starts). It includes some mock up screen shots to help get ideas across.

RE: not an ontology -- the 'spectrum' seems to help cover bases and avoid "semantic" arguments

(which is a challenge in a "semantic" community)

[11:22] Doug Foxvog: Re slide 8. 3D/4D reasoning can be left out of most ontologies. If a given

application requires committing to one or the other, it can also inherit a small ontology that

specifies the 3D+1 or 4D theory.

[11:25] Doug Foxvog: re slide 9: There is a huge ontology of "part-of". Transitivity often won't work

if one switches between different types of "part-of".

[11:26] Mike Bennett: @Doug presumably part terms like "nearside front wheel" versus part terms like

Wheel have different requirements in this regard.

[11:29] Doug Foxvog: @Mike: Yes.

[11:29] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett wheels may be "components" rather than a simple part.

[11:31] Mike Bennett: @Doug thought so. I think distinguishing between those usages (e.g. what is a

Component) per Gary, depends on using a suitable upper ontology that distinguishing

something-in-a-role from something-in-itself. So there is a dependency between these two

considerations I think.

[11:31] Doug Foxvog: @Gary: "componentOf" would be a specialization of "physicalSubpartOf".

[11:33] GaryBergCross: I sometimes think of these bridging, integrative ontologies as simpler

bridging schemas.

[11:33] Doug Foxvog: @Mike: Yes. the truth of (componentOf Car2087532408 Wheel234752347) is time

dependent.

[11:34] GaryBergCross: @Doug Yes that is a good specialization.

[11:29] Doug Foxvog: re slide 10: Do you need human capability to formulate queries using the

computer's query language? A user interface should obviate this. One does not require a human

capability to formulate SQL queries for someone to ask for information from a database.

[11:33] anonymous morphed into Fred Hosea

[11:35] Doug Foxvog: Re slide 12: "Anyone we know" might be Insectivore.

[11:36] Doug Foxvog: The Venn diagram does not intersect Reptile and Mammal, so the "Anyone we know"

circle includes some mammals, some reptiles, and some other living things.

[11:35] Amanda Vizedom: Relating Leo's talk to my own (two weeks ago,)

about getting from business requirements to ontology evaluation):

most of the questions Leo is talking about are the sorts of things that should be asked

at the stage when "business requirements" are being transformed into technical requirements

(for the ontology and/or system). The answers should: figure into ontology/system design;

be used to development constraints, goals, steps; be used to identify what should be evaluated

when to make sure requirements are being met and maintained. I would say that this is the

knowing-what-to-develop/knowing-what-to-check-for aspect of the Big Issues in Ontology

Evaluation; the how-to-check-for-X/evaluation methods aspect is a parallel Big Issue.

[11:38] Mike Bennett: @Amanda +1 - these kinds of technical considerations are a parallel to what in

conventional technology development would be non functional requirements - but they clearly deliver

benefits to the business integrity of a model of the business domain. That opens up a lot of

interesting questions.

[11:39] Matthew West: @LeoObrst - please go ahead and cover you backup slides as well.

[11:40] Amanda Vizedom: re: collaborative development: big tool need in the OWL world: tunable

automatic checking on addition (commit-time; rejection if inconsistent). More comprehensive

automatic bookkeeping on assertions and inferences so that problems can be debugged, fixed and

modules/packages re-submitted.

[11:40] Joanne Luciano: I'm wondering how many times Leo has been around the circles and items on

slides#18-21. I don't think I want to count. BTW, Happy Pi Day (3.14 in the way the US does month

day).

[11:46] Amanda Vizedom: @Leo - slide 20 - yes indeed, often looped around, etc., *and* often there

are interdependencies with other components of a larger system. At various points, there is or

should be cross-checking to see whether things are (still) in sync, whether they are on-track to

work together as desired.

[11:47] Mike Bennett: @Amanda +1 - not only for collaborative development but I think we need a tool

that does for ontologies what UML does for software designs, including what you have there, and also

visualizations both to business domain and to implementers.

[11:48] Amanda Vizedom: @MikeBennett: Agreed.

[11:49] Amanda Vizedom: @MikeBennett: I should note that the capabilities I mentioned already do

exist in some development environments, especially Cyc and to a degree in some in-house, specialized

systems. But not, to my knowledge, in OWL tools generally.

[11:40] Pavithra Kenjige: @Amanda, Use Cases follow the requirement or use cases & scenarios

represent detail requirements.. which is followed by design phase. In UML, Object diagrams are done

as design stage..

[11:41] Pavithra Kenjige: Ontology development is a phase that can be mapped to design stage ..

[11:50] Peter P. Yim: == Q & A and Open Discussion, Matthew West moderating ...

[11:50] Matthew West: In the previous talk in Track C we were looking at methodologies for

integrating ontologies. The first thing that struck me was that easily the biggest priority was

achieving consistency in the ontology, particularly in the face of large ontologies with many

contributors who are geographically dispersed. The other thing that came across was the need for an

architectural approach, providing structure to taking the right decisions in the right order.

[11:51] Matthew West: Today's session on development methods for reasoning ontologies also impressed

on me the need for an architectural approach, although the emphasis was slightly different here. The

other thing that struck me is that ontology development is often done directly at the implementation

level. You start by developing your ontology in CL or OWL, already in its implementation

environment. This is how it was once in database development, but that was a long time ago. It would

now be considered normal to develop data models at multiple levels, a conceptual level which just

gives the outline, the logical level that is complete, including all the rules, but still

independent of any implementation environment. Finally there is a data model that takes account of

the implementation environment, and the processing needs of the application. This separation would

indicate a level of maturity in understanding the ontology development process, but will need tool

support that does not exist yet as far as I am aware.

[11:52] Doug Foxvog: Ref the capabilities Amanda referred to. The OBO ontologies have obviously not

had such tools, since, e.g., disjoint classes had had common subclasses in several posted

ontologies.

[11:52] Mike Bennett: Oops! (pun intended :) )

[11:56] Amanda Vizedom: It is good to see more tools for evaluating ontologies, including OWL if for

no other reason than that so many people are developing ontologies in it and are in severe need of

evaluation help. :-) It's important to note, though, that the infrastructure for easy/automated

testing of collaborative additions to a large ontology, or addition of new ontologies to a

repository of ontologies that are meant to be compatible, is also very much needed.

[11:56] Mike Bennett: I should add that we have the same problems in the FIBO development - we have

defined upper ontology partitions to distinguish e.g. independent v relative things (like the parts

examples) but don't know when these have been misapplied until we can run external checks on it.

Something like what UML tools do, where illegal model efforts are flagged up as non compliant, would

be useful in a tool.

[11:59] Amanda Vizedom: And, along the lines of Joanne's GOEF ideas and Leo's exposition of important

requirements questions and design decisions, tools are also very much needed to support this kind of

analysis, and recording of the results, so that people can figure out what they need and what to

test for in the first place.

[12:00] Joanne Luciano: I agree w Leo - need many kinds of testing (at many levels)

[12:01] Joanne Luciano: Agree w/ Amanda's comments

[12:02] Joanne Luciano: The reason I like the "component" aspect is it facilitates testing (and Leo

just mentioned unit testing). an important "component"

[12:01] Bobbin Teegarden: @Mike is it possible that when one starts with tree structures

(categorization) when modeling something essentially graph shaped, that we end up in unintended

stovepipes?

[12:02] Doug Foxvog: @Bobbin: yes. Modeling a graph structure as a tree will almost always lead to

trouble.

[12:02] Mike Bennett: @Bobbin I think that is a real danger - unless some serious imagination is used

in defining abstractions "What kind of thing is this" asked iteratively until you get to a very

atomic meaningful concept. I don't know how you would validate / verify for that.

[12:04] Mike Bennett: @Bobbin plus you need to apply faceted classification, which would require some

additional notation. There is no reason for any given class to only have one parent (except, of

course, when you are designing for an application and need to think about the reasoning overhead of

multiple inheritance).

[12:08] Doug Foxvog: re Mike's reference to faceted classification: specifying the facets is

difficult, and ensuring those facets that should be coverings or partitions are such can be hard to

model in a simple ontology language. Higher-level languages such as Cyc, enable this by reifying the

facets as meta-classes.

[12:10] Mike Bennett: @Doug thanks - I've been trying to figure out if there's a way of defining some

OWL annotation properties to signify facets - the obvious basis for a classification facet seems to

be the OWL Union Class - but need to decorate that somehow to identify what property of the parent

class has different values in the child classes in that facet.

[12:13] Doug Foxvog: @Mike: Using OWL-Full, one can create Facets & define classes as instances of

the facets. If several types of facets are defined.

[12:14] Mike Bennett: @Doug thanks

[12:16] Doug Foxvog: ... If several types of facets are defined: Partition, Covering, ..., with rules

attached, it could force the appropriate disjointnesses and would be good for annotation, even if

later use of the ontology would drop such facets as mere documentation in order to allow for a

simpler (e.g., DL) reasoning scheme.

[12:21] Mike Bennett: @Doug I'll look into that - this is going to be very useful in classifying

financial instruments for example. Different facets are suited to different use cases, so it would

make sense to extract a single-inheritance taxonomy for a given use case - but different ones for

different use cases (e.g. investment management versus risk and compliance).

[12:02] Amanda Vizedom: Re: Todd's question: debugging when things don't go right - This is one

reason why ontology development / management systems should have much, much more automated

bookkeeping and inference traceability than many do. Again, Cyc & some other systems have this, but

it is lacking in many commonly-used environments, with real consequences.

[12:05] Michael Grüninger: Competency questions are great for evaluating whether or not there are

enough axioms in our ontology, but there are still two outstanding issues. 1. Are these the right

competency questions? 2. The competency questions themselves introduce their own ontological bias

[12:05] Joanne Luciano: Agree with what Michael is saying - the competency questions aren't enough,

and yes the 2nd level addresses the external requirements (Compliance standards, for example) which

again is a different level than the OWL / intrinsic level.

[12:06] Amanda Vizedom: @Michael +1 Questions embed some ontological commitments. That can be OK *if

it does done intentionally*, i.e., if you design your questions to test for compatibility with those

commitments. But it's a real problem with many published test approaches - they embed *assumed*

commitments that may not be shared in real cases in which people attempt to apply those questions.

[12:06] Leo Obrst: @Matthew's comments: re: ontology development still seems to be research. Yes,

that's why ontology training (a previous Ontology Summit) is very important.

[12:07] Todd Schneider: To what extent are the discussions about ontology evaluations assuming a

non-dynamic environment (of ontology changes)?

[12:07] Joanne Luciano: not assumed in the GOEF approach

[12:08] Joanne Luciano: interesting though about autonomous systems

[12:12] Amanda Vizedom: @Todd: I assume that dynamic is in fact more typical, perhaps biased by

environments I have worked in. I think that much research and tool development assumes a more static

model, though, and/or that individual ontologies reach a "done" stage, after which they are rarely

changed and new work is on other ontologies.

[12:09] Amanda Vizedom: @Matthew, @Leo -- true, but consider also the role of capturing our (ontology

community) dispersed knowledge and lessons learned. Some things are better understood than others,

but the understanding is unevenly distributed and redundant research continues. Or, at least, mature

hypotheses can be formed, rather than the sort proto-wheel ones that still get run up the flagpole.

[12:12] Leo Obrst: @Fabian: I agree. Please place that in the chat, so we don't lose the comment,

i.e., the 3-n things you need for evaluating ontologies.

[12:18] Fabian Neuhaus: My two questions are: (1) Assuming you need to make a recommendation to

somebody who develops an ontology. What are the three most important aspects that you think that the

person should evaluate and how? (2) Could you identify the kind of tools that would make it easier

for ontology developers to perform the recommended ontology evaluation?

[12:11] Doug Foxvog: Does anyone want to create an ontology of the ontology evaluation & development

concepts and issues that we have been discussing? With such a tool, individual ontologies could have

their properties specified using this ontology.

[12:14] Amanda Vizedom: @doug - that is one of the hackathon & clinic proposals, though I don't know

that there will be enough interest or participation for it to pass the selection gate.

[12:15] Amanda Vizedom: Ontology of Ontology Evaluation proposal is at:

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Hackathon_Clinics#nid3O90

[12:17] Leo Obrst: Folks, I must go to another meeting. Thank you for your comments and

participation!

[12:17] Mike Bennett: Thanks @Leo

[12:18] Joanne Luciano: @LeoObrst THANK YOU -- always!

[12:19] Terry Longstreth: USE cases vs. capabilities wrt evaluation - If we assume that Use cases are

elaborated into capabilities, then evaluation based on use cases would be elaborated into more

detailed evaluations, and so on until we arrive at evaluation

[12:19] Terry Longstreth: based upon implementation

[12:18] Joanne Luciano: When I say "Function" I include in that "Capability"

[12:19] Joanne Luciano: The feedback is useful - I'll make it more explicit next time

[12:20] Joanne Luciano: words alone will often get us into trouble. -- I don't like that I use

standard for the "second" level, for example

[12:23] Joanne Luciano: We used to use functional specifications, they worked

[12:22] Fabian Neuhaus: @Pavithra, Matthew: maybe you could take this discussion offline?

[12:23] Peter P. Yim: join us again, same time next week (Thu 2013.03.21), for Ontology Summit 2013

session-10: "Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - II" - Co-chairs: Mike Denny & Peter P. Yim

- see developing session page at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_03_21

... please pay special attention to the start-time (for the folks in the US and Canada, unlike this

particular session, we will back to our normal start-time next week)!

[12:23] Peter P. Yim: great talks, thank you Joanne & Leo

[12:23] Amanda Vizedom: Thanks all!

[12:23] Doug Foxvog: Thanks, all

[12:23] Samir Tartir: Thanks all

[12:24] Joanne Luciano: I want to acknowledge James Michaelis and Nicolau Depaula from CTG SUNY Albany

for their contributions to my presentation

[12:24] Peter P. Yim: -- session ended: 12:23pm PDT --

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

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

Additional Resources

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)

Conference Call Details

Attention: Please take special note on the start time of the event, as the US will be on daylight saving (summer) time on this day, while the EU is still on standard (winter) time! ... For participants from the US and Canada, for example, this session will start an hour later than usual, whereas for those from the EU, the start-time will be the same as last week's.
  • Date: Thursday, 14-Mar-2013
  • Start Time: 10:30am PDT / 1:30pm EDT / 6:30pm CET / 17:30 GMT/UTC
  • Expected Call Duration: ~2.0 hours
  • Dial-in:
    • Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... (long distance cost may apply)
      • ... [ backup nbr: (415) 671-4335 ]
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
    • Skype: joinconference (i.e. make a skype call to the contact with skypeID="joinconference") ... (generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer)
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
      • Unfamiliar with how to do this on Skype? ...
        • Add the contact "joinconference" to your skype contact list first. To participate in the teleconference, make a skype call to "joinconference", then open the dial pad (see platform-specific instructions below) and enter the Conference ID: 141184# when prompted.
      • Can't find Skype Dial pad? ...
        • for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
        • for Linux Skype users: please note that the dial-pad is only available on v4.1 (or later; or on the earlier Skype versions 2.x,) if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. ... (ref.)
  • Shared-screen support (VNC session), if applicable, will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/
    • view-only password: "ontolog"
    • if you plan to be logging into this shared-screen option (which the speaker may be navigating), and you are not familiar with the process, please try to call in 5 minutes before the start of the session so that we can work out the connection logistics. Help on this will generally not be available once the presentation starts.
    • people behind corporate firewalls may have difficulty accessing this. If that is the case, please download the slides above (where applicable) and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.
  • In-session chat-room url: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/summit_20130314
    • instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field from "anonymous" to your real name, like "JaneDoe").
    • You can indicate that you want to ask a question verbally by clicking on the "hand" button, and wait for the moderator to call on you; or, type and send your question into the chat window at the bottom of the screen.
    • thanks to the soaphub.org folks, one can now use a jabber/xmpp client (e.g. gtalk) to join this chatroom. Just add the room as a buddy - (in our case here) summit_20130314@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!
  • Discussions and Q & A:
    • Nominally, when a presentation is in progress, the moderator will mute everyone, except for the speaker.
    • To un-mute, press "*7" ... To mute, press "*6" (please mute your phone, especially if you are in a noisy surrounding, or if you are introducing noise, echoes, etc. into the conference line.)
    • we will usually save all questions and discussions till after all presentations are through. You are encouraged to jot down questions onto the chat-area in the mean time (that way, they get documented; and you might even get some answers in the interim, through the chat.)
    • During the Q&A / discussion segment (when everyone is muted), If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please raise your hand (virtually) by clicking on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the session moderator (again, press "*7" on your phone to un-mute). Test your voice and introduce yourself first before proceeding with your remarks, please. (Please remember to click on the "hand button" again (to lower your hand) and press "*6" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)
  • RSVP to peter.yim@cim3.com with your affiliation appreciated, ... or simply just by adding yourself to the "Expected Attendee" list below (if you are a member of the community already.)
  • Please note that this session may be recorded, and if so, the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content, along with the proceedings of the call to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.

Attendees

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



Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2013_03_14&oldid=1294"