From OntologPSMW

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Last updated at: 2013-04-11 08:52:09 By user: PeterYim)
 
(Fix PurpleMediaWiki references)
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
= [[OntologySummit2013]]: Panel Session-12 - Thu 2013-04-04  =
+
= [[OntologySummit2013|Ontology Summit 2013]]: Panel Session-12 - Thu 2013-04-04  =
  
 
Summit Theme: '''"Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"'''  
 
Summit Theme: '''"Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"'''  
Line 5: Line 5:
 
Session Topic: '''Ontology Summit 2013: Synthesis-II'''  
 
Session Topic: '''Ontology Summit 2013: Synthesis-II'''  
  
Summit General Co-chairs & session Co-chairs: - [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_session-12_Synthesis-II_Thoughts--MichaelGruninger_20130404.pdf intro slides]
+
Summit General Co-chairs & session Co-chairs: - [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_session-12_Synthesis-II_Thoughts--MichaelGruninger_20130404.pdf intro slides]  
  
* '''Professor [[MichaelGruninger]]''' (U of Toronto, Canada) and '''Dr. [[MatthewWest]]''' (Information Junction, UK)  
+
* '''Professor MichaelGruninger''' (U of Toronto, Canada) and '''Dr. MatthewWest''' (Information Junction, UK)  
  
 
Panelists / Briefings:  
 
Panelists / Briefings:  
  
* '''Professor [[MichaelGruninger]]''' (U of Toronto, Canada) & '''Dr. [[MatthewWest]]''' (Information Junction, UK) - "'''Thoughts and Reflections on this Ontology Summit'''" . ([http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_session-12_Synthesis-II_Thoughts--MichaelGruninger_20130404.pdf intro-gruninger-slides]) .   ([http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-II_Reflections--MatthewWest_20130404.pdf west-slides])
+
* '''Professor MichaelGruninger''' (U of Toronto, Canada) & '''Dr. MatthewWest''' (Information Junction, UK) - "'''Thoughts and Reflections on this Ontology Summit'''" . ([http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_session-12_Synthesis-II_Thoughts--MichaelGruninger_20130404.pdf intro-gruninger-slides]) .   ([http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-II_Reflections--MatthewWest_20130404.pdf west-slides])  
* '''Dr. [[LeoObrst]]''' (MITRE) & '''Dr. [[SteveRay]]''' (CMU) - "'''Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2'''" . ([http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_intrinsic-aspects_synthesis-II--LeoObrst-SteveRay_20130404.pdf slides])
+
* '''Dr. LeoObrst''' (MITRE) & '''Dr. SteveRay''' (CMU) - "'''Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2'''" . ([http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_intrinsic-aspects_synthesis-II--LeoObrst-SteveRay_20130404.pdf slides])  
* '''Mr. [[TerryLongstreth]]''' (Ind. Consultant) & '''Dr. [[ToddSchneider]]''' (Raytheon) - "'''Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2'''" . ([http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_extrinsic-aspects_synthesis-II--TerryLongstreth-ToddSchneider_20130404.pdf slides])
+
* '''Mr. TerryLongstreth''' (Ind. Consultant) & '''Dr. ToddSchneider''' (Raytheon) - "'''Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2'''" . ([http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_extrinsic-aspects_synthesis-II--TerryLongstreth-ToddSchneider_20130404.pdf slides])  
* '''Dr. [[MatthewWest]]''' (Information Junction) & '''Mr. [[MikeBennett]]''' (EDM Council; Hypercube) - "'''Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-2'''" . ([http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_quality-methodology_synthesis-II--MatthewWest-MikeBennett_20130404.pdf slides])
+
* '''Dr. MatthewWest''' (Information Junction) & '''Mr. MikeBennett''' (EDM Council; Hypercube) - "'''Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-2'''" . ([http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_quality-methodology_synthesis-II--MatthewWest-MikeBennett_20130404.pdf slides])  
* '''Dr. [[MichaelDenny]]''' (MITRE) & '''Mr. [[PeterYim]]''' (Ontolog; CIM3) - "'''Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-2'''" . ([http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_software-environment_synthesis-II--MichaelDenny-PeterYim_20130404.pdf slides])
+
* '''Dr. MichaelDenny''' (MITRE) & '''Mr. PeterYim''' (Ontolog; CIM3) - "'''Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-2'''" . ([http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_software-environment_synthesis-II--MichaelDenny-PeterYim_20130404.pdf slides])  
  
[http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/ Archives:]  
+
==[http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/ Archives]==
  
 
* '''[[ConferenceCall_2013_04_04|Abstract]]'''  
 
* '''[[ConferenceCall_2013_04_04|Abstract]]'''  
Line 24: Line 24:
 
** '''[ [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_session-12_Synthesis-II_Thoughts--MichaelGruninger_20130404.pdf 0-Gruninger] ] . [ [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-II_Reflections--MatthewWest_20130404.pdf 1-West] ] . [ [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_intrinsic-aspects_synthesis-II--LeoObrst-SteveRay_20130404.pdf A-Obrst-Ray] ] . [ [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_extrinsic-aspects_synthesis-II--TerryLongstreth-ToddSchneider_20130404.pdf B-Schneider-Longstreth] ] . [ [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_quality-methodology_synthesis-II--MatthewWest-MikeBennett_20130404.pdf C-West-Bennett] ] . [ [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_software-environment_synthesis-II--MichaelDenny-PeterYim_20130404.pdf D-Denny-Yim] ]'''  
 
** '''[ [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_session-12_Synthesis-II_Thoughts--MichaelGruninger_20130404.pdf 0-Gruninger] ] . [ [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-II_Reflections--MatthewWest_20130404.pdf 1-West] ] . [ [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_intrinsic-aspects_synthesis-II--LeoObrst-SteveRay_20130404.pdf A-Obrst-Ray] ] . [ [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_extrinsic-aspects_synthesis-II--TerryLongstreth-ToddSchneider_20130404.pdf B-Schneider-Longstreth] ] . [ [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_quality-methodology_synthesis-II--MatthewWest-MikeBennett_20130404.pdf C-West-Bennett] ] . [ [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_software-environment_synthesis-II--MichaelDenny-PeterYim_20130404.pdf D-Denny-Yim] ]'''  
 
* '''[[ConferenceCall_2013_04_04|transcript of the online chat]]''' during the session  
 
* '''[[ConferenceCall_2013_04_04|transcript of the online chat]]''' during the session  
* '''[http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_s12_20130404b.mp3 Audio recording of the session]''' ... [ 1:48:01 ; mp3 ; 12.36 MB ]
+
* '''[http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_s12_20130404b.mp3 Audio recording of the session]''' ... [ 1:48:01 ; mp3 ; 12.36 MB ]  
 
** its best that you listen to the session while having the respective presentations (linked above) opened in front of you. You'll be prompted to advance slides by the speaker.  
 
** its best that you listen to the session while having the respective presentations (linked above) opened in front of you. You'll be prompted to advance slides by the speaker.  
 
* '''[[ConferenceCall_2013_04_04|Additional Resources]]'''  
 
* '''[[ConferenceCall_2013_04_04|Additional Resources]]'''  
  
== Abstract: ==
+
== Abstract  ==
  
'''[[OntologySummit2013]] Session-12: "Synthesis-II"''' - [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_session-12_Synthesis-II_Thoughts--MichaelGruninger_20130404.pdf intro slides]
+
'''OntologySummit2013 Session-12: "Synthesis-II"''' - [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_session-12_Synthesis-II_Thoughts--MichaelGruninger_20130404.pdf intro slides]  
  
 
This is our 8th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by [[NIST]], [[Ontolog]], [[NCOR]], [[NCBO]], [[IAOA]] & [[NCO_NITRD]] with the support of our co-sponsors. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit is: "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle."  
 
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."  
Line 36: Line 36:
 
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 [[OntologySummit]], 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.  
+
During this [[OntologySummit|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.  
  
 
We have now completed the virtual sessions of the Summit that were dedicated to presentations of technical content.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.  
 
We have now completed the virtual sessions of the Summit that were dedicated to presentations of technical content.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.  
  
In today's session, we will focus on revisiting the synthesis of all of these ideas as input into the initial draft of the Summit Communiqué.  
+
In today's session, we will focus on revisiting the synthesis of all of these ideas as input into the initial draft of the Summit Communiqu��.  
  
 
The Synthesis II session will be framed  by the Communique outline. Track champions will provide discussion questions that represent the points of synthesis they need to address but feel that they don't have enough input to synthesize.  
 
The Synthesis II session will be framed  by the Communique outline. Track champions will provide discussion questions that represent the points of synthesis they need to address but feel that they don't have enough input to synthesize.  
  
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  ==
  
'''[[OntologySummit2013]] - Panel Session-12 - Synthesis-II'''  
+
'''OntologySummit2013 - Panel Session-12 - Synthesis-II'''  
  
 
* '''Session Format:''' this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call  
 
* '''Session Format:''' this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call  
  
* 1. Opening by the co-chair ([[MatthewWest]] and [[MichaelGruninger]]) [5 min.] ... [ [[ConferenceCall_2013_04_04|slides]] ]
+
* 1. Opening by the co-chair (MatthewWest and MichaelGruninger) [5 min.] ... [ [[ConferenceCall_2013_04_04|slides]] ]  
* 2. General assessment on how things are developing and fine tuning of direction/approach ([[MichaelGruninger]] and [[MatthewWest]]) [10 min.]  
+
* 2. General assessment on how things are developing and fine tuning of direction/approach (MichaelGruninger and MatthewWest) [10 min.]  
 
* 3. Track Synthesis-II (presentation of insights from the discourse around each track by their co-champions) [15 min/track]  
 
* 3. Track Synthesis-II (presentation of insights from the discourse around each track by their co-champions) [15 min/track]  
** 3A. Track A: Synthesis-2 ([[LeoObrst]] and [[SteveRay]])  
+
** 3A. Track A: Synthesis-2 (LeoObrst and SteveRay)  
** 3B. Track B: Synthesis-2 ([[ToddSchneider]] and [[TerryLongstreth]])  
+
** 3B. Track B: Synthesis-2 (ToddSchneider and TerryLongstreth)  
** 3C. Track C: Synthesis-2 ([[MatthewWest]] and [[MikeBennett]])  
+
** 3C. Track C: Synthesis-2 (MatthewWest and MikeBennett)  
** 3C. Track D: Synthesis-2 ([[MichaelDenny]] and [[PeterYim]])  
+
** 3C. Track D: Synthesis-2 (MichaelDenny and PeterYim)  
* 4. Q&A and discussion about the [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Communique/Draft Communique] based on [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Communique/Draft#nid3O16 the Communique Outline proposed], led by co-lead editors, [[FabianNeuhaus]] and [[AmandaVizedom]] - All [30 min.]  
+
* 4. Q&A and discussion about the [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Communique/Draft Communique] based on [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Communique/Draft#nid3O16 the Communique Outline proposed], led by co-lead editors, [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]] and [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]] - All [30 min.]  
 
* 5. Summary/wrap-up/announcements [10 min.]  
 
* 5. Summary/wrap-up/announcements [10 min.]  
  
== Proceedings: ==
+
== Proceedings  ==
  
 
Please refer to the [[ConferenceCall_2013_04_04|above]]  
 
Please refer to the [[ConferenceCall_2013_04_04|above]]  
  
'''IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:'''
+
===IM Chat Transcript captured during the session===
 
+
  
 
see raw transcript [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_s12_chat-transcript_unedited_20130404a.txt here].  
 
see raw transcript [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_s12_chat-transcript_unedited_20130404a.txt here].  
  
 +
(for better clarity, the version below is a [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_s12_chat-transcript_edited_20130404b.txt re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript].)
  
 
(for better clarity, the version below is a [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-04-04_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-2/OntologySummit2013_s12_chat-transcript_edited_20130404b.txt re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript].)
 
 
Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.  
 
Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.  
 
 
  
 
-- begin in-session chat-transcript --  
 
-- begin in-session chat-transcript --  
  
 +
------
  
 
------
 
 
Chat transcript from room: summit_20130404
 
Chat transcript from room: summit_20130404
 +
 
2013-04-04 GMT-08:00 [PDT]
 
2013-04-04 GMT-08:00 [PDT]
 +
 
------  
 
------  
  
 +
[9:16] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: Welcome to the
  
 
+
''' [[OntologySummit2013|Ontology Summit 2013]]: Virtual Panel Session-12 - Thu 2013-04-04 '''
[9:16] [[PeterYim]]: Welcome to the
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
= [[OntologySummit2013]]: Virtual Panel Session-12 - Thu 2013-04-04 =
+
 
+
 
+
  
 
Summit Theme: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle  
 
Summit Theme: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle  
 
 
  
 
Session Topic: Ontology Summit 2013: Synthesis-II  
 
Session Topic: Ontology Summit 2013: Synthesis-II  
 
 
  
 
* Session Co-chairs  
 
* Session Co-chairs  
- Professor [[MichaelGruninger]] (U of Toronto, Canada) and Dr. [[MatthewWest]] (Information Junction, UK)
 
 
  
 +
- Professor [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Grüninger]] (U of Toronto, Canada) and Dr. [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] (Information Junction, UK)
  
 
Agenda:  
 
Agenda:  
  
 +
* Professor [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Grüninger]] (U of Toronto, Canada)
  
 
* Professor [[MichaelGruninger]] (U of Toronto, Canada)
 
 
- "Thoughts on Ontology Summit 2013 and session intro"  
 
- "Thoughts on Ontology Summit 2013 and session intro"  
  
 +
* Dr. [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] (Information Junction, UK) - "Reflections on Ontology Summit 2013"
  
 +
* Dr. [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]] (MITRE) & Dr. [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]] (CMU)
  
* Dr. [[MatthewWest]] (Information Junction, UK) - "Reflections on Ontology Summit 2013"
 
 
 
 
* Dr. [[LeoObrst]] (MITRE) & Dr. [[SteveRay]] (CMU)
 
 
- "Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2"  
 
- "Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2"  
  
 +
* Mr. [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]] (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]] (Raytheon)
  
 
* Mr. [[TerryLongstreth]] (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. [[ToddSchneider]] (Raytheon)
 
 
- "Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2"  
 
- "Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2"  
  
 +
* Dr. [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] (Information Junction) & Mr. [[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]] (EDM Council; Hypercube)
  
 
* Dr. [[MatthewWest]] (Information Junction) & Mr. [[MikeBennett]] (EDM Council; Hypercube)
 
 
- "Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-2"  
 
- "Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-2"  
  
 +
* Dr. [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]] (MITRE) & Mr. [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] (Ontolog; CIM3)
  
 
* Dr. [[MichaelDenny]] (MITRE) & Mr. [[PeterYim]] (Ontolog; CIM3)
 
 
- "Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-2"  
 
- "Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-2"  
  
 +
* Dr. [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]] (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]] (NIST), moderators
  
 
* Dr. [[AmandaVizedom]] (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. [[FabianNeuhaus]] (NIST), moderators
 
 
- Open Discussion on how the synthesized ideas may be represented in the Communique draft  
 
- Open Discussion on how the synthesized ideas may be represented in the Communique draft  
 
 
  
 
Logistics:  
 
Logistics:  
 
 
  
 
* Refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_04_04  
 
* Refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_04_04  
  
 
+
* (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your <nowiki>RealName</nowiki> (in WikiWord format)  
 
+
* (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your <nowiki>[[RealName]]</nowiki> (in [[WikiWord]] format)  
+
 
+
 
+
  
 
* Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute  
 
* Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute  
  
 +
* Can't find Skype Dial pad?
  
 +
** for Windows Skype users: it may be under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
  
* Can't find Skype Dial pad?
 
** for Windows Skype users: it may be 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,)
 
** 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.  
 
if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it.  
  
 +
* Note: ... it has come to our attention that our conference bridge provider is running into some
  
 +
problems with the "joinconference" skype connections. In case anyone gets in trouble, please try to
  
* Note: ... it has come to our attention that our conference bridge provider is running into some
 
problems with the "joinconference" skype connections. In case anyone gets in trouble, please try to
 
 
call the phone numbers instead (e.g. from your phone, skype-out, google-voice, etc.)  
 
call the phone numbers instead (e.g. from your phone, skype-out, google-voice, etc.)  
  
 +
Attendees: [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]] (co-chair), [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] (co-chair), [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]], [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]],
  
 +
[[BobbinTeegarden|Bobbin Teegarden]], [[CarmenChui|Carmen Chui]], [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]], [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]], [[FranLightsom|Fran Lightsom]], [[FrancescaQuattri|Francesca Quattri]], [[FrankLoebe|Frank Loebe]],
  
Attendees: [[MichaelGruninger]] (co-chair), [[MatthewWest]] (co-chair), [[AliHashemi]], [[AmandaVizedom]],
+
[[JackRing|Jack Ring]], [[JoelBender|Joel Bender]], [[JulienCorman|Julien Corman]], [[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]], [[LamarHenderson|Lamar Henderson]], [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]], [[MarcelaVegetti|Marcela Vegetti]],  
[[BobbinTeegarden]], [[CarmenChui]], [[DougFoxvog]], [[FabianNeuhaus]], [[FranLightsom]], [[FrancescaQuattri]], [[FrankLoebe]],
+
[[JackRing]], [[JoelBender]], [[JulienCorman]], [[KenBaclawski]], [[LamarHenderson]], [[LeoObrst]], [[MarcelaVegetti]],
+
[[MaryPanahiazar]], [[MeganKatsumi]], [[MichaelDenny]], [[MikeRiben]], [[PavithraKenjige]], [[PeterYim]] (scribe), [[SteveRay]],
+
[[TerryLongstreth]], [[TillMossakowski]], [[ToddSchneider]],  
+
  
 +
[[MaryPanahiazar|Mary Panahiazar]], [[MeganKatsumi|Megan Katsumi]], [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]], [[MikeRiben|Mike Riben]], [[PavithraKenjige|Pavithra Kenjige]], [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] (scribe), [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]],
  
 +
[[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]], [[TillMossakowski|Till Mossakowski]], [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]],
  
== Proceedings: ==
+
''' Proceedings: '''
  
 +
[9:23] anonymous morphed into [[CarmenChui|Carmen Chui]]
  
 +
[9:25] anonymous1 morphed into [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]]
  
[9:23] anonymous morphed into [[CarmenChui]]  
+
[9:25] anonymous morphed into [[FrancescaQuattri|Francesca Quattri]]  
  
 +
[9:30] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: @FrancescaQuattri - did you just connect to the call? (that connection was
  
 
[9:25] anonymous1 morphed into [[MichaelDenny]]
 
 
 
 
[9:25] anonymous morphed into [[FrancescaQuattri]]
 
 
 
 
[9:30] [[PeterYim]]: @[[FrancescaQuattri]] - did you just connect to the call? (that connection was
 
 
injecting a lot of noise into the line; you'll need to stay on mute when not speaking)  
 
injecting a lot of noise into the line; you'll need to stay on mute when not speaking)  
  
 +
[9:31] [[FrancescaQuattri|Francesca Quattri]]: yup
  
 +
[9:31] [[FrancescaQuattri|Francesca Quattri]]: Hi Everybody
  
[9:31] [[FrancescaQuattri]]: yup
+
[9:32] anonymous morphed into [[MaryPanahiazar|Mary Panahiazar]]  
  
 +
[9:33] anonymous1 morphed into [[JulienCorman|Julien Corman]]
  
 +
[9:34] anonymous morphed into [[BobbinTeegarden|Bobbin Teegarden]]
  
[9:31] [[FrancescaQuattri]]: Hi Everybody
+
[9:34] [[JoelBender|Joel Bender]]: @Peter - online with Skype - no microphone
  
 +
[9:33] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: Hello mary panahiazar, Welcome! [ ... send me your email so you can get subscribed
  
 
[9:32] anonymous morphed into [[MaryPanahiazar]]
 
 
 
 
[9:33] anonymous1 morphed into [[JulienCorman]]
 
 
 
 
[9:34] anonymous morphed into [[BobbinTeegarden]]
 
 
 
 
[9:34] [[JoelBender]]: @Peter - online with Skype - no microphone
 
 
 
 
[9:33] [[PeterYim]]: Hello mary panahiazar, Welcome! [ ... send me your email so you can get subscribed
 
 
to the lists and participate in the async discussion too.]  
 
to the lists and participate in the async discussion too.]  
  
 +
[9:34] [[MaryPanahiazar|Mary Panahiazar]]: mary [at] knoesis.org
  
 +
[9:35] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: All, I have to leave at 14:00 EDT.
  
[9:34] [[MaryPanahiazar]]: mary [at] knoesis.org
+
[9:36] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]] opens the session ... see: the [ 0-Gruninger ] slides
  
 +
[9:37] List of members: [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]], [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]], [[BobbinTeegarden|Bobbin Teegarden]], [[CarmenChui|Carmen Chui]], [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]],
  
 +
[[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]], [[FrancescaQuattri|Francesca Quattri]], [[FrankLoebe|Frank Loebe]], [[FranLightsom|Fran Lightsom]], [[JoelBender|Joel Bender]], [[JulienCorman|Julien Corman]], [[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]],
  
[9:35] [[ToddSchneider]]: All, I have to leave at 14:00 EDT.  
+
[[MaryPanahiazar|Mary Panahiazar]], [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]], [[MeganKatsumi|Megan Katsumi]], [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]], [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]], [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]], [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]],
  
 +
[[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]], [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]], vnc2
  
 +
[9:46] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: With respect to conditions for ontology evaluation, we can talk about necessary
  
[9:36] [[PeterYim]]: == [[MichaelGruninger]] opens the session ... see: the [ 0-Gruninger ] slides
+
conditions for evaluation, and possibly sufficient conditions for evaluation, with respect to
  
 
 
[9:37] List of members: [[AliHashemi]], [[AmandaVizedom]], [[BobbinTeegarden]], [[CarmenChui]], [[DougFoxvog]],
 
[[FabianNeuhaus]], [[FrancescaQuattri]], [[FrankLoebe]], [[FranLightsom]], [[JoelBender]], [[JulienCorman]], [[KenBaclawski]],
 
[[MaryPanahiazar]], [[MatthewWest]], [[MeganKatsumi]], [[MichaelDenny]], [[MichaelGruninger]], [[PeterYim]], [[SteveRay]],
 
[[TerryLongstreth]], [[ToddSchneider]], vnc2
 
 
 
 
[9:46] [[SteveRay]]: With respect to conditions for ontology evaluation, we can talk about necessary
 
conditions for evaluation, and possibly sufficient conditions for evaluation, with respect to
 
 
various stages of development.  
 
various stages of development.  
  
 +
[9:43] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: Outcome hackathon HC05
  
 
[9:43] [[MichaelGruninger]]: Outcome hackathon HC05
 
 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/Hackathon-Clinics/HC-05_Ontology-of-OntologyEvaluation/wip/HC-05_doc-snapshot_at-end-day-20130331/  
 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/Hackathon-Clinics/HC-05_Ontology-of-OntologyEvaluation/wip/HC-05_doc-snapshot_at-end-day-20130331/  
  
 +
[9:46] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: Note about HC-05 outputs: This is snapshot of work at the end of the weekend
  
 
[9:46] [[AmandaVizedom]]: Note about HC-05 outputs: This is snapshot of work at the end of the weekend
 
 
sessions. Results are dispersed across a number of text and graphic files. Currently, several of us  
 
sessions. Results are dispersed across a number of text and graphic files. Currently, several of us  
 +
 
are working on consolidating the conceptual model in both graphical and English text forms, and  
 
are working on consolidating the conceptual model in both graphical and English text forms, and  
 +
 
making sure that we, as a group, agree that this captures what we developed. We are also drafting  
 
making sure that we, as a group, agree that this captures what we developed. We are also drafting  
 +
 
formal ontologies based on this, in OWL and Common Logic, but all should be considered first drafts,  
 
formal ontologies based on this, in OWL and Common Logic, but all should be considered first drafts,  
 +
 
and current push is on the consolidated concept model.  
 
and current push is on the consolidated concept model.  
  
 +
[9:55] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: @Amanda, Ali, et al. - at the [[OntoIOp]] working group meeting yesterday,
  
 +
[[TillMossakowski|Till Mossakowski]] and I were kicking around the idea of hacking up a demo (for the
  
[9:55] [[PeterYim]]: @Amanda, Ali, et al. - at the [[OntoIOp]] working group meeting yesterday,
 
[[TillMossakowski]] and I were kicking around the idea of hacking up a demo (for the
 
 
[[OntologySummit2013_Symposium]]), to evaluate two manually developed versions of the "Ontology of Ontology  
 
[[OntologySummit2013_Symposium]]), to evaluate two manually developed versions of the "Ontology of Ontology  
 +
 
Evaluation" (a la HC-05 - in OWL and CLIF), and two machine-translated versions of those Ontologies  
 
Evaluation" (a la HC-05 - in OWL and CLIF), and two machine-translated versions of those Ontologies  
 +
 
(of Onto Eval) with Hets / DOL / [[OntoIOp]] / Ontohub (OWL->CLIF; CLIF->OWL) ... and run them through  
 
(of Onto Eval) with Hets / DOL / [[OntoIOp]] / Ontohub (OWL->CLIF; CLIF->OWL) ... and run them through  
 +
 
some of the tools featured during this summit ... it'll be fun!  
 
some of the tools featured during this summit ... it'll be fun!  
  
 +
[10:00] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Peter: Excellent! I've been a bit dissatisfied that even with our follow-on
  
 
[10:00] [[AmandaVizedom]]: @Peter: Excellent! I've been a bit dissatisfied that even with our follow-on
 
 
commitments to create the formal ontologies, we haven't had a specific plan for evaluating them. And  
 
commitments to create the formal ontologies, we haven't had a specific plan for evaluating them. And  
 +
 
that's no good, from the practicing what we preach perspective. So, in addition to the fun of it, I  
 
that's no good, from the practicing what we preach perspective. So, in addition to the fun of it, I  
 +
 
think that is an excellent idea!  
 
think that is an excellent idea!  
  
 +
[9:47] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] presenting ... see: the [ 1-West ] slides
  
 +
[9:51] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: Interesting: Decision taking (UK) = Decision making (USA)
  
[9:47] [[PeterYim]]: == [[MatthewWest]] presenting ... see: the [ 1-West ] slides
+
[9:56] anonymous morphed into [[LamarHenderson|Lamar Henderson]]  
  
 +
[9:58] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: Cost reduction benefits, and sponsor's ROI in general, were brought into our
  
 +
HC-05 discussions this weekend, advocated especially by BobSmith. Figuring out how these fit into
  
[9:51] [[SteveRay]]: Interesting: Decision taking (UK) = Decision making (USA)
+
the high-level evaluation has been a challenge. MatthewWest's comments related to his slide 3
  
 +
suggests to me that we began to model requirements and their large dependence on usage, and we began
  
 +
to model aspects of usage, and we began to model purpose as part of that, but under purpose we
  
[9:56] anonymous morphed into [[LamarHenderson]]
+
focused on delivered functionality. Matthews slide 3 highlights delivered benefits, at a higher
  
 
 
[9:58] [[AmandaVizedom]]: Cost reduction benefits, and sponsor's ROI in general, were brought into our
 
HC-05 discussions this weekend, advocated especially by [[BobSmith]]. Figuring out how these fit into
 
the high-level evaluation has been a challenge. [[MatthewWest]]'s comments related to his slide 3
 
suggests to me that we began to model requirements and their large dependence on usage, and we began
 
to model aspects of usage, and we began to model purpose as part of that, but under purpose we
 
focused on delivered functionality. Matthews slide 3 highlights delivered benefits, at a higher
 
 
level than specific functionalities. That, I think, we need to add explicitly.  
 
level than specific functionalities. That, I think, we need to add explicitly.  
  
 +
[9:59] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]] presenting ... see: the [ A-Obrst-Ray ] slides
  
 +
[10:05] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: (in response to discussion of Slide 2 of Track A) Class vs. instance distinction
  
[9:59] [[PeterYim]]: == [[SteveRay]] presenting ... see: the [ A-Obrst-Ray ] slides
+
being questionable arises if the ontology makes the two disjoint. If classes may be used as
  
 +
arguments to predicates (and metaclasses are allowed), then one need not make the narrowest classes
  
 
[10:05] [[DougFoxvog]]: (in response to discussion of Slide 2 of Track A) Class vs. instance distinction
 
being questionable arises if the ontology makes the two disjoint. If classes may be used as
 
arguments to predicates (and metaclasses are allowed), then one need not make the narrowest classes
 
 
into instances of their superclasses.  
 
into instances of their superclasses.  
  
 +
[10:15] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]] presenting ... see: the [ B-Schneider-Longstreth ] slides
  
 +
[10:15] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: (ref. ToddSchneider's remark that he will present, as [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]] is
  
[10:15] [[PeterYim]]: == [[ToddSchneider]] presenting ... see: the [ B-Schneider-Longstreth ] slides
 
 
 
 
[10:15] [[TerryLongstreth]]: (ref. [[ToddSchneider]]'s remark that he will present, as [[TerryLongstreth]] is
 
 
having trouble talking) I'm listening, but as Todd says, having trouble with verbal communication  
 
having trouble talking) I'm listening, but as Todd says, having trouble with verbal communication  
  
 +
[10:17] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: Disagree with Terry in calling OOPS! a blackbox evaluation. It is specifically
  
 
[10:17] [[SteveRay]]: Disagree with Terry in calling OOPS! a blackbox evaluation. It is specifically
 
 
examining the contents of the ontology - opening up the box and looking for structural errors.  
 
examining the contents of the ontology - opening up the box and looking for structural errors.  
  
 +
[10:18] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: That was Todd, but I think he was just illustrating the ambiguity of the
  
 
[10:18] [[TerryLongstreth]]: That was Todd, but I think he was just illustrating the ambiguity of the
 
 
dichotomy  
 
dichotomy  
  
 +
[10:18] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: @Ray: I would expect intrinsic properties to become important (or not) in
  
 +
supporting higher level extrinsic requirements. So the key is to understand the way higher level
  
[10:18] [[MatthewWest]]: @Ray: I would expect intrinsic properties to become important (or not) in
 
supporting higher level extrinsic requirements. So the key is to understand the way higher level
 
 
requirements are supported by requirements for generally lower level, intrinsic properties.  
 
requirements are supported by requirements for generally lower level, intrinsic properties.  
  
 +
[10:19] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Matthew +1 (independently of Steve's comments or OOPS!).
  
 +
[10:20] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Matthew: I agree. Intrinsic evaluation alone has no value unless related to the
  
[10:19] [[AmandaVizedom]]: @Matthew +1 (independently of Steve's comments or OOPS!).
 
 
 
 
[10:20] [[SteveRay]]: @Matthew: I agree. Intrinsic evaluation alone has no value unless related to the
 
 
ultimate system performance.  
 
ultimate system performance.  
  
 +
[10:20] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: I agree with Steve. OOPS! ignores the *meaning* of the terms, but has access to
  
 
[10:20] [[DougFoxvog]]: I agree with Steve. OOPS! ignores the *meaning* of the terms, but has access to
 
 
all the statements in the ontology. Ignoring the meaning seems to be what Todd meant by "black box".  
 
all the statements in the ontology. Ignoring the meaning seems to be what Todd meant by "black box".  
  
 +
[10:22] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Doug: You may be right in how Todd (sorry Terry, got the names swapped) intended
  
 +
to use the term black box, but that is an odd use of the term, somewhat opposite to what at least I
  
[10:22] [[SteveRay]]: @Doug: You may be right in how Todd (sorry Terry, got the names swapped) intended
 
to use the term black box, but that is an odd use of the term, somewhat opposite to what at least I
 
 
understand it to mean.  
 
understand it to mean.  
  
 +
[10:21] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @Matthew, @Amanda: +1
  
 +
[10:21] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: @DougFoxvog: What do you mean by "ignoring the meaning"? The "meaning" of
  
[10:21] [[DougFoxvog]]: @Matthew, @Amanda: +1
 
 
 
 
[10:21] [[MichaelGruninger]]: @[[DougFoxvog]]: What do you mean by "ignoring the meaning"? The "meaning" of
 
 
a term should be equivalent to the possible interpretations of the axioms  
 
a term should be equivalent to the possible interpretations of the axioms  
  
 +
[10:23] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: The "meaning" of the term is defined for humans and humans use that meaning for
  
 
[10:23] [[DougFoxvog]]: The "meaning" of the term is defined for humans and humans use that meaning for
 
 
labeling (e.g., cells on a slide, info on medical records, etc.)  
 
labeling (e.g., cells on a slide, info on medical records, etc.)  
  
 +
[10:25] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @Michael: I agree that the meaning of an ontology in a vacuum is just the
  
 +
possible interpretations of the axioms. However, ontologies are (hopefully) used in conjunction with
  
[10:25] [[DougFoxvog]]: @Michael: I agree that the meaning of an ontology in a vacuum is just the
 
possible interpretations of the axioms. However, ontologies are (hopefully) used in conjunction with
 
 
other systems, and so their mappings to those systems affects the meaning of the terms.  
 
other systems, and so their mappings to those systems affects the meaning of the terms.  
  
 +
[10:28] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: @DougFoxvog: In the work with [[MeganKatsumi|Megan Katsumi]], the intended meanings of terms
  
 
[10:28] [[MichaelGruninger]]: @[[DougFoxvog]]: In the work with [[MeganKatsumi]], the intended meanings of terms
 
 
are requirements that are formalized as intended models. We can then evaluate the ontology (using  
 
are requirements that are formalized as intended models. We can then evaluate the ontology (using  
 +
 
the axioms alone) to determine whether or not it meets those requirements i.e. whether or no there  
 
the axioms alone) to determine whether or not it meets those requirements i.e. whether or no there  
 +
 
are intended models. When ontologies are used together, the intended models need to be in common.  
 
are intended models. When ontologies are used together, the intended models need to be in common.  
  
 +
[10:25] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Todd: While discussing slide 3, you said that the evaluation has a context,
  
 +
and that when you know that context, then you can rank the results of your evaluation (metrics,
  
[10:25] [[AmandaVizedom]]: @Todd: While discussing slide 3, you said that the evaluation has a context,
 
and that when you know that context, then you can rank the results of your evaluation (metrics,
 
 
etc). This sounds to me like a different framing, but in principle equivalent to a different process  
 
etc). This sounds to me like a different framing, but in principle equivalent to a different process  
 +
 
characterization that we have discussed. In this other characterization, The context comes first --  
 
characterization that we have discussed. In this other characterization, The context comes first --  
 +
 
specifying the intended usage, gathering requirements. From this, evaluation criteria are identified  
 
specifying the intended usage, gathering requirements. From this, evaluation criteria are identified  
 +
 
that are relevant to answering whether these specific, context-driven requirements are satisfied,  
 
that are relevant to answering whether these specific, context-driven requirements are satisfied,  
 +
 
and evaluation is conducted over those criteria. Do you agree that both processes emphasize the  
 
and evaluation is conducted over those criteria. Do you agree that both processes emphasize the  
 +
 
contextuality of evaluation relevance equivalently?  
 
contextuality of evaluation relevance equivalently?  
  
 +
[10:28] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @Amanda: Should we expect the contexts to be defined (as you said they must be)
  
 
[10:28] [[DougFoxvog]]: @Amanda: Should we expect the contexts to be defined (as you said they must be)
 
 
using an ontology? I.e., are the context definitions to be stated in a formal logic using terms  
 
using an ontology? I.e., are the context definitions to be stated in a formal logic using terms  
 +
 
defined in an ontology?  
 
defined in an ontology?  
  
 +
[10:34] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @doug, yes, though here I am using context as I think Todd meant it, not in
  
 
[10:34] [[AmandaVizedom]]: @doug, yes, though here I am using context as I think Todd meant it, not in
 
 
all the possible ways I might otherwise be found using it. ;-) In the HC-05 model, we've been so far  
 
all the possible ways I might otherwise be found using it. ;-) In the HC-05 model, we've been so far  
 +
 
following along with the Ontology Usage characterization seeds laid down in the 2011 summit. That  
 
following along with the Ontology Usage characterization seeds laid down in the 2011 summit. That  
 +
 
is, the formalized characterization of context consists partially in the explicit capture of various  
 
is, the formalized characterization of context consists partially in the explicit capture of various  
 +
 
aspects of the usage (including things like application type, users, and so on), not yet nearly  
 
aspects of the usage (including things like application type, users, and so on), not yet nearly  
 +
 
exhaustively captured. Priority is on such characteristics as we come to understand that they make a  
 
exhaustively captured. Priority is on such characteristics as we come to understand that they make a  
 +
 
difference to what ontology features are needed.  
 
difference to what ontology features are needed.  
  
 +
[10:26] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Michael: I'd be interested in your thoughts on the axioms when one is presented
  
 +
with, say, an OWL file that contains only sub/superclass relations and some <nowiki>allValuesFrom</nowiki> or
  
[10:26] [[SteveRay]]: @Michael: I'd be interested in your thoughts on the axioms when one is presented
+
<nowiki>someValuesFrom</nowiki> relations. In other words, no explicit axioms at all.  
with, say, an OWL file that contains only sub/superclass relations and some <nowiki>all[[ValuesFrom]]</nowiki> or
+
<nowiki>some[[ValuesFrom]]</nowiki> relations. In other words, no explicit axioms at all.  
+
  
 +
[10:32] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: @Steve: I would say that subclass relations are still axioms. Of course,
  
 
[10:32] [[MichaelGruninger]]: @Steve: I would say that subclass relations are still axioms. Of course,
 
 
if these are all you have, then there will most likely be many possible interpretations of the  
 
if these are all you have, then there will most likely be many possible interpretations of the  
 +
 
ontology that do not correspond to the intended meanings. A great example of this is the  
 
ontology that do not correspond to the intended meanings. A great example of this is the  
 +
 
relationship between OWL-S and SWSO. In cases such as this, I wonder what the requirements for the  
 
relationship between OWL-S and SWSO. In cases such as this, I wonder what the requirements for the  
 +
 
ontology are considered to be.  
 
ontology are considered to be.  
  
 +
[10:27] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: @Todd - (re. your remark during slide#7) I somewhat disagree that "testers are not
  
 
[10:27] [[PeterYim]]: @Todd - (re. your remark during slide#7) I somewhat disagree that "testers are not
 
 
familiar with ontologies" ... if we look at (and we should) test designers as among the "testers"  
 
familiar with ontologies" ... if we look at (and we should) test designers as among the "testers"  
 +
 
(that's the group that's meaningful, we should not be talking about the test operators), then they  
 
(that's the group that's meaningful, we should not be talking about the test operators), then they  
simply do not qualify for the job if they are not familiar with ontologies
 
  
 +
simply do not qualify for the job if they are not familiar with ontologies
  
 +
[10:34] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Peter, I qualified 'tester' to be in the context of system integration
  
[10:34] [[ToddSchneider]]: Peter, I qualified 'tester' to be in the context of system integration
 
 
testing (i.e., the end of the development phases and prior to deployment).  
 
testing (i.e., the end of the development phases and prior to deployment).  
  
 +
[10:37] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: @Todd - fair!
  
 +
[10:29] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] presenting ... see: the [ C-West-Bennett ] slides
  
[10:37] [[PeterYim]]: @Todd - fair!
+
[10:33] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: Slide 3: "The physical level would be an encoding in a formal language" such as
  
 
 
[10:29] [[PeterYim]]: == [[MatthewWest]] presenting ... see: the [ C-West-Bennett ] slides
 
 
 
 
[10:33] [[DougFoxvog]]: Slide 3: "The physical level would be an encoding in a formal language" such as
 
 
OWL. This is an interesting definition of "physical". It would be nice for the slide to be edited to  
 
OWL. This is an interesting definition of "physical". It would be nice for the slide to be edited to  
 +
 
clarify this meaning. I might call this the "code" level.  
 
clarify this meaning. I might call this the "code" level.  
  
 +
[10:38] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @Matthew - during HC-05, we found your Conceptual / Logical / Physical stages,
  
 
[10:38] [[AmandaVizedom]]: @Matthew - during HC-05, we found your Conceptual / Logical / Physical stages,
 
 
following DB usage someone, to make the most sense when mapped thusly: Conceptual: human-centric  
 
following DB usage someone, to make the most sense when mapped thusly: Conceptual: human-centric  
 +
 
capture in one or more artifacts, could be textual, graphical, combined, rigorous but not formal.  
 
capture in one or more artifacts, could be textual, graphical, combined, rigorous but not formal.  
 +
 
Logical: expressed in a formal ontology language. Physical: expressed in a serialization of such a  
 
Logical: expressed in a formal ontology language. Physical: expressed in a serialization of such a  
 +
 
language. Is this compatible with your thinking?  
 
language. Is this compatible with your thinking?  
  
 +
[10:47] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: @Amanda: Possibly. In truth there are variations in interpretation of the
  
 
[10:47] [[MatthewWest]]: @Amanda: Possibly. In truth there are variations in interpretation of the
 
 
levels in the database world. Certainly the physical level is what is in the system running queries.  
 
levels in the database world. Certainly the physical level is what is in the system running queries.  
 +
 
The logical level is an abstraction of that that is not implementation environment specific. I would  
 
The logical level is an abstraction of that that is not implementation environment specific. I would  
 +
 
probably want to say that you would not have committed to FOL or DL yet, but we could debate that  
 
probably want to say that you would not have committed to FOL or DL yet, but we could debate that  
 +
 
(maybe another level?)  
 
(maybe another level?)  
  
 +
[10:44] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Matthew, Instead of 'quality', would 'value' be a notion that better conveys
  
 
[10:44] [[ToddSchneider]]: Matthew, Instead of 'quality', would 'value' be a notion that better conveys
 
 
our intent?  
 
our intent?  
  
 +
[10:35] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[MikeDenny|Mike Denny]] presenting ... see: the [ D-Denny-Yim ] slides
  
 +
[10:39] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: Finally joining. Sorry I'm late.
  
[10:35] [[PeterYim]]: == [[MikeDenny]] presenting ... see: the [ D-Denny-Yim ] slides
+
[10:39] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: glad you made it, Leo!
  
 +
[10:46] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: Track D makes a good point that much of our work has seemed to presume a
  
 +
Waterfall model of development. We didn't explicitly talk about it but the Track B concerns with
  
[10:39] [[LeoObrst]]: Finally joining. Sorry I'm late.
+
dynamics are probably best illustrated in current practice by environments by dynamic injection of
  
 +
new or unanticipated requirements as happens in agile development situations.
  
 +
[10:48] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: There have been several mentions that symmetric, reflexive, and transitive
  
[10:39] [[PeterYim]]: glad you made it, Leo!
+
predicates should have the same domain and range. This is true for symmetric predicates, but for
  
 +
transitive predicates, the requirement should be that the range is a subclass of the domain. For
  
 +
reflexive predicates, it really depends upon one's definition of "reflexive" -- does it mean
  
[10:46] [[TerryLongstreth]]: Track D makes a good point that much of our work has seemed to presume a
+
<nowiki> (forAll (X P P_Range P_Domain) (implies (and (isa P BinaryPredicate) (range P P_Range) (domain P P_Domain) (isa X P_Range) (isa X P_Domain)) (P X X))) </nowiki>
Waterfall model of development. We didn't explicitly talk about it but the Track B concerns with
+
dynamics are probably best illustrated in current practice by environments by dynamic injection of
+
new or unanticipated requirements as happens in agile development situations.
+
  
 +
or
  
 +
<nowiki> (forAll (X P P_Range P_Domain) (implies (and (isa P BinaryPredicate) (range P P_Range) (domain P P_Domain) (isa X ([[ClassUnionFunction]] P_Range P_Domain)) (P X X))) </nowiki>
  
[10:48] [[DougFoxvog]]: There have been several mentions that symmetric, reflexive, and transitive
 
predicates should have the same domain and range. This is true for symmetric predicates, but for
 
transitive predicates, the requirement should be that the range is a subclass of the domain. For
 
reflexive predicates, it really depends upon one's definition of "reflexive" -- does it mean
 
<nowiki> (forAll (X P P_Range P_Domain) (implies (and (isa P [[BinaryPredicate]]) (range P P_Range) (domain P P_Domain) (isa X P_Range) (isa X P_Domain)) (P X X))) </nowiki>
 
or
 
<nowiki> (forAll (X P P_Range P_Domain) (implies (and (isa P [[BinaryPredicate]]) (range P P_Range) (domain P P_Domain) (isa X ([[ClassUnionFunction]] P_Range P_Domain)) (P X X))) </nowiki>
 
 
In the second case, the domain & range must be the same. In the first, they should just not be disjoint.  
 
In the second case, the domain & range must be the same. In the first, they should just not be disjoint.  
  
 +
[10:58] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @MichaelDenny: Indeed, some of us are trying to link ontology evaluation to
  
 
[10:58] [[SteveRay]]: @[[MichaelDenny]]: Indeed, some of us are trying to link ontology evaluation to
 
 
traditional modeling tools. I and my team convert Enterprise Architect files into OWL, and then  
 
traditional modeling tools. I and my team convert Enterprise Architect files into OWL, and then  
 +
 
apply various evaluation queries against them using SPARQL. One example of output can be found at  
 
apply various evaluation queries against them using SPARQL. One example of output can be found at  
 +
 
http://fsgim.sv.cmu.edu  
 
http://fsgim.sv.cmu.edu  
  
 +
[11:03] [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]]: @SteveRay Very interesting and glad to see it. I will take a look.
  
 +
[11:00] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Have to go.
  
[11:03] [[MichaelDenny]]: @[[SteveRay]] Very interesting and glad to see it. I will take a look.
+
[11:01] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == Q&A and Open Discussion on how all of these ideas should be captured into the
  
 +
[[OntologySummit2013_Communique]] ... moderated by [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]] and [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]
  
 +
[11:01] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: please refer to communique outline at:
  
[11:00] [[ToddSchneider]]: Have to go.
 
 
 
 
[11:01] [[PeterYim]]: == Q&A and Open Discussion on how all of these ideas should be captured into the
 
[[OntologySummit2013_Communique]] ... moderated by [[FabianNeuhaus]] and [[AmandaVizedom]]
 
 
 
 
[11:01] [[PeterYim]]: please refer to communique outline at:
 
 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Communique/Draft#nid3O16  
 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Communique/Draft#nid3O16  
  
 +
[11:04] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Amanda, Fabian, One suggestion before I really leave, I'd suggest dropping
  
 +
the in/extrinsic distinction and replace it with the lifecycle phase. It seems a better criteria for
  
[11:04] [[ToddSchneider]]: Amanda, Fabian, One suggestion before I really leave, I'd suggest dropping
 
the in/extrinsic distinction and replace it with the lifecycle phase. It seems a better criteria for
 
 
making evaluations distinctions.  
 
making evaluations distinctions.  
  
 +
[11:06] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Todd: Not sure I agree with this. Lifecycle has to do with WHEN, or at which
  
 
[11:06] [[SteveRay]]: @Todd: Not sure I agree with this. Lifecycle has to do with WHEN, or at which
 
 
phase, does one evaluate. The intrinsic/extrinsic distinction relates to WHAT one is evaluating.  
 
phase, does one evaluate. The intrinsic/extrinsic distinction relates to WHAT one is evaluating.  
  
 +
[11:10] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: Lifecycle phases may also have multiple contexts: to the developer, the
  
 +
lifecycle phase labeled development is (one of) his operational swimming pools. He may touch more
  
[11:10] [[TerryLongstreth]]: Lifecycle phases may also have multiple contexts: to the developer, the
 
lifecycle phase labeled development is (one of) his operational swimming pools. He may touch more
 
 
than one ontology if for example, the development environment is driven by an ontology (Rational  
 
than one ontology if for example, the development environment is driven by an ontology (Rational  
 +
 
products have that flavor, if not directly employing the term)  
 
products have that flavor, if not directly employing the term)  
  
 +
[11:04] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: +1 to, at least, the first half of Todd's suggestion. I think the
  
 
[11:04] [[PeterYim]]: +1 to, at least, the first half of Todd's suggestion. I think the
 
 
intrinsic/extrinsic distinction served a useful purpose to help us frame the discourse, but  
 
intrinsic/extrinsic distinction served a useful purpose to help us frame the discourse, but  
 +
 
introducing this "new terminology" is as confusing as not introducing it at all  
 
introducing this "new terminology" is as confusing as not introducing it at all  
  
 +
[11:09] [[MeganKatsumi|Megan Katsumi]]: @SteveRay, @Todd: I agree that the in/extrinsic distinction is confusing, but
  
 +
I also think that Steve has a point about the proposed using of the lifecycle phase. Might another
  
[11:09] [[MeganKatsumi]]: @[[SteveRay]], @Todd: I agree that the in/extrinsic distinction is confusing, but
 
I also think that Steve has a point about the proposed using of the lifecycle phase. Might another
 
 
useful distinction be the idea of functional/non-functional requirements/attributes?  
 
useful distinction be the idea of functional/non-functional requirements/attributes?  
  
 +
[11:12] [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]]: @MeganKatsumi I have suggested "model quality" vs "domain fidelity" vs
  
 
[11:12] [[MichaelDenny]]: @[[MeganKatsumi]] I have suggested "model quality" vs "domain fidelity" vs
 
 
application fitness.  
 
application fitness.  
  
 +
[11:12] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Michael: I like your partitioning.
  
 +
[11:12] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: I also agree that intrinsic/extrinsic has not been helpful. However, I don't
  
[11:12] [[SteveRay]]: @Michael: I like your partitioning.
 
 
 
 
[11:12] [[MatthewWest]]: I also agree that intrinsic/extrinsic has not been helpful. However, I don't
 
 
think it matters very much. It gave us a way to start, and we can move on from that.  
 
think it matters very much. It gave us a way to start, and we can move on from that.  
  
 +
[11:12] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: As Fabian is saying on the conversation now, we do not plan on using the
  
 
[11:12] [[AmandaVizedom]]: As Fabian is saying on the conversation now, we do not plan on using the
 
 
intrinsic/extrinsic distinction an organizer of the Communique. See outline.  
 
intrinsic/extrinsic distinction an organizer of the Communique. See outline.  
  
 +
[11:14] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: +1 to what [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]] just said about how he and [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]] are planning to
  
 
[11:14] [[PeterYim]]: +1 to what [[FabianNeuhaus]] just said about how he and [[AmandaVizedom]] are planning to
 
 
lay out the communique  
 
lay out the communique  
  
 +
[11:06] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: This is also of great potential use to Enterprise Architecture and Business
  
 
[11:06] [[AmandaVizedom]]: This is also of great potential use to Enterprise Architecture and Business
 
 
Process Management practices themselves, and the development of semantic IT to better support them.  
 
Process Management practices themselves, and the development of semantic IT to better support them.  
 +
 
Enterprise semantic tech projects are often based in information sharing needs related to business  
 
Enterprise semantic tech projects are often based in information sharing needs related to business  
 +
 
processes. In best cases, that basis is somewhat clear from documentation of business process and EA  
 
processes. In best cases, that basis is somewhat clear from documentation of business process and EA  
 +
 
environment from just such tools. But these tools stop at the level of the input, output, or sharing  
 
environment from just such tools. But these tools stop at the level of the input, output, or sharing  
 +
 
of information bearing objects (reports, data sets, messages). They don't drill down into the  
 
of information bearing objects (reports, data sets, messages). They don't drill down into the  
 +
 
information *contents*. That is precisely where the ontology coverage needs and scoping of the  
 
information *contents*. That is precisely where the ontology coverage needs and scoping of the  
 +
 
semantic projects picks up, and it is much more effectively captured and conveyed within a context  
 
semantic projects picks up, and it is much more effectively captured and conveyed within a context  
 +
 
of continuity with those EA/BP models.  
 
of continuity with those EA/BP models.  
  
 +
[11:06] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: @Fabian - (in reference to Fabian's verbal remarks on how Track-A and
  
 
[11:06] [[TerryLongstreth]]: @Fabian - (in reference to Fabian's verbal remarks on how Track-A and
 
 
Track-B focused their discourse, and the gap) Track B wasn't so concerned with the physical level as  
 
Track-B focused their discourse, and the gap) Track B wasn't so concerned with the physical level as  
 +
 
the behavioral consequences to the system of having ontology or an ontology within it.  
 
the behavioral consequences to the system of having ontology or an ontology within it.  
  
 +
[11:10] [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]: @Terry - yes, that's what I meant, I did not put it very elegantly. My point
  
 +
was that there are some aspects of ontology evaluation/quality that was not covered by either track,
  
[11:10] [[FabianNeuhaus]]: @Terry - yes, that's what I meant, I did not put it very elegantly. My point
 
was that there are some aspects of ontology evaluation/quality that was not covered by either track,
 
 
should be covered.  
 
should be covered.  
  
 +
[11:06] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: @MichaelDenny: (ref. slide#5 "That which we call a rose by any other name would
  
 
[11:06] [[LeoObrst]]: @[[MichaelDenny]]: (ref. slide#5 "That which we call a rose by any other name would
 
 
smell as sweet.") yes, I call it "a label does not wear its semantics on its sleeve", which a lot of  
 
smell as sweet.") yes, I call it "a label does not wear its semantics on its sleeve", which a lot of  
 +
 
XML and database folks sometimes think, e.g., if a label is named "Person", well of course I know  
 
XML and database folks sometimes think, e.g., if a label is named "Person", well of course I know  
 +
 
what it means! This is also encouraged by very long camelCase concept names like  
 
what it means! This is also encouraged by very long camelCase concept names like  
 +
 
<nowiki>[[PersonsWhoWieldHammers]]</nowiki>, where the label seems to be the composition of the semantics of natural  
 
<nowiki>[[PersonsWhoWieldHammers]]</nowiki>, where the label seems to be the composition of the semantics of natural  
 +
 
language terms.  
 
language terms.  
  
 +
[11:09] [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]]: @LeoObrst ...or "you can't tell a concept by its cover"
  
 +
[11:12] anonymous morphed into [[PavithraKenjige|Pavithra Kenjige]]
  
[11:09] [[MichaelDenny]]: @[[LeoObrst]] ...or "you can't tell a concept by its cover"
+
[11:15] [[JackRing|Jack Ring]]: Seems to me any ontology must be evaluated with respect to domain-specific (usage)
  
 +
and discipline-specific (principles and standards) contexts. Further, an ontology can be evaluated
  
 +
for quality (what it is, what it does and what it knows), parsimony and beauty. I sense confusion
  
[11:12] anonymous morphed into [[PavithraKenjige]]
 
 
 
 
[11:15] [[JackRing]]: Seems to me any ontology must be evaluated with respect to domain-specific (usage)
 
and discipline-specific (principles and standards) contexts. Further, an ontology can be evaluated
 
for quality (what it is, what it does and what it knows), parsimony and beauty. I sense confusion
 
 
about whether ontology serves as framework, praxis, system or what?  
 
about whether ontology serves as framework, praxis, system or what?  
  
 +
[11:19] [[JackRing|Jack Ring]]: Life cycle is a distracting notion. Most all ontologies evolve and morph. It may
  
 
[11:19] [[JackRing]]: Life cycle is a distracting notion. Most all ontologies evolve and morph. It may
 
 
be better to telk in terms of Usage Scenario.  
 
be better to telk in terms of Usage Scenario.  
  
 +
[11:14] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: Does it make sense to consider specific ontology evaluation tasks, and
  
 
[11:14] [[MichaelGruninger]]: Does it make sense to consider specific ontology evaluation tasks, and
 
 
then specify what the inputs to the tasks are? e.g. is evaluation done with respect to the  
 
then specify what the inputs to the tasks are? e.g. is evaluation done with respect to the  
 +
 
ontology's axioms alone? Is the ontology evaluated wrt a specific set of requirements?  
 
ontology's axioms alone? Is the ontology evaluated wrt a specific set of requirements?  
  
 +
[11:18] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: @Michael: You can only evaluate against requirements. If you look at my slide
  
 
[11:18] [[MatthewWest]]: @Michael: You can only evaluate against requirements. If you look at my slide
 
 
on Properties key to Information Quality, you will find properties at a level that business folk can  
 
on Properties key to Information Quality, you will find properties at a level that business folk can  
 +
 
state their requirements at. But then take consistency. What are the more detailed properties of an  
 
state their requirements at. But then take consistency. What are the more detailed properties of an  
 +
 
ontology that you can measure that tell you about its consistency? how do you transform the  
 
ontology that you can measure that tell you about its consistency? how do you transform the  
 +
 
requirements at the business level down to this level?  
 
requirements at the business level down to this level?  
  
 +
[11:20] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: @MatthewWest: Some of the criteria in Steve and Leo's slides use only the
  
 
[11:20] [[MichaelGruninger]]: @[[MatthewWest]]: Some of the criteria in Steve and Leo's slides use only the
 
 
axioms of the ontology  
 
axioms of the ontology  
  
 +
[11:18] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: I will add that I believe that there are many ways of "slicing and dicing"
  
 
[11:18] [[AmandaVizedom]]: I will add that I believe that there are many ways of "slicing and dicing"
 
 
ontology characteristics/ requirements / evaluation criteria. Intrinsic/extrinsic is one (or  
 
ontology characteristics/ requirements / evaluation criteria. Intrinsic/extrinsic is one (or  
 +
 
several, given the various interpretations), as are lifecycle stages, relationship to aspects of  
 
several, given the various interpretations), as are lifecycle stages, relationship to aspects of  
 +
 
usage/ relationship to some aspect of theory, etc.. And different tools and methodologies utilize  
 
usage/ relationship to some aspect of theory, etc.. And different tools and methodologies utilize  
 +
 
different such organizations. What's more important is that we understand what the  
 
different such organizations. What's more important is that we understand what the  
 +
 
characteristics/criteria/requirements are, and when & why they matter, and how & when they may be  
 
characteristics/criteria/requirements are, and when & why they matter, and how & when they may be  
 +
 
evaluated.  
 
evaluated.  
  
 +
[11:19] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: @Amanda: +1
  
 +
[11:21] [[MeganKatsumi|Megan Katsumi]]: @Amanda: +1
  
[11:19] [[MatthewWest]]: @Amanda: +1
+
[11:22] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @Amanda: +2. The ontology evaluation ontology should have concepts and relations
  
 
 
[11:21] [[MeganKatsumi]]: @Amanda: +1
 
 
 
 
[11:22] [[DougFoxvog]]: @Amanda: +2. The ontology evaluation ontology should have concepts and relations
 
 
for all that.  
 
for all that.  
  
 +
[11:20] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: Leo is discussing properties of different ontology aspects relative to life
  
 
[11:20] [[DougFoxvog]]: Leo is discussing properties of different ontology aspects relative to life
 
 
cycle phase. If the specific relations are written down, they could be encoded using the ontology  
 
cycle phase. If the specific relations are written down, they could be encoded using the ontology  
 +
 
evaluation ontology.  
 
evaluation ontology.  
  
 +
[11:19] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: Registration (either onsite or remote) is now open for the
  
 +
[[OntologySummit2013_Symposium]] at NIST - Thu & Fri May 2~3, 2013 (Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA) - see
  
[11:19] [[PeterYim]]: Registration (either onsite or remote) is now open for the
 
[[OntologySummit2013_Symposium]] at NIST - Thu & Fri May 2~3, 2013 (Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA) - see
 
 
detials at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013/WorkshopRegistration  
 
detials at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013/WorkshopRegistration  
 +
 
(registration for onsite attendance is mandatory ... so note the Apr-22 registration deadline!)  
 
(registration for onsite attendance is mandatory ... so note the Apr-22 registration deadline!)  
  
 +
[11:20] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: Join in the fun at this weekend's Hackathon-Clinics Activities - see details at:
  
 +
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Hackathon_Clinics#nid3PG4 ... even if you
  
[11:20] [[PeterYim]]: Join in the fun at this weekend's Hackathon-Clinics Activities - see details at:
 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Hackathon_Clinics#nid3PG4 ... even if you
 
 
don't plan to hang around all day, you might be interested to participate at the "open webcast  
 
don't plan to hang around all day, you might be interested to participate at the "open webcast  
 +
 
segment" of the two projects being featured this Saturday (Apr-6)  
 
segment" of the two projects being featured this Saturday (Apr-6)  
  
 +
[11:20] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: Again, solicitation to software environment stewards and tool developers to
  
 +
respond to the [[OntologySummit2013|Ontology Summit 2013]] Software Survey - goto:
  
[11:20] [[PeterYim]]: Again, solicitation to software environment stewards and tool developers to
 
respond to the [[OntologySummit2013]] Software Survey - goto:
 
 
http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2013_Survey ... enter name of your tool, and proceed  
 
http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2013_Survey ... enter name of your tool, and proceed  
 +
 
to questionnaire (make sure you complete all phases (questions under all tabs)  
 
to questionnaire (make sure you complete all phases (questions under all tabs)  
  
 +
[11:20] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: As [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]] just said, same time next week, for [[OntologySummit2013|Ontology Summit 2013]]
  
 +
session-13: "Communique Draft Review" - Co-chairs: [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]] & [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]] - developing
  
[11:20] [[PeterYim]]: As [[MichaelGruninger]] just said, same time next week, for [[OntologySummit2013]]
 
session-13: "Communique Draft Review" - Co-chairs: [[AmandaVizedom]] & [[FabianNeuhaus]] - developing
 
 
session details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_04_11  
 
session details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_04_11  
  
 +
[11:20] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: Sorry I have to go now.
  
 +
[11:25] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: Good session. Thanks!
  
[11:20] [[MatthewWest]]: Sorry I have to go now.
+
[11:25] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: great session!  
 
+
 
+
 
+
[11:25] [[SteveRay]]: Good session. Thanks!
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
[11:25] [[PeterYim]]: great session!  
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
[11:25] [[PeterYim]]: -- session ended: 11:25 am PDT --
+
 
+
  
 +
[11:25] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: -- session ended: 11:25 am PDT --
  
 
-- end of in-session chat-transcript --  
 
-- end of in-session chat-transcript --  
 
  
 
* '''Further Question & Remarks''' - please post them to the [ [http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ ontology-summit] ] listserv  
 
* '''Further Question & Remarks''' - please post them to the [ [http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ ontology-summit] ] listserv  
Line 746: Line 679:
 
*** kindly email <peter.yim@cim3.com> if you have any question.  
 
*** kindly email <peter.yim@cim3.com> if you have any question.  
  
=== Additional Resources: ===
+
== Additional Resources  ==
  
* Homepage of '''[[OntologySummit2013]]'''  
+
* Homepage of '''OntologySummit2013'''  
 
* Proceedings from earlier sessions of this Summit can be found under: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013#nid3KMZ  
 
* Proceedings from earlier sessions of this Summit can be found under: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013#nid3KMZ  
 
* [ontology-summit] mailing list archives - http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/  
 
* [ontology-summit] mailing list archives - http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/  
Line 755: Line 688:
 
* Ontology Summit 2013 Community Library - http://www.zotero.org/groups/ontologysummit2013  
 
* Ontology Summit 2013 Community Library - http://www.zotero.org/groups/ontologysummit2013  
 
* Registration details for the [[OntologySummit2013_Symposium]] (2 & 3-May-2013, [[NIST]], Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA) - [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013/WorkshopRegistration#nid3P2S on-site] & [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013/WorkshopRegistration#nid3P32 remote] registration  
 
* Registration details for the [[OntologySummit2013_Symposium]] (2 & 3-May-2013, [[NIST]], Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA) - [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013/WorkshopRegistration#nid3P2S on-site] & [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013/WorkshopRegistration#nid3P32 remote] registration  
* Homepage of the Summit - see: [[OntologySummit]]  
+
* Homepage of the Summit - see: [[OntologySummit|Ontology Summit]]  
  
 
----
 
----
Line 778: Line 711:
  
 
* Dial-in:  
 
* Dial-in:  
** '''Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100''' ... (long distance cost may apply)
+
** '''Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100''' ... (long distance cost may apply)  
 
*** ... [ backup nbr: (415) 671-4335 ]  
 
*** ... [ backup nbr: (415) 671-4335 ]  
 
*** when prompted enter '''Conference ID: 141184#'''  
 
*** 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)
+
** '''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#'''  
 
*** when prompted enter '''Conference ID: 141184#'''  
 
*** Unfamiliar with how to do this on Skype? ...  
 
*** Unfamiliar with how to do this on Skype? ...  
Line 787: Line 720:
 
*** Can't find Skype Dial pad? ...  
 
*** Can't find Skype Dial pad? ...  
 
**** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it may be under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"  
 
**** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it may be 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. ... ([[VirtualSpeakerSessionTips|ref.]])
+
**** 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. ... ([[VirtualSpeakerSessionTips|ref.]])  
  
 
* '''Shared-screen support''' (VNC session), if applicable, will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/  
 
* '''Shared-screen support''' (VNC session), if applicable, will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/  
Line 795: Line 728:
  
 
* '''In-session chat'''-room url: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/summit_20130404  
 
* '''In-session chat'''-room url: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/summit_20130404  
** 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]]").  
+
** 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.  
 
** 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_20130404@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!  
 
** 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_20130404@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!  
Line 811: Line 744:
 
* This session, like all other Ontolog events, is open to the public. Information relating to this session is shared on this wiki page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_04_04  
 
* This session, like all other Ontolog events, is open to the public. Information relating to this session is shared on this wiki page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_04_04  
  
* 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 [[WikiHomePage|our prevailing open IPR policy]].  
+
* 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 [[WikiHomePage#Intellectual_Property_Rights_.28IPR.29_Policy|our prevailing open IPR policy]].  
  
 
== Attendees  ==
 
== Attendees  ==
  
 
* Attended:  
 
* Attended:  
** [[MichaelGruninger]] (co-chair)  
+
** [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]] (co-chair)  
** [[MatthewWest]] (co-chair)  
+
** [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] (co-chair)  
** [[LeoObrst]]  
+
** [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]  
** [[SteveRay]]  
+
** [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]  
** [[ToddSchneider]]  
+
** [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]  
** [[TerryLongstreth]]  
+
** [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]  
** [[MichaelDenny]]  
+
** [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]]  
** [[PeterYim]]  
+
** [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]  
** [[AmandaVizedom]]  
+
** [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]  
** [[FabianNeuhaus]]  
+
** [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]]  
** [[KenBaclawski]]  
+
** [[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]]  
** [[MarcelaVegetti]]  
+
** [[MarcelaVegetti|Marcela Vegetti]]  
** [[AliHashemi]]  
+
** [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]]  
** [[CarmenChui]]  
+
** [[CarmenChui|Carmen Chui]]  
** [[MeganKatsumi]]  
+
** [[MeganKatsumi|Megan Katsumi]]  
** [[FranLightsom]]...  
+
** FranLightsom...  
** [[DougFoxvog]]  
+
** [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]  
** [[FrancescaQuattri]]  
+
** [[FrancescaQuattri|Francesca Quattri]]  
** [[AliHashemi]]  
+
** [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]]  
** [[FrankLoebe]]  
+
** [[FrankLoebe|Frank Loebe]]  
** [[PavithraKenjige]]  
+
** [[PavithraKenjige|Pavithra Kenjige]]  
** [[NancyWiegand]]  
+
** [[NancyWiegand|Nancy Wiegand]]  
** [[BobbinTeegarden]]  
+
** [[BobbinTeegarden|Bobbin Teegarden]]  
** [[JackRing]]  
+
** [[JackRing|Jack Ring]]  
** [[JoelBender]]  
+
** [[JoelBender|Joel Bender]]  
** [[JulienCorman]]  
+
** [[JulienCorman|Julien Corman]]  
** [[LamarHenderson]]  
+
** [[LamarHenderson|Lamar Henderson]]  
** [[MaryPanahiazar]]  
+
** [[MaryPanahiazar|Mary Panahiazar]]  
** [[MikeRiben]]  
+
** [[MikeRiben|Mike Riben]]  
** [[TillMossakowski]]  
+
** [[TillMossakowski|Till Mossakowski]]  
  
 
* Expecting:  
 
* Expecting:  
** [[MikeBennett]]  
+
** [[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]]  
** [[RamSriram]]  
+
** [[RamSriram|Ram D. Sriram]]  
 
** [[GaryBergCross]]  
 
** [[GaryBergCross]]  
** [[RaviSharma]]  
+
** [[RaviSharma|Ravi Sharma]]  
 
** ...  
 
** ...  
* please add yourself to the list 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 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:  
** [[MikeDean]]  
+
** [[MikeDean|Mike Dean]]  
 
** ...  
 
** ...  
  
 
----
 
----
 +
 +
[[Category:Event_Meeting]]    [[Category:OntologySummit2013]]
 +
 +
 +
 +
This page has been migrated from the [http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki  OntologWiki] - Click [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_04_04 here] for original page

Latest revision as of 02:43, 9 January 2016

[ ]

Contents

[edit] Ontology Summit 2013: Panel Session-12 - Thu 2013-04-04     (1)

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

Session Topic: Ontology Summit 2013: Synthesis-II     (1B)

Summit General Co-chairs & session Co-chairs: - intro slides     (1C)

  • Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto, Canada) and Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK)     (1D)

Panelists / Briefings:     (1E)

  • Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto, Canada) & Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK) - "Thoughts and Reflections on this Ontology Summit" . (intro-gruninger-slides) . (west-slides)     (1F)
  • Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE) & Dr. SteveRay (CMU) - "Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2" . (slides)     (1G)
  • Mr. TerryLongstreth (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. ToddSchneider (Raytheon) - "Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2" . (slides)     (1H)
  • Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction) & Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council; Hypercube) - "Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-2" . (slides)     (1I)
  • Dr. MichaelDenny (MITRE) & Mr. PeterYim (Ontolog; CIM3) - "Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-2" . (slides)     (1J)

[edit] Abstract     (1L)

OntologySummit2013 Session-12: "Synthesis-II" - intro slides     (1L1)

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."     (1L2)

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.     (1L3)

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.     (1L4)

We have now completed the virtual sessions of the Summit that were dedicated to presentations of technical content.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.     (1L5)

In today's session, we will focus on revisiting the synthesis of all of these ideas as input into the initial draft of the Summit Communiqu��.     (1L6)

The Synthesis II session will be framed by the Communique outline. Track champions will provide discussion questions that represent the points of synthesis they need to address but feel that they don't have enough input to synthesize.     (1L7)

More details about this Ontology Summit is available at: OntologySummit2013 (homepage for this summit)     (1L8)

OntologySummit2013 - Panel Session-12 - Synthesis-II     (1M1)

  • Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call     (1M2)

[edit] Proceedings     (1N)

Please refer to the above     (1N1)

[edit] IM Chat Transcript captured during the session    (1N2)

see raw transcript here.     (1N2A)

(for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)     (1N2B)

Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.     (1N2C)

-- begin in-session chat-transcript --     (1N2D)


Chat transcript from room: summit_20130404     (1N2E)

2013-04-04 GMT-08:00 [PDT]     (1N2F)


[9:16] Peter P. Yim: Welcome to the     (1N2G)

Ontology Summit 2013: Virtual Panel Session-12 - Thu 2013-04-04     (1N2H)

Summit Theme: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle     (1N2I)

Session Topic: Ontology Summit 2013: Synthesis-II     (1N2J)

- Professor Michael Grüninger (U of Toronto, Canada) and Dr. Matthew West (Information Junction, UK)     (1N2L)

- "Thoughts on Ontology Summit 2013 and session intro"     (1N2O)

- "Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2"     (1N2R)

- "Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2"     (1N2T)

- "Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-2"     (1N2V)

- "Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-2"     (1N2X)

- Open Discussion on how the synthesized ideas may be represented in the Communique draft     (1N2Z)

Logistics:     (1N2AA)

  • (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName (in WikiWord format)     (1N2AC)
    • 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,)     (1N2AG1)

if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it.     (1N2AH)

  • Note: ... it has come to our attention that our conference bridge provider is running into some     (1N2AI)

problems with the "joinconference" skype connections. In case anyone gets in trouble, please try to     (1N2AJ)

call the phone numbers instead (e.g. from your phone, skype-out, google-voice, etc.)     (1N2AK)

Proceedings:     (1N2AQ)

[9:23] anonymous morphed into Carmen Chui     (1N2AR)

[9:25] anonymous1 morphed into Michael Denny     (1N2AS)

[9:25] anonymous morphed into Francesca Quattri     (1N2AT)

[9:30] Peter P. Yim: @FrancescaQuattri - did you just connect to the call? (that connection was     (1N2AU)

injecting a lot of noise into the line; you'll need to stay on mute when not speaking)     (1N2AV)

[9:31] Francesca Quattri: Hi Everybody     (1N2AX)

[9:32] anonymous morphed into Mary Panahiazar     (1N2AY)

[9:33] anonymous1 morphed into Julien Corman     (1N2AZ)

[9:34] anonymous morphed into Bobbin Teegarden     (1N2AAA)

[9:34] Joel Bender: @Peter - online with Skype - no microphone     (1N2AAB)

[9:33] Peter P. Yim: Hello mary panahiazar, Welcome! [ ... send me your email so you can get subscribed     (1N2AAC)

to the lists and participate in the async discussion too.]     (1N2AAD)

[9:34] Mary Panahiazar: mary [at] knoesis.org     (1N2AAE)

[9:35] Todd Schneider: All, I have to leave at 14:00 EDT.     (1N2AAF)

[9:36] Peter P. Yim: == Michael Grüninger opens the session ... see: the [ 0-Gruninger ] slides     (1N2AAG)

[9:46] Steve Ray: With respect to conditions for ontology evaluation, we can talk about necessary     (1N2AAL)

conditions for evaluation, and possibly sufficient conditions for evaluation, with respect to     (1N2AAM)

various stages of development.     (1N2AAN)

[9:43] Michael Grüninger: Outcome hackathon HC05     (1N2AAO)

[9:46] Amanda Vizedom: Note about HC-05 outputs: This is snapshot of work at the end of the weekend     (1N2AAQ)

sessions. Results are dispersed across a number of text and graphic files. Currently, several of us     (1N2AAR)

are working on consolidating the conceptual model in both graphical and English text forms, and     (1N2AAS)

making sure that we, as a group, agree that this captures what we developed. We are also drafting     (1N2AAT)

formal ontologies based on this, in OWL and Common Logic, but all should be considered first drafts,     (1N2AAU)

and current push is on the consolidated concept model.     (1N2AAV)

[9:55] Peter P. Yim: @Amanda, Ali, et al. - at the OntoIOp working group meeting yesterday,     (1N2AAW)

Till Mossakowski and I were kicking around the idea of hacking up a demo (for the     (1N2AAX)

OntologySummit2013_Symposium), to evaluate two manually developed versions of the "Ontology of Ontology     (1N2AAY)

Evaluation" (a la HC-05 - in OWL and CLIF), and two machine-translated versions of those Ontologies     (1N2AAZ)

(of Onto Eval) with Hets / DOL / OntoIOp / Ontohub (OWL->CLIF; CLIF->OWL) ... and run them through     (1N2AAAA)

some of the tools featured during this summit ... it'll be fun!     (1N2AAAB)

[10:00] Amanda Vizedom: @Peter: Excellent! I've been a bit dissatisfied that even with our follow-on     (1N2AAAC)

commitments to create the formal ontologies, we haven't had a specific plan for evaluating them. And     (1N2AAAD)

that's no good, from the practicing what we preach perspective. So, in addition to the fun of it, I     (1N2AAAE)

think that is an excellent idea!     (1N2AAAF)

[9:47] Peter P. Yim: == Matthew West presenting ... see: the [ 1-West ] slides     (1N2AAAG)

[9:51] Steve Ray: Interesting: Decision taking (UK) = Decision making (USA)     (1N2AAAH)

[9:56] anonymous morphed into Lamar Henderson     (1N2AAAI)

[9:58] Amanda Vizedom: Cost reduction benefits, and sponsor's ROI in general, were brought into our     (1N2AAAJ)

HC-05 discussions this weekend, advocated especially by BobSmith. Figuring out how these fit into     (1N2AAAK)

the high-level evaluation has been a challenge. MatthewWest's comments related to his slide 3     (1N2AAAL)

suggests to me that we began to model requirements and their large dependence on usage, and we began     (1N2AAAM)

to model aspects of usage, and we began to model purpose as part of that, but under purpose we     (1N2AAAN)

focused on delivered functionality. Matthews slide 3 highlights delivered benefits, at a higher     (1N2AAAO)

level than specific functionalities. That, I think, we need to add explicitly.     (1N2AAAP)

[9:59] Peter P. Yim: == Steve Ray presenting ... see: the [ A-Obrst-Ray ] slides     (1N2AAAQ)

[10:05] Doug Foxvog: (in response to discussion of Slide 2 of Track A) Class vs. instance distinction     (1N2AAAR)

being questionable arises if the ontology makes the two disjoint. If classes may be used as     (1N2AAAS)

arguments to predicates (and metaclasses are allowed), then one need not make the narrowest classes     (1N2AAAT)

into instances of their superclasses.     (1N2AAAU)

[10:15] Peter P. Yim: == Todd Schneider presenting ... see: the [ B-Schneider-Longstreth ] slides     (1N2AAAV)

[10:15] Terry Longstreth: (ref. ToddSchneider's remark that he will present, as Terry Longstreth is     (1N2AAAW)

having trouble talking) I'm listening, but as Todd says, having trouble with verbal communication     (1N2AAAX)

[10:17] Steve Ray: Disagree with Terry in calling OOPS! a blackbox evaluation. It is specifically     (1N2AAAY)

examining the contents of the ontology - opening up the box and looking for structural errors.     (1N2AAAZ)

[10:18] Terry Longstreth: That was Todd, but I think he was just illustrating the ambiguity of the     (1N2AAAAA)

[10:18] Matthew West: @Ray: I would expect intrinsic properties to become important (or not) in     (1N2AAAAC)

supporting higher level extrinsic requirements. So the key is to understand the way higher level     (1N2AAAAD)

requirements are supported by requirements for generally lower level, intrinsic properties.     (1N2AAAAE)

[10:19] Amanda Vizedom: @Matthew +1 (independently of Steve's comments or OOPS!).     (1N2AAAAF)

[10:20] Steve Ray: @Matthew: I agree. Intrinsic evaluation alone has no value unless related to the     (1N2AAAAG)

ultimate system performance.     (1N2AAAAH)

[10:20] Doug Foxvog: I agree with Steve. OOPS! ignores the *meaning* of the terms, but has access to     (1N2AAAAI)

all the statements in the ontology. Ignoring the meaning seems to be what Todd meant by "black box".     (1N2AAAAJ)

[10:22] Steve Ray: @Doug: You may be right in how Todd (sorry Terry, got the names swapped) intended     (1N2AAAAK)

to use the term black box, but that is an odd use of the term, somewhat opposite to what at least I     (1N2AAAAL)

understand it to mean.     (1N2AAAAM)

[10:21] Doug Foxvog: @Matthew, @Amanda: +1     (1N2AAAAN)

[10:21] Michael Grüninger: @DougFoxvog: What do you mean by "ignoring the meaning"? The "meaning" of     (1N2AAAAO)

a term should be equivalent to the possible interpretations of the axioms     (1N2AAAAP)

[10:23] Doug Foxvog: The "meaning" of the term is defined for humans and humans use that meaning for     (1N2AAAAQ)

labeling (e.g., cells on a slide, info on medical records, etc.)     (1N2AAAAR)

[10:25] Doug Foxvog: @Michael: I agree that the meaning of an ontology in a vacuum is just the     (1N2AAAAS)

possible interpretations of the axioms. However, ontologies are (hopefully) used in conjunction with     (1N2AAAAT)

other systems, and so their mappings to those systems affects the meaning of the terms.     (1N2AAAAU)

[10:28] Michael Grüninger: @DougFoxvog: In the work with Megan Katsumi, the intended meanings of terms     (1N2AAAAV)

are requirements that are formalized as intended models. We can then evaluate the ontology (using     (1N2AAAAW)

the axioms alone) to determine whether or not it meets those requirements i.e. whether or no there     (1N2AAAAX)

are intended models. When ontologies are used together, the intended models need to be in common.     (1N2AAAAY)

[10:25] Amanda Vizedom: @Todd: While discussing slide 3, you said that the evaluation has a context,     (1N2AAAAZ)

and that when you know that context, then you can rank the results of your evaluation (metrics,     (1N2AAAAAA)

etc). This sounds to me like a different framing, but in principle equivalent to a different process     (1N2AAAAAB)

characterization that we have discussed. In this other characterization, The context comes first --     (1N2AAAAAC)

specifying the intended usage, gathering requirements. From this, evaluation criteria are identified     (1N2AAAAAD)

that are relevant to answering whether these specific, context-driven requirements are satisfied,     (1N2AAAAAE)

and evaluation is conducted over those criteria. Do you agree that both processes emphasize the     (1N2AAAAAF)

contextuality of evaluation relevance equivalently?     (1N2AAAAAG)

[10:28] Doug Foxvog: @Amanda: Should we expect the contexts to be defined (as you said they must be)     (1N2AAAAAH)

using an ontology? I.e., are the context definitions to be stated in a formal logic using terms     (1N2AAAAAI)

defined in an ontology?     (1N2AAAAAJ)

[10:34] Amanda Vizedom: @doug, yes, though here I am using context as I think Todd meant it, not in     (1N2AAAAAK)

all the possible ways I might otherwise be found using it. ;-) In the HC-05 model, we've been so far     (1N2AAAAAL)

following along with the Ontology Usage characterization seeds laid down in the 2011 summit. That     (1N2AAAAAM)

is, the formalized characterization of context consists partially in the explicit capture of various     (1N2AAAAAN)

aspects of the usage (including things like application type, users, and so on), not yet nearly     (1N2AAAAAO)

exhaustively captured. Priority is on such characteristics as we come to understand that they make a     (1N2AAAAAP)

difference to what ontology features are needed.     (1N2AAAAAQ)

[10:26] Steve Ray: @Michael: I'd be interested in your thoughts on the axioms when one is presented     (1N2AAAAAR)

with, say, an OWL file that contains only sub/superclass relations and some allValuesFrom or     (1N2AAAAAS)

someValuesFrom relations. In other words, no explicit axioms at all.     (1N2AAAAAT)

[10:32] Michael Grüninger: @Steve: I would say that subclass relations are still axioms. Of course,     (1N2AAAAAU)

if these are all you have, then there will most likely be many possible interpretations of the     (1N2AAAAAV)

ontology that do not correspond to the intended meanings. A great example of this is the     (1N2AAAAAW)

relationship between OWL-S and SWSO. In cases such as this, I wonder what the requirements for the     (1N2AAAAAX)

ontology are considered to be.     (1N2AAAAAY)

[10:27] Peter P. Yim: @Todd - (re. your remark during slide#7) I somewhat disagree that "testers are not     (1N2AAAAAZ)

familiar with ontologies" ... if we look at (and we should) test designers as among the "testers"     (1N2AAAAAAA)

(that's the group that's meaningful, we should not be talking about the test operators), then they     (1N2AAAAAAB)

simply do not qualify for the job if they are not familiar with ontologies     (1N2AAAAAAC)

[10:34] Todd Schneider: Peter, I qualified 'tester' to be in the context of system integration     (1N2AAAAAAD)

testing (i.e., the end of the development phases and prior to deployment).     (1N2AAAAAAE)

[10:37] Peter P. Yim: @Todd - fair!     (1N2AAAAAAF)

[10:29] Peter P. Yim: == Matthew West presenting ... see: the [ C-West-Bennett ] slides     (1N2AAAAAAG)

[10:33] Doug Foxvog: Slide 3: "The physical level would be an encoding in a formal language" such as     (1N2AAAAAAH)

OWL. This is an interesting definition of "physical". It would be nice for the slide to be edited to     (1N2AAAAAAI)

clarify this meaning. I might call this the "code" level.     (1N2AAAAAAJ)

[10:38] Amanda Vizedom: @Matthew - during HC-05, we found your Conceptual / Logical / Physical stages,     (1N2AAAAAAK)

following DB usage someone, to make the most sense when mapped thusly: Conceptual: human-centric     (1N2AAAAAAL)

capture in one or more artifacts, could be textual, graphical, combined, rigorous but not formal.     (1N2AAAAAAM)

Logical: expressed in a formal ontology language. Physical: expressed in a serialization of such a     (1N2AAAAAAN)

language. Is this compatible with your thinking?     (1N2AAAAAAO)

[10:47] Matthew West: @Amanda: Possibly. In truth there are variations in interpretation of the     (1N2AAAAAAP)

levels in the database world. Certainly the physical level is what is in the system running queries.     (1N2AAAAAAQ)

The logical level is an abstraction of that that is not implementation environment specific. I would     (1N2AAAAAAR)

probably want to say that you would not have committed to FOL or DL yet, but we could debate that     (1N2AAAAAAS)

(maybe another level?)     (1N2AAAAAAT)

[10:44] Todd Schneider: Matthew, Instead of 'quality', would 'value' be a notion that better conveys     (1N2AAAAAAU)

[10:35] Peter P. Yim: == Mike Denny presenting ... see: the [ D-Denny-Yim ] slides     (1N2AAAAAAW)

[10:39] Leo Obrst: Finally joining. Sorry I'm late.     (1N2AAAAAAX)

[10:39] Peter P. Yim: glad you made it, Leo!     (1N2AAAAAAY)

[10:46] Terry Longstreth: Track D makes a good point that much of our work has seemed to presume a     (1N2AAAAAAZ)

Waterfall model of development. We didn't explicitly talk about it but the Track B concerns with     (1N2AAAAAAAA)

dynamics are probably best illustrated in current practice by environments by dynamic injection of     (1N2AAAAAAAB)

new or unanticipated requirements as happens in agile development situations.     (1N2AAAAAAAC)

[10:48] Doug Foxvog: There have been several mentions that symmetric, reflexive, and transitive     (1N2AAAAAAAD)

predicates should have the same domain and range. This is true for symmetric predicates, but for     (1N2AAAAAAAE)

transitive predicates, the requirement should be that the range is a subclass of the domain. For     (1N2AAAAAAAF)

reflexive predicates, it really depends upon one's definition of "reflexive" -- does it mean     (1N2AAAAAAAG)

(forAll (X P P_Range P_Domain) (implies (and (isa P BinaryPredicate) (range P P_Range) (domain P P_Domain) (isa X P_Range) (isa X P_Domain)) (P X X)))     (1N2AAAAAAAH)

(forAll (X P P_Range P_Domain) (implies (and (isa P BinaryPredicate) (range P P_Range) (domain P P_Domain) (isa X ([[ClassUnionFunction]] P_Range P_Domain)) (P X X)))     (1N2AAAAAAAJ)

In the second case, the domain & range must be the same. In the first, they should just not be disjoint.     (1N2AAAAAAAK)

[10:58] Steve Ray: @MichaelDenny: Indeed, some of us are trying to link ontology evaluation to     (1N2AAAAAAAL)

traditional modeling tools. I and my team convert Enterprise Architect files into OWL, and then     (1N2AAAAAAAM)

apply various evaluation queries against them using SPARQL. One example of output can be found at     (1N2AAAAAAAN)

[11:03] Michael Denny: @SteveRay Very interesting and glad to see it. I will take a look.     (1N2AAAAAAAP)

[11:01] Peter P. Yim: == Q&A and Open Discussion on how all of these ideas should be captured into the     (1N2AAAAAAAR)

[11:01] Peter P. Yim: please refer to communique outline at:     (1N2AAAAAAAT)

[11:04] Todd Schneider: Amanda, Fabian, One suggestion before I really leave, I'd suggest dropping     (1N2AAAAAAAV)

the in/extrinsic distinction and replace it with the lifecycle phase. It seems a better criteria for     (1N2AAAAAAAW)

making evaluations distinctions.     (1N2AAAAAAAX)

[11:06] Steve Ray: @Todd: Not sure I agree with this. Lifecycle has to do with WHEN, or at which     (1N2AAAAAAAY)

phase, does one evaluate. The intrinsic/extrinsic distinction relates to WHAT one is evaluating.     (1N2AAAAAAAZ)

[11:10] Terry Longstreth: Lifecycle phases may also have multiple contexts: to the developer, the     (1N2AAAAAAAAA)

lifecycle phase labeled development is (one of) his operational swimming pools. He may touch more     (1N2AAAAAAAAB)

than one ontology if for example, the development environment is driven by an ontology (Rational     (1N2AAAAAAAAC)

products have that flavor, if not directly employing the term)     (1N2AAAAAAAAD)

[11:04] Peter P. Yim: +1 to, at least, the first half of Todd's suggestion. I think the     (1N2AAAAAAAAE)

intrinsic/extrinsic distinction served a useful purpose to help us frame the discourse, but     (1N2AAAAAAAAF)

introducing this "new terminology" is as confusing as not introducing it at all     (1N2AAAAAAAAG)

[11:09] Megan Katsumi: @SteveRay, @Todd: I agree that the in/extrinsic distinction is confusing, but     (1N2AAAAAAAAH)

I also think that Steve has a point about the proposed using of the lifecycle phase. Might another     (1N2AAAAAAAAI)

useful distinction be the idea of functional/non-functional requirements/attributes?     (1N2AAAAAAAAJ)

[11:12] Michael Denny: @MeganKatsumi I have suggested "model quality" vs "domain fidelity" vs     (1N2AAAAAAAAK)

application fitness.     (1N2AAAAAAAAL)

[11:12] Steve Ray: @Michael: I like your partitioning.     (1N2AAAAAAAAM)

[11:12] Matthew West: I also agree that intrinsic/extrinsic has not been helpful. However, I don't     (1N2AAAAAAAAN)

think it matters very much. It gave us a way to start, and we can move on from that.     (1N2AAAAAAAAO)

[11:12] Amanda Vizedom: As Fabian is saying on the conversation now, we do not plan on using the     (1N2AAAAAAAAP)

intrinsic/extrinsic distinction an organizer of the Communique. See outline.     (1N2AAAAAAAAQ)

[11:14] Peter P. Yim: +1 to what Fabian Neuhaus just said about how he and Amanda Vizedom are planning to     (1N2AAAAAAAAR)

lay out the communique     (1N2AAAAAAAAS)

[11:06] Amanda Vizedom: This is also of great potential use to Enterprise Architecture and Business     (1N2AAAAAAAAT)

Process Management practices themselves, and the development of semantic IT to better support them.     (1N2AAAAAAAAU)

Enterprise semantic tech projects are often based in information sharing needs related to business     (1N2AAAAAAAAV)

processes. In best cases, that basis is somewhat clear from documentation of business process and EA     (1N2AAAAAAAAW)

environment from just such tools. But these tools stop at the level of the input, output, or sharing     (1N2AAAAAAAAX)

of information bearing objects (reports, data sets, messages). They don't drill down into the     (1N2AAAAAAAAY)

information *contents*. That is precisely where the ontology coverage needs and scoping of the     (1N2AAAAAAAAZ)

semantic projects picks up, and it is much more effectively captured and conveyed within a context     (1N2AAAAAAAAAA)

of continuity with those EA/BP models.     (1N2AAAAAAAAAB)

[11:06] Terry Longstreth: @Fabian - (in reference to Fabian's verbal remarks on how Track-A and     (1N2AAAAAAAAAC)

Track-B focused their discourse, and the gap) Track B wasn't so concerned with the physical level as     (1N2AAAAAAAAAD)

the behavioral consequences to the system of having ontology or an ontology within it.     (1N2AAAAAAAAAE)

[11:10] Fabian Neuhaus: @Terry - yes, that's what I meant, I did not put it very elegantly. My point     (1N2AAAAAAAAAF)

was that there are some aspects of ontology evaluation/quality that was not covered by either track,     (1N2AAAAAAAAAG)

should be covered.     (1N2AAAAAAAAAH)

[11:06] Leo Obrst: @MichaelDenny: (ref. slide#5 "That which we call a rose by any other name would     (1N2AAAAAAAAAI)

smell as sweet.") yes, I call it "a label does not wear its semantics on its sleeve", which a lot of     (1N2AAAAAAAAAJ)

XML and database folks sometimes think, e.g., if a label is named "Person", well of course I know     (1N2AAAAAAAAAK)

what it means! This is also encouraged by very long camelCase concept names like     (1N2AAAAAAAAAL)

[[PersonsWhoWieldHammers]], where the label seems to be the composition of the semantics of natural     (1N2AAAAAAAAAM)

language terms.     (1N2AAAAAAAAAN)

[11:09] Michael Denny: @LeoObrst ...or "you can't tell a concept by its cover"     (1N2AAAAAAAAAO)

[11:12] anonymous morphed into Pavithra Kenjige     (1N2AAAAAAAAAP)

[11:15] Jack Ring: Seems to me any ontology must be evaluated with respect to domain-specific (usage)     (1N2AAAAAAAAAQ)

and discipline-specific (principles and standards) contexts. Further, an ontology can be evaluated     (1N2AAAAAAAAAR)

for quality (what it is, what it does and what it knows), parsimony and beauty. I sense confusion     (1N2AAAAAAAAAS)

about whether ontology serves as framework, praxis, system or what?     (1N2AAAAAAAAAT)

[11:19] Jack Ring: Life cycle is a distracting notion. Most all ontologies evolve and morph. It may     (1N2AAAAAAAAAU)

be better to telk in terms of Usage Scenario.     (1N2AAAAAAAAAV)

[11:14] Michael Grüninger: Does it make sense to consider specific ontology evaluation tasks, and     (1N2AAAAAAAAAW)

then specify what the inputs to the tasks are? e.g. is evaluation done with respect to the     (1N2AAAAAAAAAX)

ontology's axioms alone? Is the ontology evaluated wrt a specific set of requirements?     (1N2AAAAAAAAAY)

[11:18] Matthew West: @Michael: You can only evaluate against requirements. If you look at my slide     (1N2AAAAAAAAAZ)

on Properties key to Information Quality, you will find properties at a level that business folk can     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAA)

state their requirements at. But then take consistency. What are the more detailed properties of an     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAB)

ontology that you can measure that tell you about its consistency? how do you transform the     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAC)

requirements at the business level down to this level?     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAD)

[11:20] Michael Grüninger: @MatthewWest: Some of the criteria in Steve and Leo's slides use only the     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAE)

axioms of the ontology     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAF)

[11:18] Amanda Vizedom: I will add that I believe that there are many ways of "slicing and dicing"     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAG)

ontology characteristics/ requirements / evaluation criteria. Intrinsic/extrinsic is one (or     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAH)

several, given the various interpretations), as are lifecycle stages, relationship to aspects of     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAI)

usage/ relationship to some aspect of theory, etc.. And different tools and methodologies utilize     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAJ)

different such organizations. What's more important is that we understand what the     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAK)

characteristics/criteria/requirements are, and when & why they matter, and how & when they may be     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAL)

[11:22] Doug Foxvog: @Amanda: +2. The ontology evaluation ontology should have concepts and relations     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAP)

[11:20] Doug Foxvog: Leo is discussing properties of different ontology aspects relative to life     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAR)

cycle phase. If the specific relations are written down, they could be encoded using the ontology     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAS)

evaluation ontology.     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAT)

[11:19] Peter P. Yim: Registration (either onsite or remote) is now open for the     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAU)

OntologySummit2013_Symposium at NIST - Thu & Fri May 2~3, 2013 (Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA) - see     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAV)

(registration for onsite attendance is mandatory ... so note the Apr-22 registration deadline!)     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAX)

[11:20] Peter P. Yim: Join in the fun at this weekend's Hackathon-Clinics Activities - see details at:     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAY)

don't plan to hang around all day, you might be interested to participate at the "open webcast     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAAA)

segment" of the two projects being featured this Saturday (Apr-6)     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAAB)

[11:20] Peter P. Yim: Again, solicitation to software environment stewards and tool developers to     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAAC)

respond to the Ontology Summit 2013 Software Survey - goto:     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAAD)

to questionnaire (make sure you complete all phases (questions under all tabs)     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAAF)

[11:20] Peter P. Yim: As Michael Grüninger just said, same time next week, for Ontology Summit 2013     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAAG)

session-13: "Communique Draft Review" - Co-chairs: Amanda Vizedom & Fabian Neuhaus - developing     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAAH)

[11:20] Matthew West: Sorry I have to go now.     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAAJ)

[11:25] Steve Ray: Good session. Thanks!     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAAK)

[11:25] Peter P. Yim: great session!     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAAL)

[11:25] Peter P. Yim: -- session ended: 11:25 am PDT --     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAAM)

-- end of in-session chat-transcript --     (1N2AAAAAAAAAAAN)

[edit] Additional Resources     (1O)


For the record ...     (1O8)

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

Attention: Please take special note on the start time of the event, as the US, the EU and some regions are on daylight saving (summer) time on this day (the EU just changed last weekend), while there are other regions that stay on Standard Time all year round!     (1P4)

  • Dial-in:     (1P5D)
    • Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... (long distance cost may apply)     (1P5D1)
    • Skype: joinconference (i.e. make a skype call to the contact with skypeID="joinconference") ... (generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer)     (1P5D2)
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#     (1P5D2A)
      • Unfamiliar with how to do this on Skype? ...     (1P5D2B)
        • 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.     (1P5D2B1)
      • Can't find Skype Dial pad? ...     (1P5D2C)
        • for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it may be under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"     (1P5D2C1)
        • 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.)     (1P5D2C2)
  • Shared-screen support (VNC session), if applicable, will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/     (1P5E)
    • view-only password: "ontolog"     (1P5E1)
    • 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.     (1P5E2)
    • 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.     (1P5E3)
    • 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").     (1P5F1)
    • 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.     (1P5F2)
    • 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_20130404@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!     (1P5F3)
  • Discussions and Q & A:     (1P5G)
    • Nominally, when a presentation is in progress, the moderator will mute everyone, except for the speaker.     (1P5G1)
    • 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.)     (1P5G2)
    • 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.)     (1P5G3)
    • 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.)     (1P5G4)
  • 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.)     (1P5I)
  • 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.     (1P5K)

[edit] Attendees     (1Q)



This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (1Q5)