From OntologPSMW

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - "[ ]PeterYim[ ]" to " Peter P. Yim ")
(Fix PurpleMediaWiki references)
 
(7 intermediate revisions by one user 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 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  ==
Line 59: Line 59:
 
** 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.]  
  
Line 84: Line 84:
 
------  
 
------  
  
[9:16] PeterYim: Welcome to the  
+
[9:16] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: Welcome to the  
  
''' OntologySummit2013: Virtual Panel Session-12 - Thu 2013-04-04 '''  
+
''' [[OntologySummit2013|Ontology Summit 2013]]: Virtual Panel Session-12 - Thu 2013-04-04 '''  
  
 
Summit Theme: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle  
 
Summit Theme: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle  
Line 94: Line 94:
 
* 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 (U of Toronto, Canada)
+
* Professor [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Grüninger]] (U of Toronto, Canada)
  
 
- "Thoughts on Ontology Summit 2013 and session intro"  
 
- "Thoughts on Ontology Summit 2013 and session intro"  
  
* Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK) - "Reflections on Ontology Summit 2013"  
+
* Dr. [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] (Information Junction, UK) - "Reflections on Ontology Summit 2013"  
  
* Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE) & Dr. SteveRay (CMU)
+
* Dr. [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]] (MITRE) & Dr. [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]] (CMU)
  
 
- "Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2"  
 
- "Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2"  
  
* Mr. TerryLongstreth (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. ToddSchneider (Raytheon)
+
* Mr. [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]] (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]] (Raytheon)
  
 
- "Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2"  
 
- "Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2"  
  
* Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction) & Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council; Hypercube)
+
* Dr. [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] (Information Junction) & Mr. [[MikeBennett|Mike Bennett]] (EDM Council; Hypercube)
  
 
- "Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-2"  
 
- "Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-2"  
  
* Dr. MichaelDenny (MITRE) & Mr. [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] (Ontolog; CIM3)
+
* Dr. [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]] (MITRE) & Mr. [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] (Ontolog; CIM3)
  
 
- "Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-2"  
 
- "Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-2"  
  
* Dr. AmandaVizedom (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. FabianNeuhaus (NIST), moderators
+
* Dr. [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]] (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]] (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  
Line 146: Line 146:
 
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 (co-chair), MatthewWest (co-chair), AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom,  
+
Attendees: [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Grüninger]] (co-chair), [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] (co-chair), [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]], [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]],  
  
BobbinTeegarden, CarmenChui, DougFoxvog, FabianNeuhaus, FranLightsom, FrancescaQuattri, FrankLoebe,  
+
[[BobbinTeegarden|Bobbin Teegarden]], [[CarmenChui|Carmen Chui]], [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]], [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]], [[FranLightsom|Fran Lightsom]], [[FrancescaQuattri|Francesca Quattri]], [[FrankLoebe|Frank Loebe]],  
  
JackRing, JoelBender, JulienCorman, KenBaclawski, LamarHenderson, LeoObrst, MarcelaVegetti,  
+
[[JackRing|Jack Ring]], [[JoelBender|Joel Bender]], [[JulienCorman|Julien Corman]], [[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]], [[LamarHenderson|Lamar Henderson]], [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]], [[MarcelaVegetti|Marcela Vegetti]],  
  
MaryPanahiazar, MeganKatsumi, MichaelDenny, MikeRiben, PavithraKenjige, [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] (scribe), SteveRay,  
+
[[MaryPanahiazar|Mary Panahiazar]], [[MeganKatsumi|Megan Katsumi]], [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]], [[MikeRiben|Mike Riben]], [[PavithraKenjige|Pavithra Kenjige]], [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]] (scribe), [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]],  
  
TerryLongstreth, TillMossakowski, ToddSchneider,  
+
[[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]], [[TillMossakowski|Till Mossakowski]], [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]],  
  
 
''' Proceedings: '''  
 
''' Proceedings: '''  
  
[9:23] anonymous morphed into CarmenChui  
+
[9:23] anonymous morphed into [[CarmenChui|Carmen Chui]]
  
[9:25] anonymous1 morphed into MichaelDenny  
+
[9:25] anonymous1 morphed into [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]]
  
[9:25] anonymous morphed into FrancescaQuattri  
+
[9:25] anonymous morphed into [[FrancescaQuattri|Francesca Quattri]]
  
[9:30] PeterYim: @FrancescaQuattri - did you just connect to the call? (that connection was  
+
[9:30] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: @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: yup  
+
[9:31] [[FrancescaQuattri|Francesca Quattri]]: yup  
  
[9:31] FrancescaQuattri: Hi Everybody  
+
[9:31] [[FrancescaQuattri|Francesca Quattri]]: Hi Everybody  
  
[9:32] anonymous morphed into MaryPanahiazar  
+
[9:32] anonymous morphed into [[MaryPanahiazar|Mary Panahiazar]]
  
[9:33] anonymous1 morphed into JulienCorman  
+
[9:33] anonymous1 morphed into [[JulienCorman|Julien Corman]]
  
[9:34] anonymous morphed into BobbinTeegarden  
+
[9:34] anonymous morphed into [[BobbinTeegarden|Bobbin Teegarden]]
  
[9:34] JoelBender: @Peter - online with Skype - no microphone  
+
[9:34] [[JoelBender|Joel Bender]]: @Peter - online with Skype - no microphone  
  
[9:33] PeterYim: Hello mary panahiazar, Welcome! [ ... send me your email so you can get subscribed  
+
[9:33] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: 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 [at] knoesis.org  
+
[9:34] [[MaryPanahiazar|Mary Panahiazar]]: mary [at] knoesis.org  
  
[9:35] ToddSchneider: All, I have to leave at 14:00 EDT.  
+
[9:35] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: All, I have to leave at 14:00 EDT.  
  
[9:36] PeterYim: == MichaelGruninger opens the session ... see: the [ 0-Gruninger ] slides  
+
[9:36] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Grüninger]] opens the session ... see: the [ 0-Gruninger ] slides  
  
[9:37] List of members: AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom, BobbinTeegarden, CarmenChui, DougFoxvog,  
+
[9:37] List of members: [[AliHashemi|Ali Hashemi]], [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]], [[BobbinTeegarden|Bobbin Teegarden]], [[CarmenChui|Carmen Chui]], [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]],  
  
FabianNeuhaus, FrancescaQuattri, FrankLoebe, FranLightsom, JoelBender, JulienCorman, KenBaclawski,  
+
[[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]], [[FrancescaQuattri|Francesca Quattri]], [[FrankLoebe|Frank Loebe]], [[FranLightsom|Fran Lightsom]], [[JoelBender|Joel Bender]], [[JulienCorman|Julien Corman]], [[User:KennethBaclawski|Ken Baclawski]],  
  
MaryPanahiazar, MatthewWest, MeganKatsumi, MichaelDenny, MichaelGruninger, PeterYim, SteveRay,  
+
[[MaryPanahiazar|Mary Panahiazar]], [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]], [[MeganKatsumi|Megan Katsumi]], [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]], [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Grüninger]], [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]], [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]],  
  
TerryLongstreth, ToddSchneider, vnc2  
+
[[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]], [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]], vnc2  
  
[9:46] SteveRay: With respect to conditions for ontology evaluation, we can talk about necessary  
+
[9:46] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: With respect to conditions for ontology evaluation, we can talk about necessary  
  
 
conditions for evaluation, and possibly sufficient conditions for evaluation, with respect to  
 
conditions for evaluation, and possibly sufficient conditions for evaluation, with respect to  
Line 204: Line 204:
 
various stages of development.  
 
various stages of development.  
  
[9:43] MichaelGruninger: Outcome hackathon HC05  
+
[9:43] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Grüninger]]: 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: Note about HC-05 outputs: This is snapshot of work at the end of the weekend  
+
[9:46] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: 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  
Line 220: Line 220:
 
and current push is on the consolidated concept model.  
 
and current push is on the consolidated concept model.  
  
[9:55] PeterYim: @Amanda, Ali, et al. - at the [[OntoIOp]] working group meeting yesterday,  
+
[9:55] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: @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  
+
[[TillMossakowski|Till Mossakowski]] 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  
Line 232: Line 232:
 
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: @Peter: Excellent! I've been a bit dissatisfied that even with our follow-on  
+
[10:00] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @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  
Line 240: Line 240:
 
think that is an excellent idea!  
 
think that is an excellent idea!  
  
[9:47] PeterYim: == MatthewWest presenting ... see: the [ 1-West ] slides  
+
[9:47] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] presenting ... see: the [ 1-West ] slides  
  
[9:51] SteveRay: Interesting: Decision taking (UK) = Decision making (USA)  
+
[9:51] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: Interesting: Decision taking (UK) = Decision making (USA)  
  
[9:56] anonymous morphed into LamarHenderson  
+
[9:56] anonymous morphed into [[LamarHenderson|Lamar Henderson]]
  
[9:58] AmandaVizedom: Cost reduction benefits, and sponsor's ROI in general, were brought into our  
+
[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  
 
HC-05 discussions this weekend, advocated especially by BobSmith. Figuring out how these fit into  
Line 260: Line 260:
 
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: == SteveRay presenting ... see: the [ A-Obrst-Ray ] slides  
+
[9:59] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]] presenting ... see: the [ A-Obrst-Ray ] slides  
  
[10:05] DougFoxvog: (in response to discussion of Slide 2 of Track A) Class vs. instance distinction  
+
[10:05] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: (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  
 
being questionable arises if the ontology makes the two disjoint. If classes may be used as  
Line 270: Line 270:
 
into instances of their superclasses.  
 
into instances of their superclasses.  
  
[10:15] PeterYim: == ToddSchneider presenting ... see: the [ B-Schneider-Longstreth ] slides  
+
[10:15] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]] presenting ... see: the [ B-Schneider-Longstreth ] slides  
  
[10:15] TerryLongstreth: (ref. ToddSchneider's remark that he will present, as TerryLongstreth is  
+
[10:15] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: (ref. ToddSchneider's remark that he will present, as [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]] 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: Disagree with Terry in calling OOPS! a blackbox evaluation. It is specifically  
+
[10:17] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: 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: That was Todd, but I think he was just illustrating the ambiguity of the  
+
[10:18] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: That was Todd, but I think he was just illustrating the ambiguity of the  
  
 
dichotomy  
 
dichotomy  
  
[10:18] MatthewWest: @Ray: I would expect intrinsic properties to become important (or not) in  
+
[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  
 
supporting higher level extrinsic requirements. So the key is to understand the way higher level  
Line 290: Line 290:
 
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: @Matthew +1 (independently of Steve's comments or OOPS!).  
+
[10:19] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @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  
+
[10:20] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Matthew: I agree. Intrinsic evaluation alone has no value unless related to the  
  
 
ultimate system performance.  
 
ultimate system performance.  
  
[10:20] DougFoxvog: I agree with Steve. OOPS! ignores the *meaning* of the terms, but has access to  
+
[10:20] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: 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: @Doug: You may be right in how Todd (sorry Terry, got the names swapped) intended  
+
[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  
 
to use the term black box, but that is an odd use of the term, somewhat opposite to what at least I  
Line 306: Line 306:
 
understand it to mean.  
 
understand it to mean.  
  
[10:21] DougFoxvog: @Matthew, @Amanda: +1  
+
[10:21] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @Matthew, @Amanda: +1  
  
[10:21] MichaelGruninger: @DougFoxvog: What do you mean by "ignoring the meaning"? The "meaning" of  
+
[10:21] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Grüninger]]: @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: The "meaning" of the term is defined for humans and humans use that meaning for  
+
[10:23] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: 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: @Michael: I agree that the meaning of an ontology in a vacuum is just the  
+
[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  
 
possible interpretations of the axioms. However, ontologies are (hopefully) used in conjunction with  
Line 322: Line 322:
 
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: @DougFoxvog: In the work with MeganKatsumi, the intended meanings of terms  
+
[10:28] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Grüninger]]: @DougFoxvog: In the work with [[MeganKatsumi|Megan Katsumi]], 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  
Line 330: Line 330:
 
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: @Todd: While discussing slide 3, you said that the evaluation has a context,  
+
[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,  
 
and that when you know that context, then you can rank the results of your evaluation (metrics,  
Line 346: Line 346:
 
contextuality of evaluation relevance equivalently?  
 
contextuality of evaluation relevance equivalently?  
  
[10:28] DougFoxvog: @Amanda: Should we expect the contexts to be defined (as you said they must be)  
+
[10:28] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @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  
Line 352: Line 352:
 
defined in an ontology?  
 
defined in an ontology?  
  
[10:34] AmandaVizedom: @doug, yes, though here I am using context as I think Todd meant it, not in  
+
[10:34] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @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  
Line 366: Line 366:
 
difference to what ontology features are needed.  
 
difference to what ontology features are needed.  
  
[10:26] SteveRay: @Michael: I'd be interested in your thoughts on the axioms when one is presented  
+
[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  
 
with, say, an OWL file that contains only sub/superclass relations and some <nowiki>allValuesFrom</nowiki> or  
Line 372: Line 372:
 
<nowiki>someValuesFrom</nowiki> relations. In other words, no explicit axioms at all.  
 
<nowiki>someValuesFrom</nowiki> relations. In other words, no explicit axioms at all.  
  
[10:32] MichaelGruninger: @Steve: I would say that subclass relations are still axioms. Of course,  
+
[10:32] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: @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  
Line 382: Line 382:
 
ontology are considered to be.  
 
ontology are considered to be.  
  
[10:27] PeterYim: @Todd - (re. your remark during slide#7) I somewhat disagree that "testers are not  
+
[10:27] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: @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"  
Line 390: Line 390:
 
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: Peter, I qualified 'tester' to be in the context of system integration  
+
[10:34] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: 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: @Todd - fair!  
+
[10:37] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: @Todd - fair!  
  
[10:29] PeterYim: == MatthewWest presenting ... see: the [ C-West-Bennett ] slides  
+
[10:29] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]] 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  
+
[10:33] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: 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  
Line 404: Line 404:
 
clarify this meaning. I might call this the "code" level.  
 
clarify this meaning. I might call this the "code" level.  
  
[10:38] AmandaVizedom: @Matthew - during HC-05, we found your Conceptual / Logical / Physical stages,  
+
[10:38] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: @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  
Line 414: Line 414:
 
language. Is this compatible with your thinking?  
 
language. Is this compatible with your thinking?  
  
[10:47] MatthewWest: @Amanda: Possibly. In truth there are variations in interpretation of the  
+
[10:47] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: @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.  
Line 424: Line 424:
 
(maybe another level?)  
 
(maybe another level?)  
  
[10:44] ToddSchneider: Matthew, Instead of 'quality', would 'value' be a notion that better conveys  
+
[10:44] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Matthew, Instead of 'quality', would 'value' be a notion that better conveys  
  
 
our intent?  
 
our intent?  
  
[10:35] PeterYim: == MikeDenny presenting ... see: the [ D-Denny-Yim ] slides  
+
[10:35] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: == [[MikeDenny|Mike Denny]] presenting ... see: the [ D-Denny-Yim ] slides  
  
[10:39] LeoObrst: Finally joining. Sorry I'm late.  
+
[10:39] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: Finally joining. Sorry I'm late.  
  
[10:39] PeterYim: glad you made it, Leo!  
+
[10:39] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: glad you made it, Leo!  
  
[10:46] TerryLongstreth: Track D makes a good point that much of our work has seemed to presume a  
+
[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  
 
Waterfall model of development. We didn't explicitly talk about it but the Track B concerns with  
Line 442: Line 442:
 
new or unanticipated requirements as happens in agile development situations.  
 
new or unanticipated requirements as happens in agile development situations.  
  
[10:48] DougFoxvog: There have been several mentions that symmetric, reflexive, and transitive  
+
[10:48] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: 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  
 
predicates should have the same domain and range. This is true for symmetric predicates, but for  
Line 458: Line 458:
 
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: @MichaelDenny: Indeed, some of us are trying to link ontology evaluation to  
+
[10:58] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @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  
Line 466: Line 466:
 
http://fsgim.sv.cmu.edu  
 
http://fsgim.sv.cmu.edu  
  
[11:03] MichaelDenny: @SteveRay Very interesting and glad to see it. I will take a look.  
+
[11:03] [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]]: @SteveRay Very interesting and glad to see it. I will take a look.  
  
[11:00] ToddSchneider: Have to go.  
+
[11:00] [[ToddSchneider|Todd Schneider]]: Have to go.  
  
[11:01] PeterYim: == Q&A and Open Discussion on how all of these ideas should be captured into the  
+
[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 and AmandaVizedom  
+
[[OntologySummit2013_Communique]] ... moderated by [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]] and [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]
  
[11:01] PeterYim: please refer to communique outline at:  
+
[11:01] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: 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: Amanda, Fabian, One suggestion before I really leave, I'd suggest dropping  
+
[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  
 
the in/extrinsic distinction and replace it with the lifecycle phase. It seems a better criteria for  
Line 484: Line 484:
 
making evaluations distinctions.  
 
making evaluations distinctions.  
  
[11:06] SteveRay: @Todd: Not sure I agree with this. Lifecycle has to do with WHEN, or at which  
+
[11:06] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @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: Lifecycle phases may also have multiple contexts: to the developer, the  
+
[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  
 
lifecycle phase labeled development is (one of) his operational swimming pools. He may touch more  
Line 496: Line 496:
 
products have that flavor, if not directly employing the term)  
 
products have that flavor, if not directly employing the term)  
  
[11:04] PeterYim: +1 to, at least, the first half of Todd's suggestion. I think the  
+
[11:04] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: +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  
Line 502: Line 502:
 
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: @SteveRay, @Todd: I agree that the in/extrinsic distinction is confusing, but  
+
[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  
 
I also think that Steve has a point about the proposed using of the lifecycle phase. Might another  
Line 508: Line 508:
 
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: @MeganKatsumi I have suggested "model quality" vs "domain fidelity" vs  
+
[11:12] [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]]: @MeganKatsumi I have suggested "model quality" vs "domain fidelity" vs  
  
 
application fitness.  
 
application fitness.  
  
[11:12] SteveRay: @Michael: I like your partitioning.  
+
[11:12] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: @Michael: I like your partitioning.  
  
[11:12] MatthewWest: I also agree that intrinsic/extrinsic has not been helpful. However, I don't  
+
[11:12] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: 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: As Fabian is saying on the conversation now, we do not plan on using the  
+
[11:12] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: 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: +1 to what FabianNeuhaus just said about how he and AmandaVizedom are planning to  
+
[11:14] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: +1 to what [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]] just said about how he and [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]] are planning to  
  
 
lay out the communique  
 
lay out the communique  
  
[11:06] AmandaVizedom: This is also of great potential use to Enterprise Architecture and Business  
+
[11:06] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: 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.  
Line 544: Line 544:
 
of continuity with those EA/BP models.  
 
of continuity with those EA/BP models.  
  
[11:06] TerryLongstreth: @Fabian - (in reference to Fabian's verbal remarks on how Track-A and  
+
[11:06] [[TerryLongstreth|Terry Longstreth]]: @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  
Line 550: Line 550:
 
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: @Terry - yes, that's what I meant, I did not put it very elegantly. My point  
+
[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,  
 
was that there are some aspects of ontology evaluation/quality that was not covered by either track,  
Line 556: Line 556:
 
should be covered.  
 
should be covered.  
  
[11:06] LeoObrst: @MichaelDenny: (ref. slide#5 "That which we call a rose by any other name would  
+
[11:06] [[LeoObrst|Leo Obrst]]: @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  
Line 568: Line 568:
 
language terms.  
 
language terms.  
  
[11:09] MichaelDenny: @LeoObrst ...or "you can't tell a concept by its cover"  
+
[11:09] [[MichaelDenny|Michael Denny]]: @LeoObrst ...or "you can't tell a concept by its cover"  
  
[11:12] anonymous morphed into PavithraKenjige  
+
[11:12] anonymous morphed into [[PavithraKenjige|Pavithra Kenjige]]
  
[11:15] JackRing: Seems to me any ontology must be evaluated with respect to domain-specific (usage)  
+
[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  
 
and discipline-specific (principles and standards) contexts. Further, an ontology can be evaluated  
Line 580: Line 580:
 
about whether ontology serves as framework, praxis, system or what?  
 
about whether ontology serves as framework, praxis, system or what?  
  
[11:19] JackRing: Life cycle is a distracting notion. Most all ontologies evolve and morph. It may  
+
[11:19] [[JackRing|Jack Ring]]: 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: Does it make sense to consider specific ontology evaluation tasks, and  
+
[11:14] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: 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  
Line 590: Line 590:
 
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: @Michael: You can only evaluate against requirements. If you look at my slide  
+
[11:18] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: @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  
Line 600: Line 600:
 
requirements at the business level down to this level?  
 
requirements at the business level down to this level?  
  
[11:20] MichaelGruninger: @MatthewWest: Some of the criteria in Steve and Leo's slides use only the  
+
[11:20] [[MichaelGruninger|Michael Gr&uuml;ninger]]: @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: I will add that I believe that there are many ways of "slicing and dicing"  
+
[11:18] [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]]: 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  
Line 618: Line 618:
 
evaluated.  
 
evaluated.  
  
[11:19] MatthewWest: @Amanda: +1  
+
[11:19] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: @Amanda: +1  
  
[11:21] MeganKatsumi: @Amanda: +1  
+
[11:21] [[MeganKatsumi|Megan Katsumi]]: @Amanda: +1  
  
[11:22] DougFoxvog: @Amanda: +2. The ontology evaluation ontology should have concepts and relations  
+
[11:22] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: @Amanda: +2. The ontology evaluation ontology should have concepts and relations  
  
 
for all that.  
 
for all that.  
  
[11:20] DougFoxvog: Leo is discussing properties of different ontology aspects relative to life  
+
[11:20] [[DougFoxvog|Doug Foxvog]]: 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  
Line 632: Line 632:
 
evaluation ontology.  
 
evaluation ontology.  
  
[11:19] PeterYim: Registration (either onsite or remote) is now open for the  
+
[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  
 
[[OntologySummit2013_Symposium]] at NIST - Thu & Fri May 2~3, 2013 (Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA) - see  
Line 640: Line 640:
 
(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: Join in the fun at this weekend's Hackathon-Clinics Activities - see details at:  
+
[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  
 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Hackathon_Clinics#nid3PG4 ... even if you  
Line 648: Line 648:
 
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: Again, solicitation to software environment stewards and tool developers to  
+
[11:20] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: Again, solicitation to software environment stewards and tool developers to  
  
respond to the OntologySummit2013 Software Survey - goto:  
+
respond to the [[OntologySummit2013|Ontology Summit 2013]] 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  
Line 656: Line 656:
 
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: As MichaelGruninger just said, same time next week, for OntologySummit2013  
+
[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 & FabianNeuhaus - developing  
+
session-13: "Communique Draft Review" - Co-chairs: [[AmandaVizedom|Amanda Vizedom]] & [[FabianNeuhaus|Fabian Neuhaus]] - 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: Sorry I have to go now.  
+
[11:20] [[MatthewWest|Matthew West]]: Sorry I have to go now.  
  
[11:25] SteveRay: Good session. Thanks!  
+
[11:25] [[SteveRay|Steve Ray]]: Good session. Thanks!  
  
[11:25] PeterYim: great session!  
+
[11:25] [[PeterYim|Peter P. Yim]]: 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 --  
Line 688: 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 749: Line 749:
  
 
* 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|Peter P. Yim]]  
 
** [[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]]
 
** ...  
 
** ...  
  

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)