From OntologPSMW

Revision as of 23:01, 27 April 2014 by PeterYim (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]

Contents

OntologySummit2013: ("postmortem") Review and Follow-up Action Planning Session - Thu 2013-05-23     (1)

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

Session Topic: OntologySummit2013 (postmortem) review and follow-up action planning     (1B)

Session Co-chairs: Dr. MatthewWest & Professor MichaelGruninger     (1C)

Agenda / Briefings:     (1D)

  • Dial-in:     (1U4)
    • Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... (long distance cost may apply)     (1U4A)
    • Skype: joinconference (i.e. make a skype call to the contact with skypeID="joinconference") ... (generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer ... ref.)     (1U4B)
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#     (1U4B1)
      • Unfamiliar with how to do this on Skype? ...     (1U4B2)
        • 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.     (1U4B2A)
      • Can't find Skype Dial pad? ...     (1U4B3)
        • for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"     (1U4B3A)
        • 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.)     (1U4B3B)
  • Shared-screen support (VNC session), if applicable, will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/     (1U5)
    • view-only password: "ontolog"     (1U5A)
    • 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.     (1U5B)
    • 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.     (1U5C)
    • 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").     (1U6A)
    • 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.     (1U6B)
    • 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_20130523@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!     (1U6C)
  • Discussions and Q & A:     (1U7)
    • Nominally, when a presentation is in progress, the moderator will mute everyone, except for the speaker.     (1U7A)
    • 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.)     (1U7B)
    • 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.)     (1U7C)
    • 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.)     (1U7D)
  • 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.)     (1U9)
  • 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.     (1U11)

Attendees     (1W)

Abstract:     (1X)

OntologySummit2013: ("postmortem") Review and Follow-up Action Planning Session - [ intro slides]     (1X1)

With the adjournment of the OntologySummit2013_Symposium (on 3-May-2013) we have completed the program of this year's OntologySummit. This has been our 8th Ontology Summit, that featured a host of events spanning four months, and jointly organized by Ontolog, NIST, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD with the championship from our organizing committee members and support of our co-sponsors. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit was: "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle."     (1X2)

The event today is our virtual postmortem session. We will be expecting participants of this year's summit, especially members of the organizing team, as well as anyone interested in the process of content of past and future Ontology Summits, at this session.     (1X3)

The goal of this session is to revisit the Ontology Summit that just finished, and to plan ahead for the future. We will discuss what worked and what can be improved during the 4 months of OntologySummit2013 (plus the preparation work that led up to it,) and get ideas on how to make next year's Ontology Summit even better. This meeting gives us an opportunity to develop some plans and initiatives for action that will move what we have achieved beyond the 4-month Summit itself. Further, this meeting is also an opportunity to suggest topics and themes for next year's Ontology Summit.     (1X4)

See also: OntologySummit (home page for the summit series) and document your thoughts at: OntologySummit/Suggestions     (1X5)

Agenda Ideas:     (1Y)

Agenda:     (1Z)

Ontology Summit 2013 - Postmortem Session     (1Z1)

  • Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call     (1Z2)
  • 6. Once again ... a solicitation to endorse the Communique if you haven't already done so     (1Z8)

Proceedings:     (1AA)

Please refer to the above     (1AA1)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session     (1AA2)

see raw transcript here.     (1AA2A)


(for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.) Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.     (1AA2B)


-- begin in-session chat-transcript --     (1AA2C)


[09:32] PeterYim: Welcome to the     (1AA2D)


OntologySummit2013: ("postmortem") Review and Follow-up Action Planning Session - Thu 2013-05-23     (2)

Summit Theme: "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"     (2A)


Session Topic: OntologySummit2013 (postmortem) review and follow-up action planning     (2B)


Session Co-chairs: Dr. MatthewWest & Professor MichaelGruninger     (2C)


Agenda / Briefings:     (2D)


  • Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction) - "Ontology Summit 2013: Reflections and thoughts for the Future"     (2E)











Proceedings     (2O)

[09:38] TerryLongstreth: I've sent Matthew a reminder     (2O1)


[09:39] MatthewWest: Sorry I'm late. PC crashed and died slowly just as I was logging on.     (2O2)


[09:43] TerryLongstreth: Can someone roll the VNC, please?     (2O3)


[09:44] PeterYim: @Terry - the vnc should be working properly ... try refreshing the vnc viewer window (not refreshing your browser)     (2O4)


[09:46] PeterYim: @Terry - is it working ok now?     (2O5)


[09:52] FabianNeuhaus: @Peter - (commenting on Peter's remark, during his presentation that the list of Communique co-editors represented most members of the organizing committee) this year the co-editors = the org. committee     (2O6)


[10:03] MichaelGruninger: Comment on Peter's slide 9: Who are the intended audiences for the Ontology Summit?     (2O7)


[10:05] MatthewWest: I agree about the improved effectiveness. I think this is because the core people are not only dedicated, but have got to know and understand and respect each other. That reduces the noise considerably. The respect means we trust each other, and that helps too.     (2O8)


[10:05] anonymous morphed into BobbinTeegarden     (2O9)


[10:05] AmandaVizedom: Peter, I see one more slide -- are you saving that for later?     (2O10)


[10:18] PeterYim: @Amanda - (ref. one more slide) thank you for catching this, that slide doesn't belong here. I will be updating the file and remove it from the deck.     (2O11)


[10:07] MichaelGruninger: The volume of email discussions this year was disappointingly low     (2O12)


[10:08] AmandaVizedom: Interesting question about email levels - not sure that's easiest - can feel like black hole and/or way to trigger unproductive discussion -- association with ontolog forum issues. Return to this question later?     (2O13)


[10:10] AmandaVizedom: Point for later discussion: reach out to folks who have been involved in the past (every) and aren't now. Get feedback on why; invite them to make suggestions; ask them to check in again?     (2O14)


[10:12] MichaelGruninger: I sometimes felt that the Organizing Committee was doing too much work, filling in the lack of input from the overall group of participants     (2O15)


[10:17] MichaelGruninger: If we have a longer lead time for the next Summit, perhaps we could have a period in which there is more discussion of the topics before the different Tracks are identified     (2O16)


[10:18] MichaelGruninger: Amanda's comment on slide 2: we need better alignment of presentation content with Track topics     (2O17)


[10:22] MatthewWest: @Michael: I agree, but how do you do that? Each speaker has their own agenda, and there is very little in the current set up we can do to vet. We would have to move to a refereed conference with vetted presentations/papers to significantly improve this I think.     (2O18)


[10:23] PeterYim: @Amanda & ALL - the Analytics slides deck has now been updated (still 9 slides, but the extraneous one has been removed.)     (2O19)


[10:27] ToddSchneider: @Amanda, (referring to Amanda's comment that google-docs facilitates input, but makes editing more difficult) Ali and I had the same situation last year (using Google Docs).     (2O20)


[10:29] PeterYim: Amanda: (breaking news!) the SemTechBizSF lightning talk on Jun-3 is now confirmed [ref slide#6]     (2O21)


[10:29] PeterYim: Amanda: suggest extending the Communique Endorsement deadline (beyond Jun-3, so she those at SemTechBizSF may have a chance to endorse the Communique too) ... general response is "sure!"     (2O22)


[10:33] ToddSchneider: Peter, Terry summary should be on the main 2013 summit page.     (2O23)


[10:33] ToddSchneider: Terry, Great work!     (2O24)


[10:34] FabianNeuhaus: @Todd I agree. I think this should be part of the OS website as well.     (2O25)


[10:34] MichaelGruninger: Hello Marcela -- are you on the conference call? *7 to unmute     (2O26)



[10:35] MarcelaVegetti: I'm on skype.     (2O28)


[10:35] ToddSchneider: Marcela, great reverb.     (2O29)



[10:52] MarcelaVegetti: @Peter, I was thinking of that while Terry was talking     (2O31)


[10:57] ToddSchneider: When do we get to subject for the next summit?     (2O32)


[10:57] PeterYim: == Discussion: What went well? What could be improved?     (2O33)



[10:59] MatthewWest: The Tracks: Generally good quality presentations.     (2O35)


[11:00] MichaelGruninger: How can we increase the quantity and quality of discussions (both during live sessions and via email posts)?     (2O36)


[11:00] MatthewWest: The Communique: Took the summit forward.     (2O37)


[11:02] AmandaVizedom: I agree with Fabian that we should have more discussion *in* the sessions, and not overpack the sessions with panelists or presenters.     (2O38)


[11:02] PeterYim: (re. "What went well?") - there was a resounding agreement from the OOR team (from our May-21 team meeting) that the Hackathon (H-C) was great ... we even agreed that the OOR team will start doing regular hackathons and have assigned champions to steward them     (2O39)


[11:02] TerryLongstreth: @Peter, Marcela. I intentionally focused on the actual presentations. The second column has pointers to the Session agenda pages. So I'm not sure if diluting the page with lists of participants is the right model, but we could have subordinate entries with the peoples names and hotlinks from the presentation summary table without adding too much complexity to the initial impression offered by it.     (2O40)


[11:08] MarcelaVegetti: @Terry, Peter, May be we can change the telecons.html page of the website with the one proposed by Terry     (2O41)


[subsequent] PeterYim: since the "pretty" website is essentially designed to address an outside (non-ontologist) audience, I would suggest that, for now, it would probably suffice for us just to add a link to Terry's page from the telecons.html page. That, at least, allows us to make better use of our time (like Marcela's working on semantic queries and search, etc.)     (2O42)


[subsequent] TerryLongstreth: One other thing that I would find useful would be to put a link to the Quick Reference on the Resources page     (2O43)



[11:03] AmandaVizedom: Accompanying point: we might not lose so much if we are more selective about what is presented.     (2O45)


[11:04] AmandaVizedom: We also might include presentations that are in effect summaries of the work of a number of people who we might otherwise have invited on their own.     (2O46)


[11:04] TerryLongstreth: I agree with Matthew - initial presentations were scattershot to give us a 'Chinese menu' for followup.     (2O47)


[11:05] AmandaVizedom: Note: alternating presentations, on the other hand, might give some room to try to schedule future presentations responsively to the way the summit is evolving.     (2O48)


[11:06] ToddSchneider: All, we should bear in mind that this year's summit subject is somewhat out of the norm, or at least not a primary interest to ontology developers.     (2O49)


[11:08] AmandaVizedom: @Todd, I don't think that's true (the primary interest part).     (2O50)


[11:08] ToddSchneider: Amanda, certainly not for you:)     (2O51)


[11:08] AmandaVizedom: Not for a great number of ontologists I know     (2O52)


[11:10] FabianNeuhaus: @Peter: (responding to PeterYim's verbal comment that the presentations added hugely to the collective body-of-knowledge on this particular subject, as well as to the entire archive) I am not discounting the presentations. I agree that they are important. I just try to think of ways to have more interactions.     (2O53)


[11:12] MarcelaVegetti: Unfortunately, I have to go.     (2O54)


[11:14] PeterYim: @Marcela - bye ... thank you     (2O55)


[11:15] MichaelGruninger: I didn't think that the Keynote topics were relevant to the Summit topic (just my personal opinion)     (2O56)


[11:15] ToddSchneider: The keynotes were good, but not 'close' to the summit's subject.     (2O57)


[11:16] AmandaVizedom: (Why) Do we need to have keynotes at all?     (2O58)


[11:16] PeterYim: (despite what others think) personally, I think the keynotes were among the "best" parts of the Symposium     (2O59)


[11:16] TerryLongstreth: Fabian's right - how do you invite an expert who's not already in the (conceptual) room?     (2O60)


[11:17] TerryLongstreth: And the keynotes gave us viewpoints that were outside of the ontology community's comfort zone     (2O61)


[11:20] RamSriram: One possible way to resolve the keynotes problem is to replace it with a panel on potential funding opportunities for next year (as it will held near downtown).     (2O62)


[11:18] PeterYim: == Michael: what should we do next year ... choice of "Topic" first ... please type suggestions below     (2O63)


[11:16] ToddSchneider: How about Reasoning or Ontologies and/for Reasoning for the subject of the next summit?     (2O64)


[11:19] AmandaVizedom: Todd: Semantic Federation     (2O65)


[11:20] AmandaVizedom: Todd: Reasoning over Linked Data     (2O66)


[11:20] ToddSchneider: The value of ontology in linked data?     (2O67)


[11:21] MichaelGruninger: I was thinking of using a domain (such as E-Science) as a way of addressing issues such as reusability, reasoning,, evaluation     (2O68)


[11:23] ToddSchneider: Big data semantic federation?     (2O69)


[11:24] ToddSchneider: Reasoning with big linked data for semantic federation?     (2O70)


[11:24] TerryLongstreth: Does anyone remember how the VLDB conferences started? I think Big Data's on the same trajectory.     (2O71)


[11:25] RamSriram: @Amanda: Can you elaborate on what you mean by reasoning on linked data?     (2O72)


[11:33] AmandaVizedom: @Ram, e.g. consuming published linked data and using it in a mashup app that performs some query answering / semantic search functions. E.g., finding resources across distributed linked (open) data corpora, where the resource/corpora pairs might be: finding cultural artifacts across libraries, archives, and museums LOD; finding reusable data sets across scientific data repository LOD; finding products and services across potentially competing providers LOD; gathering diverse news items about an event or entity across new service's LOD (and maybe also Library-Archives-Museums LOD).     (2O73)


[11:35] AmandaVizedom: That all requires some reasoning over Linked (open) Data, where such LOD is already being published. At the same time, there are live issues, within the LOD / SemWeb communities regarding the quality of the semantic aspects of the data (standards, strengths and weaknesses of particular ontologies).     (2O74)


[11:38] RamSriram: @Amanda: May be then the workshop should focus on Linked data, its relationship to Ontologies, and Reasoning over this.     (2O75)


[11:44] AmandaVizedom: @Ram, possibly, but we want to make clear we are putting the ontology-linked data and reasoning-linked data relationships first. Or at least, like we aren't jumping in as if it were a fresh field, ignoring the people who really are experts in Linked Data and LOD.     (2O76)


[11:26] ToddSchneider: Amanda, that get's back to Peter's observation on our poor PR capabilities.     (2O77)


[11:28] TerryLongstreth: Peter says two separate summits: external and internal. I say summits could be a bridge between them.     (2O78)


[11:29] MatthewWest: I agree with Peter we need to choose between internal or external. I would go for alternating.     (2O79)


[11:30] MatthewWest: My idea on spreading it out is not to make it more than three months, but 1 month 3 times with gaps in between.     (2O80)


[11:30] TerryLongstreth: Maybe change the balance and make hackathons the major activity for future summits?     (2O81)


[11:33] PeterYim: == Michael: what should we do next year ... let's discuss "the Schedule"     (2O82)


[11:33] MatthewWest: So two events with different names each every two years.     (2O83)


[11:34] TerryLongstreth: With each year having ONE presentation or session covering salient aspects of the non-focus topic     (2O84)


[11:34] PeterYim: Michael: ... let's run a "topic" brainstorm session in September     (2O85)


[11:43] MichaelGruninger / MatthewWest: September 19th will be the date for the initial brainstorming session for OntologySummit2014 potential topics ... an open meeting as usual (not just limited to organizers)     (2O86)


[11:35] PeterYim: Michael: we could leave "the summit" on the same duration (~3 months) but stretch out the planning     (2O87)


[11:37] PeterYim: @Astrid ... I don't think we have received your Communique endorsement yet, would you consider endorsing, please?     (2O88)


[11:38] AstridDuqueRamos: Hi Peter. Yes, Ill endorse, but I want to review it before     (2O89)


[11:38] PeterYim: @Astrid ... thank you, don't mean to rush you     (2O90)


[11:42] TerryLongstreth: It would also be useful to have a session at each summit that reviewed and reported status of previous summits.     (2O91)


[11:44] PeterYim: great session!     (2O92)


[11:44] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:44am PDT --     (2O93)


-- end of in-session chat-transcript --     (2O94)


  • Further Question & Remarks - please post them to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv     (2O95)
    • all subscribers to the previous summit discussion, and all who responded to today's call will automatically be subscribed to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv     (2O95A)
    • if you are already subscribed, post to <ontology-summit [at] ontolog.cim3.net>     (2O95B)
    • (if you are not yet subscribed) you may subscribe yourself to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv, by sending a blank email to <ontology-summit-join [at] ontolog.cim3.net> from your subscribing email address, and then follow the instructions you receive back from the mailing list system.     (2O95C)
    • (in case you aren't already a member) you may also want to join the ONTOLOG community and be subscribed to the [ ontolog-forum ] listserv, when general ontology-related topics (not specific to this year's Summit theme) are discussed. Please refer to Ontolog membership details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J     (2O95D)

Additional Resources:     (2O96)

For the record ...     (2O96M)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)     (2P)

Retrieved from "http://ontologforum.org/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2013_05_23&oldid=14650"