From OntologPSMW

Revision as of 14:12, 11 February 2019 by MikeBennett (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]
Number 62
Duration 1 hour
Date/Time January 7 2019 18:30 GMT
10:30 PST/1:30pm EST
6:30pm GMT/7:30pm CET
Convener Mike Bennett

IAOA Semantic Web Applied Ontology (SWAO) SIG     (2)

Meetings are normally on the first Monday of the month at these times.     (3)


Agenda     (5)

1. Housekeeping     (5A)

2. Events     (5B)

3. Discussion of new initiatives     (5F)

5. Next Meeting     (5M)

Proceedings     (6)

MikeBennett: Challenge activity for Summit     (6A)

MikeBennett: The Sumit starts on Wed 16th     (6B)

MikeBennett: Would help to be able to announce this Challenge if we have something.     (6C)

MikeBennett: See 14:34 in last month's notes     (6D)

MikeBennett: Challenge idea is based on the ESWC Requests for Challenges. KB sent them a request for advice (as they said you could do) but got no response.     (6E)

MikeBennett: THis was not specifically a proposal for a challenge to do at ESWC.     (6F)

MikeBennett: Challenge (sic) i to come up with such a proposal. Evaluation methodologies are not available.     (6G)

MikeBennett: KB was proposing to submit a Challenge proposal to ESWC, rather than suggesting that the Summit itself runs a Challenge. Would write up something for the k/o meeting for the group to come up with some methodology for evaluating the quality of explanations for explainable AI.     (6H)

MikeBennett: There was a talk at one of the summit sessions on 3 levels of explanation:     (6I)

MikeBennett: 1. Technical explanation - describing the mathematical specification     (6J)

MikeBennett: 2. gets progressively more into communicating with people (who are not familiar with the mathematics behind the ML algorithms).     (6K)

MikeBennett: Good tech explanation is dependent on ontologies. Enables a narratiev of dialog with the individual in explaining what is happening.     (6L)

MikeBennett: Presenter works in an XAI program. People do not have a clear what an explanation is, or don't have the same idea of what is required for a solution.     (6M)

MikeBennett: Hence needed to reiterate the notion of evaluation criteria. Other than simply asking if a person is happy with the explanation. Else the state of the art for explanation for AI systems is not well developed.     (6N)

MikeBennett: Given ISWC deadline of 15 Jan, we would not have the chance for someone in the Summit to work together on submitting a proposal.     (6O)

MikeBennett: The issue is that there are no evaluation criteria.     (6P)

MikeBennett: ESWC was Dec 15 deasline for proposals.     (6Q)

MikeBennett: ISWC is 15 Jan     (6R)

MikeBennett: If ISWC accepted our proposal then once we know f it accepted we could encourage folks at the Summit to submit a response.     (6S)

MikeBennett: We can mention that it is proposed and what the submission date for entries is.     (6T)

MikeBennett: If not accepted for ESWC or ISWC it can be done at the Summit anyway.     (6U)

MikeBennett: Ken will take the proposal and add it to the agenda for the 16 Jan k/o meeting.     (6V)

MikeBennett: KB submitted something to ESWC via EasyChair rather than as an email. Needs some feedback.     (6W)

MikeBennett: KB We can describe the Organizing Committee of the Summit to be the Org Ctee for the Challenge. This is already in the draft proposal.     (6X)

MikeBennett: So there may be enough already to meet the requirements of a Challenge proposal to one of the other. If we get any feedback from ESWC we can include it in the submission for ISWC.     (6Y)

MikeBennett: A weakness may be that the submissions require some evaluation criteria but this is the very thing no-one has.     (6Z)

MikeBennett: If we had the meta-criteria that could be framed as a challenge in its own right. But we do not.     (6AA)

MikeBennett: Or we can run the meta-challenge within the Summit itself as a challenge.     (6AB)

MikeBennett: KB can mention this on the 16 Jan call.     (6AC)

MikeBennett: IF we had some clue as to how we would evaluate an explanation this would help indicate how an explanatiojn is constructed.     (6AD)

MikeBennett: For example there is a knowledge aspect, a social aspect, linguistic aspects. Mathematical aspect (see above)     (6AE)

MikeBennett: This can be done at the Summit as a workshop, or as one of the workshop problems for the face to face.     (6AF)

KenBaclawski: The Doron session of the summit is relevant:     (6AG)

MikeBennett: This is the IOF event in Oslo in 1st week of Feb.     (6AI)

MikeBennett: Oslo, Norway on 4 - 7 February 2019     (6AJ)

MikeBennett: Barry Smith pushing IOF to adopt BFO as their universal ontology for this. Some push-back. BS expected a decision on this in November. Some discussion will follow. MG pushing to get some requirements for the proposed industrial ontology.     (6AK)

MikeBennett: BFO has no Change Request mechanism. Not clear how that aligns with the notion of an ISO standard. Proposal seems to be for extensions and as when required.     (6AL)

MikeBennett: Need to drop the Realism requirement and allow for abstract notion.     (6AM)

MikeBennett: Should we as a group be looking to do something on the ISO TLO standard liaison, feedback etc.?     (6AN)

MikeBennett: Given we are also interfacing with Semantic Web, can we do something on TLO for that community?     (6AO)

MikeBennett: MB Yes; some SemWeb folks run scared of TLO perhaps without good reason e.g. misaapplication of these concepts at client sites.     (6AP)

MikeBennett: TS: WE can come up with examples of good usage and describe the representation challenges. e.g. what a function is, when realized. how to treat in BFO (concretized) v others.     (6AQ)

MikeBennett: This is explaining an UO which is a kind of explaining something. How we can you explain an AO and does it contribute to the explanation. MAy be a contributiojn to understanding what UO items to use.     (6AR)

MikeBennett: What are the criteria for having a good explanation? Just giving an abstract account of the UO elements may not be practical.     (6AS)

MikeBennett: So there is explainable UO versus Explainable AI.     (6AT)

MikeBennett: BFO 2.0 - one important aspect is documentation. Many TLOs fall short on that.     (6AU)

MikeBennett: Can we create a resource on the use, common mistakes etc. for TLO elements.     (6AV)

MikeBennett: All agree this is a good idea.     (6AW)

MikeBennett: NExt steps:     (6AX)

MikeBennett: Collect some, review them, think about how to present these.     (6AY)

MikeBennett: Put a bunch of things into a review of a paticular example/     (6AZ)

MikeBennett: MB: Identify the common problems, e.g. behind Continuant v Occurrent; relatiev things et. and describe how the leading ontologies address these common issues in different ways.     (6AAA)

MikeBennett: What venue?     (6AAB)

MikeBennett: Something on the IAOA website.     (6AAC)

MikeBennett: A blog?     (6AAD)

MikeBennett: Something where people can put comments and responses. A blog (as configured in our wiki structure) would cover this.     (6AAE)

MikeBennett: WE can do this within our SWAO Wiki structure and promote it to the IAOA once it is mature enough.     (6AAF)

MikeBennett: Review when or whether to allow for a response capability - given it can get heated and the heatdedness can turn other participant off. Hence not a mailer.     (6AAG)

MikeBennett: First collect some material.     (6AAH)

MikeBennett: Topics:     (6AAI)

MikeBennett: Things that happen (Continuant v Occurrent);     (6AAJ)

MikeBennett: Thins in contexts (Relative Things / qua entities)     (6AAK)

MikeBennett: Units and measures (Sweet ontology etc.)     (6AAL)

MikeBennett: Make clear we are not taking a 4D approach, not treating everything as a process - i.e. not being locked in to one or another practitioner's set of assumptionsm OR when we are, make a given ssuption or decision explicit. Help people understand the decisions and modeling choices.     (6AAM)

MikeBennett: e.g. in IOF, the different people have different notions even of wht is ontological analysis versus modeling design decisions.     (6AAN)

MikeBennett: We need to present the options, assumptions etc. rather than define a right and wrong approach to these things.     (6AAO)

MikeBennett: List what the TLO considerations are as above;     (6AAP)

MikeBennett: List what are the paradigms within which one has to think these things: 4D v 3D; Realist or not; treatments fo time and temporality and so on. Whether you can have multiple inheritance     (6AAQ)

MikeBennett: Action Circulate the list of problem areas and the list of pardigmatic considerations, as outlined above, via email, then start to put a wiki page together.     (6AAR)

MikeBennett: AoB?     (6AAS)

MikeBennett: Next Meeting?     (6AAT)

MikeBennett: 4 Feb (during the IOF thing in OSLO)     (6AAU)

MikeBennett: Defer to 11 Feb?     (6AAV)

MikeBennett: Separately, Andrea can't make this time slot generally.     (6AAW)

MikeBennett: We will move these calls to 2 - 3 going forward. Create a new / update existing Outlook entry.     (6AAX)

MikeBennett: Add this to the Ontology Events Google Calendar.     (6AAY)

MikeBennett: This should go in the IAOA Google Calendar. Can also go in the Shed and SWAO spreadsheet-generated one.     (6AAZ)

MikeBennett: MB will update the 2019 Events spreadsheet and share with IAOA. They may choose to include or ignore some of the more specialist stuff.     (6AAAA)

MikeBennett: Can include AI, Blockchain, other things of relevance to ontologists but not directly about ontology.     (6AAAB)

MikeBennett: Confirmed we will meet on 11th.     (6AAAC)

Attendees     (7)

Next Meetings     (8)

Previous Meetings     (9)