From OntologPSMW

Revision as of 16:27, 18 December 2012 by PeterYim (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]

Contents

This is a workspace collecting suggestions on how to better organize, coordinate and facilitate OntologySummit2012 activities. While mainly intended for the use by the organizing committee, this is an open page, and contributions from other summit participants who are not on the organizing committee are welcome.     (1A)

OntologySummit2012: Ontology for Big Systems     (1B)

7th in the series of a 3-month open annual event by and for the Ontology Community. This Summit is co-organized by Ontolog, NIST, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD     (1B1)

ref. OntologySummit     (1B2)


Ideas on How to Frame the Discussion     (1C)

From the 2011_12_08 Pre-launch Community Session prep work:     (1C1)

Systems engineering focuses on the interactions of people with their systems, so includes information technology, data and metadata, socio-technical and cultural aspects including institutional, legal, economic, and human-centered design requirements.     (1C1B)
o Software engineering     (1C1B1)
o Business rules and enterprise issues     (1C1B2)
o Socio-technical environment     (1C1B3)
o Big Data     (1C1B4)
o Ontology Quality in Context     (1C1B5)
"Big Data" to include several dimensions:     (1C1C)
o Complexity of collections     (1C1C1)
o Large quantities of data     (1C1C2)
o Heterogeneity of data (e.g. 600 different representations of patient records)     (1C1C3)
o Federation of distributed data sources     (1C1C4)
o Extracting (useful) knowledge out of big data (using ontology to UNDERSTAND data)     (1C1C5)
  • formulate recommendations for the application of ontological techniques to specific key problems we are facing in the subject area.     (1C1D)

From the 2011_12_08 community brainstorm input - items to note for action:     (1C2)

  • TimWilson: I have to leave the call soon, but I am very interested in     (1C2B)

the System Engineering aspects of Ontology as well as Ontology Acquisition, including text analytics.     (1C2C)

Systems Engineering and International Society for Systems Sciences is pursuing the development of a Unified Ontology for Systems Engineering. This effort is mostly practitioners getting ready for interaction with ontologists.     (1C2E)

(fitness for purpose, evaluation, metrics and metrics) under whichever theme.     (1C2G)

I'm suggesting is the theme-focused variant of the topic Joanne and I suggested here:http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions#nid30E4. A better title might be "Ontology Quality in Big System applications" or something like that. Or, "Evaluating Ontologies for Use in Big [X] Systems Applications"     (1C2I)

  • KenAllgood: I will volunteer for Ontology in electronic health     (1C2J)

record/bioinformatics     (1C2K)

Big Data and Cloud systems     (1C2M)

engineering systems, I'm happy to contribute.     (1C2O)

  • PatCassidy: I would be willing to champion a track on exploring the     (1C2Q)

use of a common foundation ontology as a translation mechanism (interlingua) among multiple databases or multiple systems - large or small. But if there are no others to make a "track" out of this, I can just present a paper with my views.     (1C2R)

the bandwidth to head this up.     (1C2T)

  • Eric Chan: + for aligning dots to tracks, I have Data, Process,     (1C2V)

Engineered, Multi-displinary,     (1C2W)

  • KenAllgood: I'd recommend "information interoperability across federated data"     (1C2Y)
  • AliHashemi: @Steve -- at the end of the last summit, there was a     (1C2Z)

consideration to alongside a Communique, explicitly commit to creating a website for the summit?     (1C2AA)

focusing down or presenting some branches/subtopics.     (1C2AD)

Ontologies in Big Systems"     (1C2AF)

track under which we bring in some folks in various domains and/or projects to describe particular cases where ontologies are being brought in to support big systems.     (1C2AH)

possibility.     (1C2AJ)

and decisions.     (1C2AL)

From HensonGraves / 2012.01.02~     (1C3)

HensonGraves: Tracks should be designed to produce usable work products for the engineering and well as the ontology community     (1C3A)

My suggestion is that the summit develop a collection of challenge problems which different tracks work on. A track representing an interest group could take a problem and have its members propose approaches and solutions which would be critiqued by the group. A track would not have to come to a consensus solution only produce as a work product proposed solutions and critiques. Here are some examples of the kind of thing that I have in mind, based on by experience and interests. Other examples would work as well.     (1C3B)

  • 1. Develop an ontology for metadata for engineering applications. This would     (1C3C)

include artifacts such as specifications, test plans, and test results. Something like DOLCE would be a good place to start the discussion. As participants one needs people with real experience in engineering practice and ontology theory. It is not too hard to argue that an ontology is the best way to manage the volume of data encountered on large scale engineering programs. [I spent about 7 years attempting to design a metadata based information storage and retrieval system for a very large scale product development program.] I would be happy to contribute or identify others who could contribute to understanding of the data management issues of such an endeavor.     (1C3D)

  • 2. Develop engineering models (or axiom sets) for the human heart. Two     (1C3E)

approaches naturally present themselves as starting points. One is models produced in SysML and the other is Description Logic with possibly Description Graph extensions. Analysis of the difference would be of great benefit for both communities and have immediate practical applications. Along the way one needs to look at how the literature on mereology contributes or not to developing axioms.     (1C3F)

  • 3. Develop use cases for reasoning based on engineering models (axiom sets     (1C3G)

in description logic). The use cases of course have to be grounded in everyday engineering problems and have to have to be embedded in logics for which tractable reasoning is possible. [I am very much engaged with this as I have a lot of industry experience with relatively simple cases where checking consistency of axiom sets would have saved the taxpayer a few billion dollars and 4 or 5 years of product development time. The problem is that engineering models do not represent the assumptions under which they are valid. As design progresses a model gets included in a design without knowledge of the assumptions under which it is valid. The result is inconsistent designs and the inconsistency is often not detected until test and evaluation, which of course may require years of rework to fix.]     (1C3H)

If this approach with the challenge problems were to be attractive then I would be willing to participate with the proviso that I could get some folks from the ontology community to join the INCOSE Model-Based System Engineering Ontology Action Team (OAT). The material and discussions could be posted on OAT web site. At the moment this web site and the Ontology Action Team of which I am the lead is a complete failure, due to lack of finding individuals with the time and experience to contribute.     (1C3I)

From EricChan: 2012.01.05:     (1C4)

EricChan: I have in mind about a track for "ontological information model for cloud infrastructure" with focus on "complex event processing of high-volume, high-velocity, monitoring data (Big Data)" in different layers of the infrastructure. This ontology can enable effective use of Business Activity Monitoring (BAM) tool in cloud infrastructure. ... I will be happy to support others who would like to chair this track.     (1C4A)