Actions

Ontolog Forum

  • Topic: "Ontologizing the Ontolog Body of Knowledge - Discussion Session 1 - Framing the Issues, Requirements and Approach"
  • Ideas and preparation: see - /Prep

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Thursday, April 20, 2006
  • Start Time: 10:30 AM PDT / 1:30 PM EDT / 17:30 UTC (see world clock for other time zones)
    • Duration: 2.0 hours
  • Dial-in Number: +1-641-696-6600 (Iowa, USA)
    • Participant Access Code: "686564#"
  • Shared-screen support (VNC session) will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/
    • view-only password: "ontolog"
    • 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.
    • people behind corporate firewalls may have difficulty accessing this. If that is the case, please download the slides below and runing them locally. The speaker will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.
  • RSVP to peter.yim@cim3.com appreciated, to allow us to prepare enough conferencing resources.
  • Please note that this session will be recorded, and the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.

Attendees

  • Also Expected (those who may have joined us after the roll call):
    • Nicolas Rouquette
    • Kathleen Chapman (Boeing)
    • Vinay Chaudhri (SRI)
    • Kathleen Ellis
    • James Werner (Boeing)
    • Nancy Faget (GPO)
    • Mills Davis
    • DavidCMartin
    • Jack Gottsman (The Clarity Group)
    • Ho-Chun Ho (HoTech Corp.)
    • ...(to register for participation, please add your name here or e-mail <peter.yim@cim3.com> so that we can reserve enough resources to support the session.)...

Background

This is the first event of a series of talks and discussions the revolves around the topic: "Ontologizing the Ontolog Body of Knowledge" during which this community will explore the "what's" and "how's" to the development of a semantically interoperable application, using the improved access to the content of Ontolog as a case in point.

The series is spurred by the Ontolog Community's quest toward:

  • (a) providing better access to the body of knowledge that the community has accumulated over the years,
  • (b) using the opportunity to explore the landscape and the state-of-the-art for both technologies and approaches, on how this could actually be done,
  • (c) employing the kinds of formal and informal semantic technologies and ontological engineering

approaches that we've been 'talking about',

  • (d) plan to develop an ontology-based application to achieve the purpose, both as a proof-of-concept, and also to provide open example of a 'working application' and 'the process' that people can look at, and
  • (e) build up enough interest and momentum to really do it -- funded, if at all possible, but on an open/voluntary-basis, if we have to.

Agenda & Proceedings

Topic: Ontologizing the Ontolog Body of Knowledge - Discussion Session 1 - Framing the Issues, Requirements and Approach

  • Abstract (by Denise Bedford):
The Ontolog community is strategizing how to develop a baseline ontology to represent the entities, relationships and uses of content. The purpose of this ontology is to support the needs and uses of any members of the Ontolog Community. The intent is to provide a foundation upon which any member of the community could apply additional functionality or transform content into other ontology models. By content, we include the community of people, their work and expertise; all electronic archives and content created in and published via the wiki, and information that is referenced by the community members such as standards, reference models, meeting announcements and reports. We will discuss, in this session, how we should frame the issues, establish our requirements and to go about approaching this task of 'ontologizing' the Ontolog content.
  • Pertinent Issues we might explore during this session:
    • Some 'framing questions': (--DeniseBedford / 2006.04.17-06:57 EDT)
      • What content from Ontolog should be ontologized? (content defined broadly - people, groups, email messages, conference call agendas, conference call transcripts/recordings, presentations, discussion threads, etc.)
      • What content from outside Ontolog should be ontologized? (content referenced but not created by the group...?, standards, conferences, research & development, other communities)
      • At what level do we want to apply the ontology to the content?
      • Can we define a set of roles or user types of the Ontolog content - from within Ontolog and external to Ontolog?
      • Can we define a handful of scenarios to use to test the ontology development as we move forward?
      • How will the ontology be used on a practical level?
      • What applications will consume it?
        • Will we use it in internal architecture/applications only?
        • Will we surface portions of it for consumption by external applications?
      • What kind of an underlying functional architecture do we need?
        • What kinds of applications and technologies will support this functional architecture?
    • also ref: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2006_04_20/Prep
  • Session Format: this is be a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call
    • 1. we'll go around with a self-introduction of participants (10~15 minutes)
    • 2. Introduction of Panelists (Moderator)
    • 3. Opening by the Moderator (5 min.)
    • 4. 5-minute brief by each panelist on their perspective
    • 5. follow each panelist's presentation with a 3 minute Q&A and discussion on that particular perspective
    • 6. open general discussion by all participants
    • 7. Summary / Conclusion / Follow-up (Moderator)

Questions, Answers & Discourse

  • If you want to speak or have questions for the panel, we appreciate your posting them as instructed below: (please identify yourself)
    • experimental: try using the queue management chat tool
    • point a separate browser window (or tab) to http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room and enter: Room: "ontolog_20060420" & My Name: e.g. "JaneDoe"
    • or simply at: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontolog_20060420
      • instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field). 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.
    • see: session log and the discussion excerpt below.
    • ... (you may also post you questions below, the moderator & panel will be fielding them during the open discussion) ...
    • For those who have further questions or remarks on the topic, please post them to the [ontolog-forum] so that everyone in the community can benefit from the discourse.
  • ... More Questions
    • from the 2006.04.03 session - Dr. Bedford, on slide 13 you emphasize maintaining the distinction between 'concepts' and 'instances.' This is a frequently recurring theme in the literature on the development of ontologies, perhaps because it is one of those guidelines that seems simple enough in theory but is very difficult in practice. Do you have specific lessons to pass along on how this distinction can be maintained consistently, homogeneously, and appropriately throughout the development lifecycle of an ontology? (Kevin S. Lynch) (I may not be able to attend the session, but will listen for your answer on the audio version )   
  • Notes from the discourse (this session) - (Appreciations to Kurt Conrad for taking the notes in real time for all of us. =ppy)
  • Opening (DeniseBedford)
    • Introduction of presenters
  • Peter P. Yim
    • Ontolog Collaborative Work Environment
    • Augmentation approach to computing
    • Community of Practice
    • Fishnet organization
    • Main components: portal, wiki, discussion forum, file repository, system-wide search
    • Community-driven
    • Bootstrapping / viral / improve capability to improve
  • Lisa Colvin
    • Understanding User Roles
    • Many more people using the word "ontology"
    • Defining community is important: helps define granularity of representation for the ontology
    • Goals: Better access to Ontolog knowledge / search / knowledge maps
    • Many of key concepts already "captured" as wiki-words
    • Building of reference model
  • Bob Smith
    • Decision roadmap
    • Granularity / logic / precision
    • From laboratory to concrete projects
    • Cost / benefits
    • Project plan stub
  • Patrick Heinig
    • What's In It For Me?
    • Value delivery system / decisions and tradeoffs / establishing a value proposition
    • Lock down primary thrusts for going forward / tradeoffs in problem space / defensable solution space
    • Value proposition should be explicit, not inferred
    • 4 step, interactive process
    • Requirements engineering / value engineering / can't serve everyone
    • Alternate value propositions / which ones are most satisficing across interest groups?
  • EMichaelMaximilien
    • Skeptical of "Too Much Ontology"
    • Expect difficulty in developing a single ontology to support all use cases
    • Use services to automatically generate content to do searches and perform other functions
    • Tagging from individual perspectives
    • Convert audio content
    • Use purple wiki numbers as anchors for user tagging
    • Create an outline of concepts for each page of content
  • Denise Bedford
    • Defer tools and technologies discussion to later session
    • Next steps & approaches
      • Start an outline for outlining on wiki / Expand goals as expand capabilities / Incremental progress
      • Pick one use case
      • Come up with a logical framework
      • Nurture consensus
      • Dermine which content to index and how to use it
        • Potential for "tagging spam" and value of linking to maintain tag quality
      • Build a list of concepts / logical framework to identify dimensions of what would be needed in ontologies
      • Proof of concept
      • Map terms to SUMO
      • Scoping: Small vs focused range of content
      • Map out strategy for identifying entities and values
      • Form a working group
      • Share and rate values to understand impacting value systems
      • Development of categories
    • Near-term Plan
      • Denise, Bob, and Lisa will start working on the framework
      • Others are welcome to join the effort
      • Taxo-Thesaurus is the name of the project
      • Peter will set up working page on Wiki for the team
  • Input from the participants via the [webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontolog_20060420] chat session:
    • Peter Brown: I'm not going to be able to stay long on this

call, but one key concern I have about this project is: what specifically can we add that cannot be or is not being provided currently by existing tools? And supplemental to that: what can we provide/promote that will serve as a demonstrator of our own belief of the importance of ontology in contrast to the full-text search paradigm? In other words: Should we be eating our own dog food?

    • Rex Brooks: It seems to me that Peter defined the original,

general context. Lisa did a good job of grasping the general audience of users without losing the fundamental connection among the users--increasing understanding of the value of ontology. She also touched on tools briefly. Bob laid out a process of arriving at an appropriate set of tools using an identification of where in Leo Obrst's spectrum of semantic tools and concepts from lesser to greater expressivity we want to be. He also provided a ballpark for the amount of work likely to be needed. Patrick laid out a process for arriving at an appropriate value proposition--what's in it for the users. I wanted to build a summary as we go along because, I, too, will have to drop off the call. But the point I wanted to bring up the idea that we might want to choose to select a narrower audience rather than a broader audience for the sake of providing a more clear benefit to our users. I wonder what our panelists think about that idea--narrowing the audience to provide a more clear message of the benefit.

    • Peter Brown: The only problem with a narrower audience is

that we might end up with a self-referential control group: we are hardly the most representative cross-section of users! But equally, that approach would provide a clear impetus to provide us with additional tools for *our* work: if that is for a wider, later, benefit and audience, so much the better. As long as we try to keep an eye on the longer-term goals, I'd be for a narrower initial focus

accommodated (i.e. narrowing or not). If we come up with (a taxonomy) of roles and what they desire. Then we can concentrate on roles

"context" - I would agree that this seems to be the best starting point

might not be able to answer. The role would be that of a researcher (such as myself) working on ontologies:

      • (1) who is working on <concept>?
      • (2) what resources are available on <concept>?
      • (3) what concepts are related to <concept>?
      • (4) this concept is also referred to as ____
    • Rex Brooks: I think Max's approach can be used, regardless

of focus. And it is valuable in and of itself. I also think what Pat just said makes sense. But, I would, since that's the question of scope or focus, again. As a user, one of the benefits I would love to have is just a common sense explanation of what each of the major Upper Ontologies is best for?

  • For those who have further questions and discussion on this topic, please post them to the ontolog forum so that we can all benefit from the discourse.
  • Session ended 2006.04.20 12:24 pm PDT

Session Recording of this Panel Discussion

(Thanks to Bob Smith and Peter P. Yim for their help with getting the session recorded. =ppy)

  • To download the audio recording of the session, click here
    • the playback of the audio files require the proper setup, and an MP3 compatible player on your computer.
  • Conference Date and Time: April 20, 2006 10:39am~12:23pm Pacific Daylight Time
  • Duration of Recording: 1 Hour 43 Minutes
  • Recording File Size: 24.3 MB (in mp3 format)
  • Telephone Playback Expiration Date: April 30, 2006 12:41 PM PDT
    • Prior to the above Expiration Date, one can call-in and hear the telephone playback of the session.
    • Playback Dial-in Number: 1-805-620-4002 (Ventura, CA)
    • Playback Access Code: 183529#
    • suggestion: best that you listen to the session while having the above material opened in front of you. You'll be prompted to advance slides by the speaker.



Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2006_04_20&oldid=1145"