Actions

Ontolog Forum

Ontology Summit 2011: Panel Session-9 - All Hands: "Synthesis and Reports" - Thu 2011_03_31

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology

Session Title: All Hands: Synthesis and Reports

Session Co-chairs: Dr. Steve Ray & Dr. NicolaGuarino

Panelists: Summit Co-chairs, Track Co-champions and Communique Co-Lead Editors (* = presenting today)

  • OntologySummit2011 General Co-chairs ... SteveRay* & Nicola Guarino
  • Track-1: Ontology Application Framework ... MichaelGruninger* & Michael Uschold & Nicola Guarino
  • Track-2: Applications and Case Studies ... Mills Davis & MikeBennett*
  • Track-3: Value Metrics, Value Models and the Value Proposition ... ToddSchneider* & Rex Brooks
  • Track-4: Strategies for "making the case" ... MatthewWest* & Peter P. Yim
  • Track-5: Grand Challenges ... RamSriram* & Ernie Lucier & Alden Dima
  • Communique Co-Lead Editors ... MichaelUschold*, John F. Sowa, Mills Davis & John Bateman

Abstract

OntologySummit2011 Theme: "Making the Case for Ontology"

  • Session Title: All Hands: Synthesis and Reports

This is our 6th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by NIST, Ontolog, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit is: "Making the Case for Ontology."

This year's Ontology Summit seeks to address the need to provide concrete evidence of successful deployment of ontologies by examining several application domains for such examples, and in better articulating where different "strengths" of ontological representation are best applied. To support that, the summit also aims to classify the categories of applications where ontology has been, and could be, successfully applied; to identify distinct types of metrics that might be used in evaluating the return on investment in an ontology application (cost, capability, performance, etc.); to lay out some strategies for articulating a case for ontological applications; and to identify remaining challenges and roadblocks to a wider deployment of such applications that represent promising application areas and research challenges for the future. The findings of the summit will be documented in the form of a communiqué intended for public consumption.

In our "All Hands" session today we will be pulling things together. The general co-chairs, all track champions and the communique lead editors will be reporting their respective synthesis of the discourse and work that has transpired to date.

See developing details on this Summit series of events at: OntologySummit2011 (home page for this summit)

Agenda

Ontology Summit 2011 - Panel Session-9

  • Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call

Proceedings

Please refer to the above

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session

see raw transcript here.

(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.

-- begin in-session chat-transcript --

Peter P. Yim: Welcome to the ...

Ontology Summit 2011: Panel Session-9 - All Hands: "Synthesis and Reports" - Thu 2011_03_31

Summit Theme: Ontology Summit 2011: Making the Case for Ontology

Session Title: All Hands: Synthesis and Reports

Session Co-chairs: Dr. Steve Ray & Dr. Nicola Guarino

Panelists: Summit Co-chairs, Track Co-champions and Communique Co-Lead Editors (* = presenting today)

  • Track-1: Ontology Application Framework ... MichaelGruninger* & Michael Uschold & Nicola Guarino
  • Track-2: Applications and Case Studies ... Mills Davis & MikeBennett*
  • Track-3: Value Metrics, Value Models and the Value Proposition ... ToddSchneider* & Rex Brooks
  • Track-4: Strategies for "making the case" ... MatthewWest* & Peter P. Yim

Please refer to details on the session page

at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_03_31

anonymous morphed into Brian Haugh

anonymous morphed into Matthew West

anonymous morphed into Christopher Spottiswoode

Rex Brooks: I'm stil getting "incorrect conference id" I use Vonage and this is the first time this

has happened. ... I even rebooted the device. But no change.

Mike Bennett: @Rex w some phones, have to hold down keys for 1 sec each.

John Bateman: I got the incorrect conference id a couple of times, then it worked

Rex Brooks: Finally got through!

Peter P. Yim: @RexBrooks, Mike Bennett, John Bateman, Michael Grüninger et al. - the conference bridge is a

bit tricky ... you almost has to space out the keystrokes evenly (especially with the # sign at the

end) to have it work well - see:

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?VirtualSpeakerSessionTips#nid2OR0

Mike Bennett: OK, I'm going to have to redial in

Peter P. Yim: Michael Grüninger is on line now

Michael Grüninger: I'm online, but I cannot unmute

Peter P. Yim: @MichaelGruninger - let me unmute you, please try your voice when you have a chance

anonymous morphed into David Leal

Steve Ray: Standard cheat sheet: *2 to mute, *3 to unmute

Peter P. Yim: Michael Grüninger: additionally, will also incorporate the ontology classifications that OMV

has provided

Nicola Guarino: Anyway, I'll state my question on the chat: my problem is related to the very name

"ontology application framework"

Peter P. Yim: discussion below is in reference to a possible change of the Track-1 label to disambiguate

the possibility that the audience may misinterpret us (as in the case of Stefano Bertolo, who thought

we were trying to find out if something like that would be a good candidate for research funding)

Todd Schneider: @Nicola, the Ontology Spplication Framework (OAF) may be at too low a level for

stakeholders/decision makers.

Michael Grüninger: Would "Taxonomy of Ontology Applications" be better

John Bateman: but taxonomy is bad!

Amanda Vizedom: I think "taxonomy" makes certain commitments about the structure/relationship of the

feature, and should be avoided

Nicola Guarino: I agree it is not a taxonomy

Simon Spero: "What Can Ontologies Do For You?"

John F. Sowa: How about a very short title: Applications.

Todd Schneider: John, simple is hard.

John F. Sowa: The word 'ontology' can be deleted, because that's the overall title.

John F. Sowa: The word 'usage' can be deleted, because every application is used.

John F. Sowa: When you delete all the problematical words, the only one left is 'application'.

Tim Wilson: Is that a directive from the Department of Redundancy Department?

Rex Brooks: I think that Ontology USE Framework captures it more succinctly.

Mike Bennett: @Rex +1

Tim Wilson: @Rex +2

Todd Schneider: Michael, the 'application' level may still be too low level, at least for an

elevator' pitch.

Nicola Guarino: Ontology applications comparison framework?

Michael Riben: Is the group familiar with the caBIG's effort to develop a similar ontology app

framework which they call the Ontology "representation":

https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/display/VCDE/Ontology+Representation+WG

Simon Spero: Applications, or Problems?

Amanda Vizedom: Using the language of the Wiki page: Ontology Applications Description Framework

Michael Uschold: ON ambiguity of the term "ontology application framework" I agree that application

is ambiguous here. How about ontology deployment framework?

Nicola Guarino: @MichaelUschold: +1

Christopher Spottiswoode: Ontology Application Typology?

Simon Spero: "What kind of problems can ontologies solve?"

Tim Wilson: There appears to be little consideration for the use of ontology to augment search,

particularly in the enterprise.

Mike Bennett: Application has 2 meanings

Mike Bennett: Crux of the problem is "Application" as a kind of program v. Application as "how

something is applied"

Simon Spero: MikeBennett+

Rex Brooks: Perhaps Ontology Usage Framework?

Mike Bennett: Better

Rex Brooks: We're capturing the kinds of uses to which ontology can be put.

Matthew West: Most of the ambiguity comes from missing prepositions. Framework for the Application of

Ontologies would (for example) get over that.

Rex Brooks: @Matthew: yes.

John F. Sowa: Long titles require more explanation than they clarify.

Amanda Vizedom: "Framework for Understanding Ontology Applications?"

Michael Riben: is the purpose for "discovery" in order to know if the person can apply it to their

use case?

Todd Schneider: +1 for 'Guide'

Nicola Guarino: Let's delegate to the champions to choose the final title on the basis of the input

received

Peter P. Yim: I agree with Nicola ... let's defer to the Track-1 champions

Amanda Vizedom: @NicolaGuarino: +1 ... and it's then most useful for the rest of us to comment/throw

out idea in this chat for them to consider later.

Simon Spero: (past half hour. Now afraid)

Simon Spero: [Changed Mikes - Now on track 2 - Use Cases]

Michael Riben: I think a good healthcare/public health example would be to look at Parsa Mirhaji's

Sapphire system for the CDC that performs surveillance in the Houston area...see

http://knowmed.com/Solutions.html

Michael Grüninger: Should we think of the Ontology Application Framework as really being "Ontology

Use Case Metadata"? The idea is that all of the dimensions provide the terminology for describing a

use case from a technical and (eventually) business perspective.

Steve Ray: I think using the word "metadata" is just going to confuse things.

Michael Uschold: In discussing benefits of an ontology application, it is critically important to

link back to how the ontology makes that possible. Saying 'customer retention' gets people's

attention, but you need to explain how the ontology helped to do this.

Amanda Vizedom: @MikeBennett: +1 for adding the dimension of What's Modeled. Not only do people

differ on this, but a lack of understanding of that difference has caused noticeable confusion and

disagreement on list during this summit. It's surely a dimension of difference that affects best

practices and measures of quality!

Mike Bennett: @Amanda +1

Simon Spero: Mike Bennett: were the metrics that you hadn't heard of internal to the use case

presenter?

Mike Bennett: @Simon yes, it was some CRM acronym

Mike Bennett: So, what does AHT stand for? (in CRM / call center context)?

Mike Bennett: @Simon - AHT was my unexplained metric from CRM case study, as now noted in Track 3.

Simon Spero: @MikeBennett: Either Average Hold Time or Average Handling Time

(http://www.kellen.net/crm_mf.pdf)

Mike Bennett: @Simon, thanks. Not my guess, so worth defining (terminology!).

Steve Ray: @MikeBennett: I want to ensure we are going to have pointers to as many actual cases as

possible. Is that your intention?

Mike Bennett: @MichaelUschold @SteveRay yes, I need to take the assertions in these slides and link

to the relevant case study. On the Wiki.

Tim Wilson: I was hoping to stay on the call for Matthew and Peter's presentation, however I must get

back to work. I will be presenting to my superiors next week for the creation of a knowledge

initiative using ontology.

Tim Wilson: This summit has been invaluable to me in that effort.

Rex Brooks: It just dawned on me that one area where we haven't seen specific Use-Cases is internal

corporate governance and management both IT Management and Business Intelligence Management.

Michael Riben: need to go..sorry

Peter P. Yim: @MichaelRiben - thanks for joining, and for the contribution

Simon Spero: @MikeBennett: Do you have the data coded in a way that it could be fed into Multi

Dimensional Scaling for graphing?

Mike Bennett: @Simon re feeding graphing:no. not many numeric measures were asserted.

Rex Brooks: John F. Sowa noted the connection between people using terms in human interoperability and

the improvements that come about due to that.

Nicola Guarino: Excellent question, John a crucial one!

Steve Ray: @John: Fascinating point about getting humans to be interoperable, a la common

terminology. I am definitely running into that in the world of disaster management interoperability,

where "interoperability" is commonly interpreted as "interchangeability of emergency personnel"

Todd Schneider: Steve, look at the NCOIC SCOPE model to get a better understanding of

interoperability'.

Todd Schneider: One perspective of interoperability is crossing boundaries (that didn't need crossing

in the past or haven't been considered explicitly in the past)

Simon Spero: [summary of discussion: labels/words are for people ; Mike Bennett points out that

business users are concerned about definitions]

Amanda Vizedom: @JohnSowa: But even in a case that appears to be as you say, nailing down and

tracking the relationship between the different concepts *independently of the local terminology* or

  • across local terminologies* is typically critical to the getting the benefit. That is, the

advantage is in being able to keep *both* local-human-interpretable presentation/usability *and*

machine usability.

Michael Uschold: @JohnSowa - there is a lot of ambiguity in natural language definitions, because we

all use terms in different ways. There is also a lot of ambiguity in formal logic definitions

because they miss so much of the intended meaning, which is more easily expressed in natural

language.

Nicola Guarino: @JohnSowa (I repeat it because there was a typo): there is a (huge) benefit related

to the terminology used, ONE related to the way the formalization of the intended meanind is done

(independently from computational aspects), and finally one related to the computational use of the

terminology (typically for taxonomic reasoning)

Nicola Guarino: @MichaelGruninger & Michael Uschold: maybe JohnSowa's point on distinguishing between

different uses of ontologies (terminological clarification vs. formal clarification vs. automated

reasoning) can be made explicit in the "application framework"...

Michael Grüninger: @Nicola: Yes

Michael Uschold: Re: @Nicola's comment about incorporating @JohnSowa's distinction. Agree, this

should be incorporated. To some extent it is there already.

Simon Spero: [My diss. topic is on interface between controlled vocabularies and ontologies. It's

been misunderstood by people on both sides since before Aristotle was a gleam in his father's eye]

Bart Gajderowicz: Regarding controlled vocabularies, there is a survey out about this. Perhaps

beneficial to check back on the results:

http://semanticweb.com/finding-out-whether-controlled-vocabularies-matter_b18740

Michael Uschold: On Value metrics: if a value model is a subset or subtype of another one, maybe a

good idea is to show this in a venn diagram or tree structure.

Simon Spero: [Now moving to track 3 - Value Models, Value Metrics and Value Proposition]

Peter P. Yim: ALL: please identify clearly who you are addressing with "@" before your message (like

@MichaelGruninger or @MichaelUschold, @JohnSowa or @JohnBateman, so that it will not be ambiguous) -

I need that help because in the post-processing of the chat transcript, I will reshuffle the dialog

so that Questions and Answers, and related discussion are placed adjacent to one another

Rex Brooks: @ToddSchneider, I believe you were referring to the granularity matching between use case

and metrics.

Michael Uschold: Some of @ToddSchneider's material on value models and metrics could be integrated

into the ontology application framework, rather than standing alone.

Rex Brooks: Yes!

Simon Spero: [track change - track 4 - Strategies for "Making the Case"]

Simon Spero: [weren't FFC's actors often drunk, on LSD, or both?]

Alan Rector: The speaker keeps fading out

Rex Brooks: Yes, we need Matthew to speak a little louder.

Rex Brooks: The granularity issue applies to the strategy, too. If we narrow our focus to specific

use-cases or the most generic use cases, we stand a better chance of scoring well.

Rex Brooks: The notion of which values count most is a good consideration.

Bart Gajderowicz: Is there any benefit to talking about sub-ontologies, micro-theories (Cyc term) or

axioms in repositories (COLORE) vs. full ontologies? Full ontologies may be overkill for most

applications?

Mike Bennett: @Bart one or 2 of the case studies showed benefit in reuse of existing, common ontology

concepts

Rex Brooks: @Bart: Not sure I would use those kinds of arguments to any audience other than other

ontologists or folks with an interest in ontology. For the end users I would focus on solving their

problems and only bring up HOW if asked.

Simon Spero: It turns out that Data Quality has to have a case made for it too, alas. [

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1534235 ]

John Bateman: @BartGajderowicz: definitely, but only when the audience has got out of the elevator,

into the meeting room and then onto the details... so a question of granularity in what level of

pitch when I'd guess. Part of the methodology for engineering things properly (so it is a selling

point that there *is* a methodology).

Nicola Guarino: @Matthew: speaking of the role of ontology on data quality, it occurs to me that in

many cases just "ontology awareness" is enough to produce good data (e.g., choosing good,

non-ambiguous names for the entities we talk of), without necessarily using ontologies as artefacts.

This means that a certain ontology education is necessary for building the controlled vocabularies

John F. Sowa mentions...

Matthew West: @Nicola: Yes. You have relatively little chance of success without an ontological

approach, even if that is not what it is called.

Amanda Vizedom: @Bart - this touches another angle, of great interest to me, from which the framework

can be used: the need to better understand ontology best practices and principles of good ontology

design. There is very little work done that reflects or addresses the way good practices depend, in

many ways, on the application context. Seeing how this framework might help us understand those

dependencies is a direction of great promise, I think!

Bart Gajderowicz: @AmandaVizedom: Yes. I've notices some work on analyzing adoption of Semantic Web

technologies, now that there is enough information. There's a few reports I ran across. I need to

dig them up and can forward.

Bart Gajderowicz: @MikeBennett: Thanks, I saw the slides on reuse. I was referring more to the size

of the ontologies. For example, FOAF and Good Relations are relatively small but very specific in

their scope, which (assuming) helped with their adoption.

Mike Bennett: @Bart there is definitely a case to be made for a set of common, granular ontologies

that people can refer to (time, geog, accounting, legal etc.).

Bart Gajderowicz: @RexBrooks: same answer. Smaller ontologies are specific to a particular problem,

so more relatable to the end user.

Rex Brooks: @Bart: agreed.

Mike Bennett: @Bart the audience to whom to make that case is the Linked Data folks I think

Bart Gajderowicz: @MikeBennett: Agreed. But I view sub-ontologies as being used in analyzing data,

not just linking it. When I look at the Dataset Publishing Language (DSPL) project, "Slices" look

like different combinations of relationships between "Concepts". These "Slices" resemble

sub-ontologies to me. http://code.google.com/apis/publicdata/docs/tutorial.html

Mike Bennett: @Bart interesting. thanks for the pointer. One thing we have done in the EDM Council

work is identify common terms and commit to trying to find the most appropriate standard for each

(e.g. ISO 3166 for countries).

Bart Gajderowicz: @MikeBennett: Thanks. I will take a look at this work.

Mike Bennett: MatthewWest's Slide 10 is a better list of the kinds of people we should make the case

to, than what I had in the Case Studies similar slide.

Matthew West: @MikeBennett: I notice there is considerable crosstalk between the tracks. Ours in

particular, since it is so general. You might want to pick up MDM as a case study too.

Peter P. Yim: [track change - track 5 - Grand Challenges]

Michael Uschold: I agree with @JohnSowa's voice comment that the grand challenge problems are more

general AI problems than ontology problems per se.

Rex Brooks: @JohnSowa: Agreed. A Grand Challenge would be to "Make the Cases for Ontology"

highlighting the "Cases".

Michael Uschold: On the Grand Challenge track. While it is useful and interesting overall, I do not

see a clear connection to how to make a case for ontology. What has been learned in this track that

can be distilled into a tip, hint or guideline that helps make a case for ontology?

Steve Ray: @MikeUschold: I think this track simply provides a pointer to future opportunity areas

where one could apply the methods we are articulating.

Peter P. Yim: @JohnSowa @MichaelUschold - as Matthew pointed out (slide#3) there is effective, NO CASE

for Ontology (as was pointed out analogously during the Track-4 session, that there is no case for

calculus) ... but the Grand Challenges will be able to focus our energy

John Bateman: @MichaelUschold: I guess this is along the lines: these applications are fantastic, to

do them ontologies are a must, therefore this is the case for ontology... But I wonder if we can

find applications which really are completely irresistable.

Nicola Guarino: John: +1

Matthew West: @JohnBateman: The things you are mentioning are research goals we need to identify.

Nicola Guarino: @RamSriram: Speaking of great challenges, I would like to point to

http://www.futurict.ethz.ch/FuturICT. FuturICT is a proposal for a 10-years European "Flagship"

project, which scored first in a recent call, aiming at world-wide simulation, data interpretation,

crisis management, etc. Great opportunities for ontologies, especially for ontology of large scale

socio-technical systems

Matthew West: The thing about grand challenges is that they have some objective, you know when you

have succeeded. I think an important prequel to grand challenges are research goals. What are the

current gaps? A useful Grand Challenge would then depend on the achievement of some of those

research goals.

John Bateman: I doubt there is going to be a grand challenge for *ontology* that is of interest to

outsiders; the only challenges will *have* to be specific problems where ontologies can be argued to

provide an important part of the work: as in FuturICT.

Bart Gajderowicz: @JohnBateman: Yes. The granularity is much more relatable to end-users. You

basically speak their language. The pitch woudl be something like " sub-ontology A is about geo,

sub-ontology B is about time, etc. One of these may fit you domain.

Alden Dima: @JohnBateman I would also agree with you. We are asking potential "customers" for grand

challenges and they don't per se care about ontologies. So I think we are running the risk of asking

for challenges and then saying "Sorry not what we were looking for". But perhaps we should look for

multidisciplinary challenges in which we can play a significant role and then partner with the other

disciplines.

Ramdsriram: @John: The purpose of the track is to identify a few grand challenges computational

problems and identify opportunities for ontologies. For example, can we achieve the "kind of things"

that Eliot, Ramesh, and Nabil talked about without using any ontologies (or related technology).

Simon Spero: Is there an elevator in the NIST building?

Alden Dima: @Simon - we do have elevators in our buildings. I believe that the room for the Summit is

on the ground floor.

Simon Spero: Alden Dima: I think that testing an elevator speech in an NIST elevator is pretty good

metric

Alden Dima: @Simon - we can start with the elevator in the tall admin building and work our way to

the shorter ones...

Todd Schneider: All, I have to go.

Rex Brooks: Bye Todd. You gave a fine presentation, Todd.

Peter P. Yim: [track change - Communique]

Michael Uschold: I'm getting on my cell, two seconds, hang on

Mike Bennett: @MichaelUschold (re slide 4) but does "the Ontology community" have one understanding

of what it means and what it's used for?

Rex Brooks: @MichaelUschold: I think this is a terrific way to go and I look forward to the interim

and final versions.

Mike Bennett: @Matthew indeed. Master data management (as distinct from metadata management - had me

going!) is a feature of some of our case studies e.g. industry standard terms across an industry

gets deployed in a number of ways within firms including master data (golden source), metadata

repositories and other application areas.

Peter P. Yim: @MichaelUschold - just to make sure nothing falls through the crack, can you identify

exactly who has promised you text by end-of-day Monday, please?

Nicola Guarino: MichaelUschold's scheme is GREAT, I am just a little bit concerned about its level of

ambition...

Mike Bennett: I promised text my end of Monday

Matthew West: I did

Ramdsriram: @Peter: We should have a rough draft (hopefully).

Rex Brooks: I'm pretty sure Todd has promised Track 3 by end of Monday. If not I will speak with him.

Terry Longstreth: Put the email address on the chat

Peter P. Yim: @Steve - ref. the dinner, the way you did it last year (a email to the list with a link

someone can click on to provide you the response, offline) that would be great!

Peter P. Yim: great session ... very productive!

Joel Bender: thank you!

Nicola Guarino: I agree, very productive and promising!

Peter P. Yim: -- session ended: 11:36am PDT --

-- end of in-session chat-transcript --

  • Further Question & Remarks - please post them to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv
    • all subscribers to the previous summit discussion, and all who responded to today's call will automatically be subscribed to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv
    • if you are already subscribed, post to <ontology-summit [at] ontolog.cim3.net>
    • (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.
      • please email <peter.yim@cim3.com> if you have any question.

Audio Recording of this Session

  • To download the 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: 31-Mar-2011 9:39am ~ 11:36am PDT
  • Duration of Recording: 1 Hour 46 Minutes
  • Recording File Size: 12.1 MB (in mp3 format)
  • suggestions:
    • its best that you listen to the session while having the respective presentations opened in front of you. You'll be prompted to advance slides by the speaker.
    • Take a look, also, at the rich body of knowledge that this community has built together, over the years, by going through the archives of noteworthy past Ontolog events. (References on how to subscribe to our podcast can also be found there.)

Additional Resources

  • Homepage of OntologySummit2011
    • Ontology Summit 2011 Launch Event - ConferenceCall_2011_01_20
    • "Ontology Application Framework" session - ConferenceCall_2011_02_03
    • "Ontology Applications & Use Cases - I" - ConferenceCall_2011_01_27
    • "Ontology Applications & Use Cases - II" - ConferenceCall_2011_02_10
    • "Value Metrics, Value Models and the Value Proposition" - ConferenceCall_2011_02_17
    • "Strategies for 'Making the case'" - ConferenceCall_2011_02_24
    • "Integrating the Ontology Application Framework, User Cases and Value Metrics" - ConferenceCall_2011_03_03
    • "Perspectives from the European Commission" - ConferenceCall_2011_03_17
    • "Grand Challenges" - ConferenceCall_2011_03_24
  • [ontology-summit] mailing list archives - http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
  • Homepage of this annual Summit series - see: OntologySummit

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)

Note that we will start promptly; if you are new to this setting, please dial-in to the conference call 5~10 minutes before the scheduled start time!

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Thursday 31-Mar-2011
  • Start Time: 9:30am PDT / 12:30pm EDT / 6:30pm CEST / 5:30pm BST / 16:30 UTC
  • Expected Call Duration: ~2.0 hours
  • Dial-in Number:
    • from a US telephone (US): +1-218-844-8060 (domestic long distance cost will apply)
    • When calling in from a phone, use Conference ID: "4389979#"
    • from Europe, call:
      • Austria 0820-4000-1577
      • Belgium 070-35-9992
      • France 0826-100-280
      • Germany 01805-00-7642
      • Ireland 0818-270-037
      • Italy 848-390-179
      • Spain 0902-886-056
      • Switzerland 0848-560-327
      • UK 0844-581-9148
    • callers from other countries please dial into either one of the US or European numbers
  • Shared-screen support (VNC session), if applicable, 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 above and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.
  • Discussions and Q & A:
    • (Unless the conference host has already muted everyone) Please mute your phone, by pressing "*2" on your phone keypad, when a presentation is in progress. To un-mute, press "*3"
    • You can type in your questions or comments through the browser based chat session by:
    • or point your browser to: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontolog_20110331
      • 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.
    • (when everyone is muted) If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please "raise your hand (virtually)" by click on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the speaker or the session moderator (again, press "*3" on your phone to unmute). 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 "*2" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)
    • 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) ontolog_20110331@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!
  • 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

  • Expecting:
    • ... if you are coming to the session, please add your name above (plus your affiliation, if you aren't already a member of the community) above; or e-mail <peter.yim@cim3.com> so that we can reserve enough resources to support everyone's participation. ...



Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2011_03_31&oldid=333"