Actions

Ontolog Forum

Ontology Summit 2012 (Pre-launch) Community Input and Planning Session - Thu 2011-12-08

  • Topic: Refining the ideas around the theme and program for OntologySummit2012
  • Co-chairs: Dr. SteveRay (CMU) & Mr. PeterYim (Ontolog)
  • Agenda: This is a (pre-launch) communitywide brainstorming and planning session for OntologySummit2012

Abstract

The upcoming Ontology Summit is co-organized by Ontolog, NIST, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA, NCO_NITRD.

This is the 7th year we are organizing this annual, international, open Ontology Summit event. The general format of the event comprises a series of both virtual and face-to-face activities that span about 3 months (January through March or April each year). These activities include a vigorous three-month online discourse on the theme of the Summit, virtual panel discussions, research activities, and so on, which will culminate in a two-day face-to-face workshop and symposium at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA. Each year, we publish a Summit Communiqué to offer a message from the Summit participants to the world-at-large as a signature activity of the Ontology Summit series.

This is a (pre-launch) communitywide brainstorming and planning session for those who are passionate about the subject and would like to influence and help drive the outcome by helping refine the ideas, organization and process, around our challenge of OntologySummit2012.

During this session the Ontology Summit community will get together to distill the theme, brainstorm on ideas, candidate program, candidate key players we need to engage, solicit commitments, and make attempt to get organized for this upcoming Ontology Summit.

At this point, two themes are presented as alternatives:

(Ref.: Suggestions for the Ontology Summit - OntologySummit/Suggestions)

  • 1. Ontology: Solutions for Systems Engineering
    • alt1: Tackling Real System Engineering Problems with Ontology
    • alt2: Tackling Real Systems Engineering Problems ?
    • alt3: Ontology: Engineering Systems of the Future
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.
o Software engineering
o Business rules and enterprise issues
o Socio-technical environment
o Big Data
o Ontology Quality in Context
  • 2. Ontology: Engineering Big Data
    • alt1: Ontology: Throwing a lifeline to Big Data
    • alt2: Making Sense of Big Data
"Big Data" to include several dimensions:
o Complexity of collections
o Large quantities of data
o Heterogeneity of data (e.g. 600 different representations of patient records)
o Federation of distributed data sources
o Extracting (useful) knowledge out of big data (using ontology to UNDERSTAND data)
  • 1+2. Maybe a combination of both - under something like: Ontology in "Complex Systems"
  • For either option:

This summit will formulate recommendations for the application of ontological techniques to specific key problems we are facing in the subject area.

  • Potential supporting tracks:
    • Health applications
    • Reference Data / Authoritative Data
    • Business Process Data
    • Net-centric Society
    • Grand Challenge Problems (could be preparation for 2013 Summit)

Our developing 2012 Ontology Summit home page is at: OntologySummit2012

Agenda & Proceedings

0. Participant self-introduction (if size of participants is manageable) (15~30 seconds each)

1. Introduction and ideas for co-chairs - [ slides ]

2. Open floor for ideas on developing and executing the program (All) -- please refer to process above

2.1 Refining the theme
o the selected theme is: OntologySummit2012: "Ontology for Big Systems"
2.2 Brainstorming on ideas that support the theme
o who (organizations, individuals) should we really try to engaging
o Tracks, Topics, Speakers, Invitees, Sponsors, Publicity ... and more
o Crafting a program that will allow us to make the best out of this next Ontology Summit
o Approach and Execution

3. A call for volunteers and champions ... and, getting ourselves organized - note: first organizing committee meeting date: Friday, 6-Jan-2012 10:00am EST / 4:00pm CET (tentative! ... note that this has been updated after the end of the session)

4. Summary and wrap-up (co-chairs) - please mark Ontology Summit 2012 Launch date: Thursday, 12-Jan-2012 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm CET - see details on developing session page at: ConferenceCall_2012_01_12

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 of chat session --

Peter P. Yim: Welcome to the

= Ontology Summit 2012 (Pre-launch) Community Input and Planning Session - Thu 2011-12-08 =

Topic: Refining the ideas around the theme and program for Ontology Summit 2012

Co-chairs: Steve Ray & Peter P. Yim

Session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_12_08

Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute

Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu, select "Show Dial Pad" there

== Proceedings: ==

anonymous morphed into Tim Wilson

anonymous morphed into Christopher Spottiswoode

anonymous morphed into Pat Cassidy

Ali Hashemi: Is there someone in charge of the Skype "joinconference" id? It appears offline for me.

Steve Ray: Did you type in the PIN? 141184#

Ali Hashemi: I'm restarting Skype, but i didn't have an option of connecting to joinconference

because the contact appeared offline.

Ali Hashemi: Contact appeared online after restart

Steve Ray: Good news. Hope to hear your voice.

Peter P. Yim [added subsequently]: one can actually skype "joinconference" even when it appears to be

off-line; at least that works for me every time

Ali Hashemi: 1) Click on the "Call" dropdown menu; 2) Click on "Show Dial Pad"; 3) Enter the pin from

the "dial pad"

Mike Bennett: By the way on the joiconference Skype, at least in one version of Skype it does not

display a numeric keypad, thereby making it impossible to type in the conference ID!

Mike Bennett: Yes, I also failed to read Peter's instructions above.

Ali Hashemi: Ah

anonymous morphed into Amanda Vizedom

anonymous morphed into Elisa Kendall

anonymous morphed into Bo Newman

anonymous1 morphed into Martin Serrano

anonymous morphed into Ken Allgood

anonymous morphed into Michael Riben

anonymous morphed into Nikolay Borgest

anonymous morphed into Michael Riben

Joanne Luciano: Should I be looking/downloading some slides - or is that later. Please post the link

here:

Ali Hashemi:

http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/2011-12-08_OntologySummit2012-pre-launch/OntologySummit2012-pre-launch-brainstorm--SteveRay-PeterYim_20111208.pdf

Joanne Luciano: thanks!

Peter P. Yim: when in doubt, check the session page -

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_12_08 - brief instructions are at the

very top now - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_12_08#nid308P

Jack Ring: Six facets of ontology - system engineering.

Joanne Luciano: So, how can you know if ontology is helping if there are no metrics in place to

evaluate that?

Joanne Luciano: by "you" I mean "we"

Mike Bennett: @Joanne we looked at that for last year's Summit.

Joanne Luciano: @Mike -- and? (BTW, I do like addressing Big Data)

Jack Ring: 10X Better, Faster Systems Engineering.

Ali Hashemi: @Joanne -

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ValueMetrics_CommunityInput

Tim Wilson: I have to leave the call soon, but I am very interested in the System Engineering aspects

of Ontology as well as Ontology Acquisition, including text analytics.

Jack Ring: Ontology --- Relief from complexity

Matthew West: Sorry I'm late. Struggled to get Skype working.

Amanda Vizedom: Can someone address how the proposed "Big Data" theme relates to other items on the

suggestions page? E.g., is it approximate to Cory's suggestion?

Bo Newman: as part of either topic I would like to see something that focuses on working with

multi-perspective semantics

Pat Cassidy: Ontology in complex systems fits in with my interest in the ability of ontology to

support interoperability. Perhaps we may somehow mention the "cloud" as being a place where complex

systems may reside or interact?

Amanda Vizedom: Yup

Ali Hashemi: I think Amanda means this:

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions ?

Joanne Luciano: @Ali -- thanks for the link!

Amanda Vizedom: I'm trying to get a better sense of what is meant by this theme.

Christopher Spottiswoode: @Steve: I would like to congratulate you on both the themes chosen. Each is

good, the combination excellent.

Steve Ray: @Christopher: Thank you.

anonymous morphed into Hasan Sayani

Bo Newman: Unifying topic - pros and cons of multi-perspective semantics

Bo Newman: Or simply multi-perspective semantics

Bo Newman: Background on multi-perspective semantics: Dealing with differences in meaning (semantics)

based on individual perspectives can be addressed by either moving to a single shared perspective

(ontology) or by expanding the collective ontology to encompass the full richness of the concept.

Each has challenges: Developing a shared ontology needs to avoid the pitfalls of reductionism.

Expanded or collective ontologies face the challenge of incorporating implicit/tacit aspects that

define the individual perspectives.

Amanda Vizedom: +1 for BoNewman's suggestion. Addressing multiple perspectives is essential for

large-scale federation, applications with localization, and anything that involves sharing

information across user communities, over time, etc.

Mike Bennett: +1 here also for multiple perspective semantics. We've been looking at some of this

within our efforts but would like to see a broader effort and consensus. Defines archetypal of

"simplest possible" concepts which by definition are not local to most of our individual industries.

Lots of good ontologies to leverage for such an effort, just show consensus way of using these

together e.g. in linked data.

Ken Allgood: Agree with Bo's topic. The work I'm doing right now in the electronic health record

arena is directly dependent upon multiple perspective harmonization within big data federation.

Amanda Vizedom: What Bo is talking about is critical to federation and to web-like environments - you

need to capture rich contextual elements and provenance info also, to be able to preserve meaning of

data when crossing context lines.

Bo Newman: Multi-perspective semantics track application: (1) Big Data, especially when working with

aggregates of, and usability across multiple domains is logically subject to the issues associated

with multi-perspective semantics. (2) System engineering, especially when dealing a broad spectrum

of customers, developers, and stakeholders each with their own perspective, has also experienced

problems that could be directly related to issues generated by misaligned multi-perspective

semantics.

Jack Ring: A joint Working Group of the International Council on 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.

Leo Obrst: Per Jack's note: see

http://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/projects/unified-ontology-of-science-systems.

Pat Cassidy: Jack - are the online references to these efforts toward a "unified ontology"

Pat Cassidy: The ability to have a common unifying ontology and multiple perspectives are not mutually

exclusive. My conclusions from the past 15 years of ontology discussions is that a common basic

ontology can be used to **translate** among all the diverse terminologies, perspectives, belief

systems, and applications. The basic ontology should be able to be small enough to be mastered by at

least one data developer in each group, who can then serve as the bilingual translator between the

local system and the broader group.

Ken Allgood: @Pat, excellent point, and one which is often missed in discussions around "big, scary,

ontologies" in actual system design and engineering.

Eric Chan: I suggest to reach out to "The Society for Design and process Science"

http://www.sdpsnet.org/sdps/ as a "partnering community" for the theme on "application of ontology"

... "in transdisciplinary system engineering."

Michael Grüninger: do we want to distinguish "systems engineering" from "software engineering"?

Ken Allgood: How Ontology can address big data issues in federation, harmonization, etc??

Amanda Vizedom: I'm still not sure what the two main themes are supposed to be; they are so open to

multiple interpretations.

Ali Hashemi: +1 Amanda

Amanda Vizedom: Depending on how the themes are defined, I can easily see both "semantics from, and

across multiple perspectives" and "ontology quality in context" (which we mean specifically to

indicate metrics and methods for evaluating fitness for purpose) as tracks under either of the two

major themes. But again, each still feels too underspecified for shared understanding and intention,

here.

Ali Hashemi: I concur with Amanda. A lot of the "content" items we're discussing could easily fit

into both of the themes. Big data _requires_ systems engineering, and the major focus of many system

engineering projects these days will be Big Data. The latter (i.e. "Big Data") will have greater

cachet with a broader audience though.

Steve Ray: If we went with "systems engineering", we could break it down into the major components,

to include design, validation, testing... and how ontology plays a role in each.

Jack Ring: Ontology, the missing link in systems engineering.

Christopher Spottiswoode: @Jack: yes, that's it!

Matthew West: Systems Engineering and big data meet in big engineering systems. Think of the quantity

and complexity of data for e.g. an offshore oilrig, or an aircraft carrier.

Matthew West: @Ali. [@Michael ?] I'm assuming Systems Engineering means hardware systems, or systems

with embedded software. What do you mean?

Ali Hashemi: @Matthew, that's one source of confusion for me. Is it restricted to hardware systems,

or the more general systems which would encompass applications that will rely on Big Data (say

sensor fields), or epidemic tracking etc... It's unclear to me from the theme names.

Peter P. Yim: @MatthewWest - I trust we are *not* equating Systems Engineering with hardware systems or

embedded system, but rather taking the broader "Systems" definition ... which should include

man-machine systems, system-of-systems, etc.

Elisa Kendall: At the OMG, there have been a number of discussions and some work in the past year for

aligning ontology with SysML, which is a UML profile for systems engineering modeling support in

UML. JPL, for example, has developed an ontology that allows transformation of SysML models such

that they can be reasoned over to identify problems in those models. Given that JPL gets "one shot"

at sending systems into space, any capability that can assist in eliminating problems in systems

models is incredibly important. If we are talking about ontological support for systems engineering,

rather than the engineering of systems supported by ontologies, this is one area we could piggyback

on and we could reach out to that community to get their input.

Pat Cassidy: I'm somewhat reluctant to match "systems engineering" with "ontology". Either term may

be mysterious to a lot of people, and the combination of specialized terms in a title might well

convince all but a few hard-core ontolog participants that it is not relevant to their purposes.

Jack Ring: Ontology enables big data + big function = big valuable societal benefits.

Christopher Spottiswoode: @Jack: Yes, keep it up!

Peter P. Yim: personally, I am in favor of using this summit to team ontologists up with system

engineers, so "together" this team will be in a much better position to address "big data" problems

Ali Hashemi: +1 to PeterYim's point. On its own, the use of the term Big Data entails greater

relevance to the broader technology conversation.

Ken Allgood: @Peter.. Agree.. That's exactly the direction we might wish to consider to increase the

recognition and perceived benefit of an ontology-driven solution

Bo Newman: I agree with Peter: Ontology as a component of a solution is a much more extendable

position than ontology as the solution.

Ken Allgood: Big Data opportunities are dependent upon the contextual clarity ontologies provide.

Todd Schneider: I concur with Peter's approach - Systems Engineering first, then use this to

understand how to work with big data.

Steve Ray: My own personal concerns and opinions: Big Data is a bit more focused, and thus possibly

amenable to yield some concrete contribution. One other potential pitfall is that systems

engineering as a field of study might come across as an overly academic discussion (although, of

course, many industries use systems engineering regularly).

Jack Ring: Ontologies unify general systems thinking and general semantics thereby bridging a

long-standing, deep divide in human endeavors.

Matthew West: @Ali My understanding is that those who consider themselves systems engineers in the

broadest sense are concerned with the integration of multiple components where those components may

include but are not restricted to hardware, software, and people. The main restriction in Systems

Engineering is that it is man made. There is an even broader view of systems that would include e.g.

ecosystems, but these are not engineered, but are naturally occurring.

Ali Hashemi: One vote for the broader Systems Engineering -- I think a lot of people don't quite

wholly understand how ontologies fit into the bigger picture of the actual applications that people

are developing. It would be tremendously useful to demonstrate what roles ontologies can play in

bigger systems.

Matthew West: We could go for big data with Systems Engineering as a thread, since there is often big

data involved in big systems.

Amanda Vizedom: Following @MatthewWest's comment: Given that understanding of systems engineering,

I'm more comfortable that we actually have a focused topic. I also think the inclusion of human

components (and therefore factors) is worth emphasizing.

Christopher Spottiswoode: @Leo: But the basis of managing and exploiting Big Data has to reside in

system and data architecture, organization and management - all Systems Engineering!

Christopher Spottiswoode: @Leo: ... and Systems Engineering has to cater for Big Data.

Jack Ring: We need a track, if not a theme, on the impact of forthcoming massively parallel hardware

on the design of ontologies. The era of full duplex semantic data management is here.

Todd Schneider: Fabian, Have you ever had to try to develop a 'big' system? There many problems.

Todd Schneider: Fabian, your argument would suggest that there's a bigger payoff for addressing

systems engineering.

Amanda Vizedom: @ToddSchneider -- I think we need more along that line; it wasn't clear to me until

Steve's earlier comment that Systems Engineering was being positioned as a problem space here.

Fabian Neuhaus: @Todd. Hmmm? I tried to argue that a problem driven Summit is more interesting than a

discussion about technology

Todd Schneider: Fabian, how about the problem of requirements elicitation?

Jack Ring: How about just Big, Evolving Systems

Eric Chan: One caveat: "systems engineering" may not be inclusive enough for scientific disciplines

which are not engineering the system but understanding natural phenomenon

Matthew West: There is also the role of ontologies in the engineering of systems.

Jack Ring: The problem of requirements elicitation is the presumption of requirements elicitation.

Fabian Neuhaus: @Todd. Do you suggest "The problem of requirements elicitation" as a subject for the

Summit?

Todd Schneider: Fabian, it could be. It's part of systems engineering.

Fabian Neuhaus: @ Todd. The majority of the organizing committee likes bigger themes. But I

personally would have liked a problem on that scale.

Amanda Vizedom: Following @FabianNeuhaus's comment: I can see "Systems Engineering" as either tool

kit or problem space, in contrast to Fabian's view of it as a tool. But I think that the theme isn't

focused enough, and is confusing, unless we get very clear on whether we mean SE as tool kit, SE as

problem space, or SE as both, possibly paired with ontology as both in a variety of mutually

supportive relationships. I think the latter is what Peter is suggesting. But can we scope and focus

that well enough?

Jack Ring: let's do "Big Systems" or "Big Intelligent Systems"

Ali Hashemi: @Jack -- do we have the wherewithal to push this term? I agree with the ambiguity around

Systems Engineering... It seems like these novel phrases would suffer from the same problem,

especially since this summit doesn't exactly have the highest profile.

Todd Schneider: +1 for 'Big Systems' (it has a good spin)

Eric Chan: +1 Big Data Systems

Peter P. Yim: +1 for "Big Intelligent Systems" ... (and we do BOTH "System Engineering" and "Big Data"

under that umbrella)

Bo Newman: One of the strengths of the ontology domain is that its meaning has not been diluted by an

array of alternate terms. The way we name our themes and topics needs to re-enforce who we are

rather than dilute the concept

Amanda Vizedom: Same point about Big data, though -- we would need to focus in more than that. Big

data usability? Big data management? It's Big!

Martin Serrano: what about as theme Proposal --> Applied Ontologies: Towards bridging the gap between

Big Data Services and Systems Engineering

Barry Smith: Ontology is already making serious contributions to Big Data on many fronts -- above all

genomics, intelligence analysis, ...

Barry Smith: Suggested titles: Ontology and Big Data; Ontology and Big Data Systems; Ontology and Big

Intelligent Systems

Ali Hashemi: +1 - Ontology and Big Data Systems

Amanda Vizedom: Please give the choices before asking for votes on each.

Fabian Neuhaus: @ Amanda Vizedom: I agree that scoping would help a lot

Bo Newman: Suggest those with their "hand up" clear that first before the vote (click on the hand

button)

Jack Ring: Intelllgent, scalable systems vs. Big Data vs. Systems Engineering

Steve Ray: == Please vote for: #1 Systems engineering ... #2 Big systems ... #3 Big data

Amanda Vizedom: @SteveRay: are these all "Ontology & ## ?"

Steve Ray: @Amanda: Yes

Ali Hashemi: it show the number beside the Queue

Todd Schneider: Current thinking would suggest that solutions to 'big data' requires intelligent

systems. Intelligent systems need to be develop in an intelligent fashion.

Amanda Vizedom: I still am not sure what it ("Big Data") means! I might have voted for it, otherwise.

Michael Riben: @amanda +1

Fabian Neuhaus: @ amanda +1

Ali Hashemi: +1 Amanda

Mike Bennett: I'm sort of assuming that the stuff we talked about re semantics sharing comes under

Big Data but not sure.

Amanda Vizedom: +1 Mike Bennett

Ali Hashemi: can we vote twice? ... [ to which Steve verbally answered: "No" ]

Amanda Vizedom: But again, my choice between 2 and 3 might flip if I understood them better.

Martin Serrano: I can't see a big difference between 2 and 3

Peter P. Yim: == straw votes received: #1 Systems engineering - 3 ... #2 Big systems - 12 ... #3 Big

data - 8

Jack Ring: Please do not use complex. Intelligent or autonomous will attract more attention.

Christopher Spottiswoode: Yes, autonomous - "intelligent" is easily misconstrued.

Martin Serrano: I support the idea of Open Linked Data (Big Data) however Does Big systems come up as

a bridging gap ?

Ali Hashemi: That was my understanding for #2... (Big Data Systems)

Jack Ring: Society needs big decisions not just more data

Matthew West: Big Systems is supposed to be something more than just software.

Martin Serrano: I understood same, I hope that is the common and general agreement

Barry Smith: how about something like "Big Data Systems" or "Ontology-based Systems for Big Data"

Ali Hashemi: +1 to Barry's suggestion.

Michael Riben: I like Barry's Suggestion +1

Amanda Vizedom: Some of the ambiguity, in either case, will probably turn into tracks addressing the

variant interpretations. But that increases the risk of being to big/unfocused.

Bo Newman: good

Jack Ring: Are you selecting themes for what needs to be said or what you all want to say?

Amanda Vizedom: Big Data -> Big Information

Amanda Vizedom: Semantically-enabled Big Data Systems

Fabian Neuhaus: We are now just juggling words. This is not helping to get a focused topic.

Matthew West: In big systems a major use of ontology is in data quality. That is not particularly

"smart".

Amanda Vizedom: A little bird is telling me that "exascale" is the buzzword for "big" now.

Amanda Vizedom: Semantically-Enabled Exascale Data Systems --> SEEDS

Martin Serrano: yeah in +1 in that comment

Todd Schneider: There are (too) many examples of 'big' systems that failed to be realized (i.e., that

were canceled after too much waste and intermediate failures) due to the complexity involved. The

use of ontological practices and ontologies may have helped avoid some of these failures.

Jack Ring: @Todd, quite so. And what made them complex, therefore not viable, was the use of

taxonomies, schema and data modeling.

Matthew West: Just stick with Ontology for Big Systems

Steve Ray: == Please vote now for: #1 Ontology for big ___ systems ... #2 No, to the above

Martin Serrano: Ontologies more make sense

Amanda Vizedom: too undefined for me to vote for either.

Amanda Vizedom: @Peter: sure, but what's in the "___"?

Peter P. Yim: == straw votes received: #1 Ontology for big ___ systems - 17 ... #2 No, to the above - 0

(no serious objections)

Bo Newman: Good discussion .... need to drop off for another call ... thanks.

Peter P. Yim: bye, Bo

Jack Ring: Big Responsive Systems

Jack Ring: Can we address the point of forthcoming, massively parallel hardware?

Todd Schneider: Amanda, how about a simple ontology for the possible tracks discussed today? That

would then suggest what should be addressed.

Steve Ray: == Please vote now for: #1: Ontology for Big Systems; #2 Ontology for Big ... Systems

Steve Ray: #2 Ontology for Big ... Systems reads: "Ontology for Big ..(something).. Systems" - we

will have to deal with the "something" in the organizing committee (if this is voted in.)

Amanda Vizedom: Sounds like a job for Survey Monkey or a Doodle Poll with rapid iterations.

Jack Ring: The Vote button above does that.

Amanda Vizedom: Ooh, vote button does multiple or order votes. Could do quick paste of all

suggestions and vote.

Peter P. Yim: we've tried the "vote" button mechanism before, and were a bit challenged, let's just

(continue to) use a show of hands (with the "hand" button.)

Peter P. Yim: == straw votes received: #1 Ontology for big systems - 10 ... #2 Ontology for Big

..(something).. Systems - 5

Peter P. Yim: == We have a Theme for Ontology Summit 2012 - "Ontology for Big Systems"

Jack Ring: There will be a track for each 'dot"

Mike Bennett: Hard to get an idea of what goes in among the dots though.

Jack Ring: Let the tracks nominate the dots

Matthew West: Please suggest something for the dots if you think we should go that way.

Ali Hashemi: "Ontology for Big Data Systems"

Michael Riben: Ali +1

Matthew West: @Ali, well that could easily be a thread anyway.

Peter P. Yim: == Please volunteer: name and facet under the theme that you want to help tackle ==

Jack Ring: Track: Implications of forthcoming massively parallel hardware.

Peter P. Yim: == please suggest track titles and make any other pertinent suggestions ==

Amanda Vizedom: I will volunteer for a Quality in Context Track (fitness for purpose, evaluation,

metrics and metrics) under whichever theme.

Jack Ring: @Amanda, are you including the quality of an ontology?

Amanda Vizedom: Yes, that's what I mean, thanks for asking. The track 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"

Ken Allgood: I will volunteer for Ontology in electronic health record/bioinformatics

Michael Riben: idea for track- NoSQL infrastructure and Ontology for Big Data and Cloud systems

Pat Cassidy: I would be willing to champion a track on exploring the 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.

Mike Bennett: I'd like to suggest ontology sharing etc. but don't have the bandwidth to head this up.

Matthew West: If there is interest in a thread on ontology of big engineering systems, I'm happy to

contribute.

Todd Schneider: How about 'Ontological Analysis in Systems Engineering'?

Matthew West: @Todd That sounds close to what I was suggesting. Happy to merge.

Todd Schneider: Matthew, sound good to merge.

Jack Ring: I was volunteering to organize a track on the hardware implications.

Eric Chan: + for aligning dots to tracks, I have Data, Process, Engineered, Multi-disciplinary,

Michael Riben: tract title: Enhancing Big Data Analytics with Ontologies

Ken Allgood: I'd recommend "information interoperability across federated data"

Peter P. Yim: == please suggest: what do we want to see as an outcome of this Summit ... (in particular,

what can we say on the Communique)? ==

Jack Ring: @Peter, I hope the outcome will be an ontology!!

Todd Schneider: Jack, Excellent thought, but an ontology of what?

Matthew West: @Todd - an ontology of systems (broad sense) might be a possibility.

Jack Ring: @Todd, An ontology of benefits of ontology-based systems and decisions.

Todd Schneider: Jack, Brilliant!

Jack Ring: Ralph Hodgson produced an ontology-based user interface for Semantic Technology Conference

in 2008 or thereabouts.

Ken Allgood: @Jack.. we could certainly leverage Ralph's work.

Jack Ring: @Ken, suggest you contact him at www.topquadrant.com

Ken Allgood: @Jack.. Already on it. Might also catch him at the next DC Semantic meetup

Ken Allgood: "Ontology-driven user experience in big data"

Ali Hashemi: @Steve -- at the end of the last summit, there was a consideration to alongside a

Communique, explicitly commit to creating a website for the summit?

Ali Hashemi: I can volunteer, but I definitely won't be able to do it alone.

Ken Allgood: I could assist Ali in the website

Amanda Vizedom: I'd like to see a track refining "Big Systems," either focusing down or presenting

some branches/subtopics.

Amanda Vizedom: Track proposal: Use cases / examples? "Use Cases for Ontologies in Big Systems"

Amanda Vizedom: For that use cases suggestion, I'd imagine that as a 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.

Peter P. Yim: @JackRing & Ali Hashemi ... good point! -- the "tradition" so far is to have a Communique

... therefore additional outcomes (a survey/study; a website; an ontology, etc.) need, first and

foremost, leadership and volunteered resources (i.e. people's time and effort)

Peter P. Yim: I am in favor of adding "a website" or "an ontology" as the deliverable ... please step up

to the plate - we need leadership and volunteers!

Todd Schneider: Have to go. Cheers.

Jack Ring: FWIW, I am greatly encouraged by all this. Thank you all for your ideas and energy. Gotta go.

Tim Darr: I have to go as well ...

Peter P. Yim: == Please suggest who else (communities / individuals) we should engage ==

Mike Bennett: I'm also working with the OMG though not as much of an expert as Elisa. Happy to make

connections.

Matthew West: There is a well known international institute of Systems Engineering INCOSE

Peter P. Yim: @Matthew or anyone - can you help engage INCOSE?

Steve Ray: I could approach some of the NIST folks for an INCOSE connection - no guarantees.

Ken Allgood: Peter & Steve.. Thanks for bringing this together.

Ali Hashemi: Thanks all.

Peter P. Yim: great session ... thanks everyone!

Amanda Vizedom: Thanks, Peter and Steve!

Steve Ray: Take care all, and happy holidays.

Peter P. Yim: -- session ended: 11:10am PST --

- end of in-session chat-transcript -

Resources

  • To participate:
    • please post further thoughts 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>
      • all previous subscribers on the list from the past year will be retained. (If you want to be removed, please by sending a blank email to <ontology-summit-leave [at] ontolog.cim3.net> from your subscribing email address, or send a note to <peter.yim@cim3.com> to request that be done for you.)
    • (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.

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: 8-Dec-2011 8:39am~11:10am PST
  • Duration of Recording: 1 Hour 28 Minutes
  • Recording File Size: 10.1 MB (in mp3 format)
  • suggestions:
    • its best that you listen to the session while having the presentation 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.)

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Thursday, 8-Dec-2011
  • Start Time: 9:30am PST / 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm CET / 17:30 UTC
  • Expected Call Duration: ~1.5 hours
  • Dial-in:
    • Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... (long distance cost may apply)
      • ... [ backup nbr: (415) 671-4335 ]
    • Skype: joinconference ... (generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer)
    • when prompted enter PIN: 141184#
  • 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 (where applicable) and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.
  • In-session chat-room url: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/summit_20111208
    • 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").
    • 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.
    • 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_20111208@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!
  • Discussions and Q & A:
    • Nominally, when a presentation is in progress, the moderator will mute everyone, except for the speaker.
    • 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.)
    • 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.)
    • 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.)
  • RSVP to peter.yim@cim3.com appreciated, ... or simply just by adding yourself to the "Expected Attendee" list below (if you are a member of the team.)
  • 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.

Attendees



Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2011_12_08&oldid=335"