Actions

Ontolog Forum

Ontology Summit 2012: Postmortem Session - Thu 2012-04-26

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2012: "Ontology for Big Systems"

Session Topic: OntologySummit2012 (postmortem) review and follow-up action planning

Session Co-chairs: Dr. Leo Obrst, Dr. Ram D. Sriram & Professor MichaelGruninger

Archives

Abstract

Session Topic: OntologySummit2012 (postmortem) review and follow-up action planning

With the adjournment of the OntologySummit2012_Symposium (on 13-Apr-2012) we have completed the program of this year's OntologySummit. This has been our 7th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by Ontolog, NIST, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD with the support of our co-sponsors. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit was: "Ontology for Big Systems."

The event today is our virtual postmortem session. We will be expecting participants of this year's summit, as well as members of the organizing team at this session.

The goal of this session is to revisit the Ontology Summit that just finished, and to plan ahead for the future. We will discuss what worked and what can be improved during the 3 months of Ontology Summit 2012 (plus the preparation work that led up to it,) and get ideas on how to make next year's Ontology Summit even better. This meeting gives us an opportunity to develop some plans and initiatives for action that will move what we have achieved beyond the 3-month Summit itself. Further, this meeting is also an opportunity to suggest topics and themes for next year's Ontology Summit.

See also: OntologySummit (home page for the summit series) and OntologySummit/Suggestions

Agenda Ideas

  • Review what worked and what didn't this year
  • Good ideas, suggestions and possible action that arose
  • Follow-up Action planning with ...
    • the Survey
    • the Communique, journal paper(s) and other write-ups, spreading the word ... getting more endorsements
    • the (new) "ModelingBenchmarkChallenge" project
    • Teaming-up to tackle the "Big Data Challenge" and the related NSF/NIH program solicitations
    • other potential collaborative project team-ups
    • Getting the word out
  • Suggestions (e.g. topics and themes) for Ontology Summit 2013
  • ... (please insert below, anything else you may suggest)

Agenda

Ontology Summit 2012 - Postmortem Session

  • Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call
  • 2. Open discussion-I: Postmortem of this year's summit - Moderator: Ram D. Sriram - All ... (20 min) -- please refer to process above
    • what worked well and what didn't this year
    • what would/should we do differently (and how) next year
    • Good ideas, suggestions and possible action that arose
  • 4. Open discussion-II: Follow-up Action planning - Moderator: Michael Grüninger - All ... (30 min)
    • what opportunities seem to have opened up in the course of this summit?
    • possible team-ups (bi-partite or tri-partite teams) and collaborations, especially to work on the "big data challenge", grant proposals, or entrepreneurial endeavors?
    • getting the word out - action plans and champions
    • Suggestions (e.g. topics and themes) for Ontology Summit 2013
    • anything else - follow-ups or in preparation for Ontology Summit 2013
  • 5. Once again ... a solicitation to endorse the Communique if you haven't already done so
    • see: OntologySummit2012_Communique ... endorsements instructions can be found near the top of that page. (Note that endorsements will close by end-of-day 12-May-2012.)
  • 6. Summary & Wrap-up - co-chairs: Leo Obrst & Nicola Guarino

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 2012: Postmortem Session - Thu 2012-04-26

Summit Theme: Ontology Summit 2012: "Ontology for Big Systems"

Session Topic: Ontology Summit 2012 (postmortem) review and follow-up action planning

Session Co-chair: Dr. Leo Obrst, Dr. Ram D. Sriram, Professor Michael Grüninger

Program:

  • Open discussion-I: Postmortem of this year's summit - Moderator: Ram D. Sriram
  • Ongoing Follow-up activities updates

- by ToddSchneider-AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom-MikeBennett-SimonSpero, Henson Graves

Session page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_04_26

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

Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"

Proceedings:

[09:28] anonymous morphed into Cory Casanave

[09:30] anonymous morphed into Ram D. Sriram

[09:36] Henson Graves: have to check my settings,it will take me a few minutes

[09:38] Simon Spero: Salut

[09:38] Steve Ray: Francais?

[09:39] Peter P. Yim: -- session started 9:38am PDT --

[09:40] Peter P. Yim: == Leo Obrst presenting: summary report on Ontology Summit 2012 ...

[09:50] Joel Bender: It may also reflect confidence in the already committed advisory committee members! :-)

[10:02] Peter P. Yim: == Open Discussion-I: postmortem of Ontology Summit 2012 - Moderator: Ram D. Sriram

[10:02] Peter P. Yim: ALL: please capture your key points onto the chat (even if you have made them verbally)

[10:02] Frank Olken: I would urge that the summit be held somewhere more convenient next year, e.g.,

downtown Washington, DC, Arlington, or Crystal City.

[10:08] Terry Longstreth: @Frank - are you offering suitable site?

[10:10] Todd Schneider: Frank, who would pay?

[10:11] Todd Schneider: There's is also George Mason University

[10:12] Cory Casanave: I don't mind NIST, I drive from Reston.

[10:13] Frank Olken: Yes, but you have to register way ahead of time for access to the NIST site.

[10:30] Mike Bennett: There is quite a cachet to having the Summit at NIST. People who have not heard

of the Ontology Summit (or indeed of ontologies) have heard of NIST. So it's automatic credibility.

[10:13] Todd Schneider: I also don't mind driving to NIST, at least once I get past Tysons

[10:14] Mike Bennett: Once one is driving it's easy to get to. Perhaps some of us who rent or borrow

a car can carpool with those who don't? I'd be happy to do that.

[10:14] Todd Schneider: Frank, most hotels and other facilities require advance scheduling.

[10:15] Steve Ray: @Todd: To be fair, so does NIST.

[10:15] Cory Casanave: @steve, yes - OMG and other larger meetings get free rooms that you may be

able to piggyback. Another site could be MITRE.

[10:15] Steve Ray: @Cory: Agreed

[10:17] Todd Schneider: But the MITRE facility in Fairfax is in the Tysons / McLean area.

[10:18] Leo Obrst: Yes, MITRE would be possible, but a reservation for a large meeting would require

a fairly long lead-time. We have a very large auditorium (100+), and a slightly smaller venue (about 60-70).

[10:19] Leo Obrst: Also: audio-visual, etc. support would require my finding some funding internally.

[10:21] Frank Olken: MITRE is a lot closer to Dulles airport.

[10:21] Frank Olken: Also, the Metro will run to Tysons corner in either 2013 or 2014.

[10:24] Frank Olken: Tyson's Corner Metro extension will be complete in late 2013.

[10:28] Michael Grüninger: Changes in venue will lead to much more organizational overhead, and I'm

not sure whether we have the resources (i.e. people and time) to do this. Organizing the technical

content is hard enough.

[10:29] Michael Grüninger: i.e. if you want to change the venue, be prepared to be the local

organization chair.

[10:24] Bobbin Teegarden: About location suggestions, any chance we could alternate east coast with

the west coast, and maybe have the next one in Silicon Valley or environs next year?

[10:01] Michael Grüninger: Comments on Symposium: spend more time on open discussions (e.g. panel)

and demonstrations on the second day

[10:06] Amanda Vizedom: Suggestion: Schedule a Workshop(s) day for the day *after* the summit; use

this day to launch or further follow-on efforts and collaborations. Could include anything from

working to set up relationships to vocamps to do rapid development of small related ontology modules.

[10:08] Mike Bennett: @Amanda +1. ...

[10:03] Cory Casanave: Comment: The timeframe between the initial planning meetings and the start of

the virtual sessions seemed short this made it difficult to plan some of the sessions and also did

not leave much time to market the summit as it emerged. Particularly with cross discipline it could

take quite a bit of time to engage these external communities.

[10:04] Joel Bender: (en-coo-see acronym spelling and decoding please)

[10:05] Terry Longstreth: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) is a not-for-profit

membership organization founded in 1990

[10:07] Joel Bender: @Terry, thank you - for the log <http://www.incose.org/>

[10:05] Ali Hashemi: It would have been good to more explicitly reuse material from last year's

summit. The ontology usage and metrics framework was a great resource that could have been extended

to provide context to this year's discussion and allow us to provide more fine-grained

recommendations.

[10:04] Terry Longstreth: Topic for next year: 7 year retrospective (perhaps tied to a new website

page for continuous tracking) Each subject area report have minimum of following:

YEAR------THEME---Results / Accomplishments / Status TO DATE---CONTINUING/ONGOING ACTIVITIES--

[10:06] Ali Hashemi: Similarly, a commitment to greater systematicity in the capture of presented

materials would greatly facilitate reuse and make it easier to connect the content of each year's

summits to one another.

[10:07] Steve Ray: We could consider holding joint sessions with other organizations, either as part

of the regular virtual sessions, or possibly to host the Ontology Summit Symposium.

[10:08] Cory Casanave: @Steve, the OMG usually has a DC meeting in March we could schedule the week

prior in collaboration with the OMG ontology SIG.

[10:09] Steve Ray: @Cory: I definitely like the idea of some sort of liaison with OMG.

[10:09] Henson Graves: @cory OMB sounds attractive

[10:14] Steve Ray: Joint sessions with other organizations could possibly contain costs if we held

F2F sessions elsewhere.

[10:08] Mike Bennett: ... I wonder if it would work to go through the material in the Communique of

any given summit, identify what might be important findings or important bodies of work that merit

wider exposure, and think about marketing of those. In this year's case, I would suggest that the

Quality material is a useful industry resource.

[10:09] Todd Schneider: It would facilitate remote participants if a video feed of the main

conference room could be provided.

[10:11] anonymous morphed into DilvanMoreira

[10:18] Frank Olken: Peter, You may need to trademark the Ontology Summit.

[10:25] Peter P. Yim: Ram D. Sriram: because the symposium registration is free of charge, people have a

tendency to register first, and decide not to show up later. I would request that people be

conscientious of the fact that NIST gets charged by the number of registrants. Therefore, at the

least, don't casually register (unless you are coming) and *cancel* your registration (by emailing

one of the people handling the logistics) if you later find out that you can't make it to the symposium.

[10:26] Mike Bennett: @Peter perhaps that should be added to the registration page - I for one did

not know that.

[10:24] Leo Obrst: I wonder what folks think about our focus this year.

[10:25] Simon Spero: leo +1

[10:25] Cory Casanave: @Leo, I thought the focus was overly wide.

[10:26] Peter P. Yim: @Leo @Cory - I disagree that we lacked focus (or the focus being too broad) this

year

[10:26] Cory Casanave: A sharper focus as well as making it more clear what people may get out of

participating would help.

[10:26] Todd Schneider: Leo, no. There may have been a confusion among scope and focus.

[10:27] Mike Bennett: @Leo I thought at first the focus was a bit wide or woolly, but as it turned

out it scared up a lot of interesting material, so I'd say no.

[10:28] Bobbin Teegarden: @Leo @Mike I agree, the wider perspect brought out things we would have

missed imho

[10:28] Steve Ray: I think the overriding issue is that "ontology" is a tool looking for a problem,

thus we need to apply it to various problem spaces.

[10:31] Bobbin Teegarden: @Steve Could I turn that over and suggest that "ontology" might be a better

way to solve many (most?) problems (better understanding and online processing, cheaper integration

etc), and it might be fun to take major emerging problems and see how we would address them with Sem

Web and Ontos...

[10:33] Steve Ray: @Bobbin: If I understand you correctly, yes, that's what I would advocate.

[10:31] Steve Ray: I'm still confused as to why we have the fruit fly quote on the pretty page.

Funny, but I don't see the relation to our work.

[10:41] Doug Foxvog: @Steve: The fruit fly example is a traditional NL problem of multiple possible

interpretations that can be solved by ontological encoding if modeled predicates have inter-argument

type constraints.

[10:42] Steve Ray: Pretty subtle connection for the general technical audience.

[10:42] Todd Schneider: Steve, I like to be amused while working.

[10:43] Steve Ray: @Todd: No problem with that, but I do think it alienates those "not in the know"

[10:45] Todd Schneider: Steve, think of it (the silliness] as a gate keeper.

[10:45] Steve Ray: @Todd: We don't want a gatekeeper! We want to suck in the uninitiated.

[10:37] Frank Olken: Amanda, if I follow the link to the survey from the Ontology Summit web page,

the survey landing page asks for login before explaining what the survey is about. It is very

confusing ....

[10:42] Mike Bennett: The simplest thing would be a small explanation on the initial page of the

LimeSurvey thing. In the main Summit page it's buried a way down, and in a page which refers to past

events in the future tense. So I think the LimeSurvey first page needs to stand alone. It does say

that you need to register (not just asks for a login), so what's missing is only a description of

what the survey itself is.

[10:39] Leo Obrst: @Amanda: was the survey notice sent to IAOA lists?

[10:40] Leo Obrst: I also wonder if notice should be sent to some Semantic Web lists.

[10:44] Todd Schneider: Does anyone think asking the Semantic Web community to endorse the communique

is a good idea?

[10:44] Steve Ray: @Todd: I think so

[10:45] Michael Grüninger: Perhaps someone could write a summary article for ISWC

[10:45] Todd Schneider: Michael, isn't the communique a summary?

[10:47] Michael Grüninger: @Todd: An ISWC paper would be more technical than the Communique as it is

currently written

[10:47] Leo Obrst: @Michael: I think that's a great idea, i.e., ISWC.

[10:49] Todd Schneider: Michael, okay. That's doable (via spin).

[10:51] Amanda Vizedom: @Michael: I think an ISWC-appropriate paper focused on just the quality stuff

(including survey & results) is also very doable, and hope to work on that.

[10:47] Eric Chan: @Ali and @Todd: I have a comment about a sentence in communique: The Internet has

made it far easier for different people in the different parts of the world to share and combine

data, information, and knowledge. The subsequent passage implies the meanings of information and

knowledge. I believe it will benefit the general audience to explain the bifurcation of information

and knowledge as used in the communique.

[10:54] Todd Schneider: Eric, yes it would be a useful addition, but such a change represents a

substantive modification to the communique, hence can't be done at this point.

[10:50] Cory Casanave: URL for marriage example:

http://www.omgwiki.org/architecture-ecosystem/doku.php?id=composite_concepts

[10:52] Mike Bennett: To Leo's point - how much of this is language and how much is the constructs in

the ontology - agree. The specific examples would be handled differently in the patterns we use in

FIBO for example (with OWL constructs) than in some other ontologies e.g. we use second order

things in roles. Similarly some of the stuff in Matthew's example would be based on a 4D

extensional ontology framework. So there's a cross over between ontology patterns, language syntaxes

and so on.

[10:52] Steve Ray: I believe that sometimes we lose perspective on things we take for granted.

Specifically, ontologists tend to approach a new problem by thinking about the ontology (or model)

that characterizes the problem space. However, many other folks in other disciplines don't

automatically think of things this way. They may think of building a system/solution in terms of

functional modules with hidden internal data representations (think object oriented programming), or

other paradigms that are not model-based, or at least not explicitly model-based. We need to explain

to other communities these kinds of basic ways of looking at things (that we take for granted).

[10:53] Terry Longstreth: @Steve +1

[11:03] Cory Casanave: The original theory of OO put OO development and domain ontologies much

closer. This may not have worked out as well as expected :)

[10:54] Michael Grüninger: My original idea was to propose a set of benchmark problems that could be

used to compare people's approaches (including their ontology and the representation language used).

By using a commonly agreed upon set of problems, we can often avoid a lot of frustration.

[10:55] Steve Ray: I do like the concreteness of comparing different approaches to benchmark

problems. It helps us non-abstract thinkers!

[10:56] Mike Bennett: I have to drop off now - thanks all!

[11:11] Terry Longstreth: @Cory - Federation and Integration for technical/technology purposes, or

federation/integration in a social, or organizational setting?

[11:13] Cory Casanave: Terry - I look at the technical federation/integration as something done in

the context of the organizational integration/federation - so both.

[11:17] Terry Longstreth: @Cory - I agree, in the abstract, but I think someone should tackle the

integration of cognitive insights across cultures first, to provide a framework for the

technologists.

[11:19] Terry Longstreth: My point is that the problem itself is one of culture.

[11:19] Terry Longstreth: Has anyone tried to ontologize the competing concepts of marriage across

cultures ?

[11:19] Henson Graves: @steve, submit a modeling challenge problem to the challenge project

[11:21] Steve Ray: @Henson: Fair enough. I know that a sub-team wrestled with two very specific

problems in that context. I could send you the solutions that were proposed out of it.

[11:22] Henson Graves: @steve, great, send the problem as well as the solution

[11:22] Steve Ray: @Henson: OK

[11:20] Terry Longstreth: Have we ontologies for legal concepts across jurisdictional boundaries?

[10:56] Todd Schneider: Abstract?? What's abstract:)

[10:56] Simon Spero: Todd: It's the bit at the front of the paper that you read in order to pretend

you read the whole thing

[10:58] Bobbin Teegarden: @Simon Nice concretion.

[10:58] Simon Spero: @bobbin's meant well

{{{ [10:56] Amanda Vizedom: @Steve, this point {context please} is extremely important and an area in which much existing work does not get passed to ontologists-in-training. Specifically, I am thinking of work in knowledge elicitation, specifically for ontologies AND from other field such as information and library science, and also cognitive work analysis... }}}

[10:59] anonymous morphed into Pavithra Kenjige

[11:00] Simon Spero: How about modeling common sense physics. We could start with liquids first.

[11:05] Todd Schneider: Is a algorithm for heat transfer coded in Java not a model for heat transfer?

[11:01] Steve Ray: @Simon: Careful, I think you are about to slip into an upper ontology discussion.

[11:02] Simon Spero: Have to leave now.

[11:02] Amanda Vizedom: I need to drop off now, folks. Thanks!

[11:02] Steve Ray: @Pavithra: +1

[11:03] Leo Obrst: @Henson: start with the problem and what kind of notions you need to express the

objects and relationships of the problem.

[11:06] Henson Graves: @leo, exactly

[11:05] Peter P. Yim: == Open discussion-II: Follow-up Action planning - Moderator: Michael Grüninger - All

[11:06] Todd Schneider: Michael, beer helps coordinate also.

[11:07] Steve Ray: How about somebody volunteering to be a DARPA program manager?

[11:07] Todd Schneider: Have to drop the audio portion. Cheers.

[11:09] Peter P. Yim: == (discussion) follow-up actions for this year's summit ...

[09:58] Steve Ray: One additional follow-on action is the generation of new joint projects among the communities.

[11:14] Steve Ray: These folks just got $10M from NSF: http://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/

[11:15] Frank Olken: @Steve, However, I do not recall that amplab is doing anything about ontologies ..........

[11:16] Steve Ray: @Frank: ...so maybe there is a vacuum to be filled.

[11:17] Frank Olken: To the extent that the DB is interested in semantics, they are using Datalog

rather than OWL or SPARQL.

[11:17] Steve Ray: @Leo: My impression is that the semantic web community feels unwelcome by the ontology community.

[11:22] Leo Obrst: My comment was that we need to bridge the gap to the Semantic Web community, and

do so more strategically. We do all advocate using SW technologies for many of the everyday

applications we address. Even Semantic Media Wiki uses SW technology.

[11:18] Terry Longstreth: All of our examples are so ethno-centric that we lose credibility with our examples.

[11:18] Cory Casanave: @Terry, so you have to do this "first", prior to solving problems?

[11:18] Peter P. Yim: == (discussion) suggestions for Ontology Summit 2013 - candidate themes, ... etc.

[10:04] Terry Longstreth: Topic for next year: 7 year retrospective (perhaps tied to a new website

page for continuous tracking) Each subject area report have minimum of following:

YEAR------THEME---Results / Accomplishments / Status TO DATE---CONTINUING/ONGOING ACTIVITIES--

[11:08] Cory Casanave: Topic: I will put forward again the same one I did last time - federation and

integration. Or, is that to much like this years?

[11:13] Leo Obrst: A previous suggestion was "ontology evaluation" for an Ontology Summit theme.

[11:23] Michael Grüninger: yes, Ontology Evaluation

[11:26] Michael Grüninger: Ontology Evaluation can tie together some ideas from previous summits --

relationship to standards conformance, evaluation of ontologies within the context of specific

information systems, using benchmark problems (cf Henson's slides)

[11:27] Henson Graves: @michael, agree that model challenge is related to ontology evaluation

[11:19] Bobbin Teegarden: For next year topics, could we add executable ontologies, and how we add

process to an ontology model?

[11:20] Bobbin Teegarden: Those might be two separate topics, same bucket?

[11:22] Bobbin Teegarden: One liner: adding process to, executing ontologies

[11:22] Ali Hashemi: Ontologies in Information Systems - How are they being used? How are they parts

of a bigger puzzle?

[11:22] Eric Chan: Sounds like an ontology of the modeling languages (UML, RDF, OWL, FOL, etc)

clarifying the inter-relationships (A more expressive than B, C is refinement of D, etc.) among

these modeling languages will be helpful.

[11:25] Bobbin Teegarden: @Eric Love the ontology of modeling languages idea, let's!

[11:31] Eric Chan: @Bobbin, perhaps we can propose "ontology of modeling languages" in the modeling

workshop being planned.

[11:32] Henson Graves: @eric, bobbin, this is a good idea but will take a lot of ontology engineering

[11:24] Bobbin Teegarden: @Leo Is there a bridge to the wider community or enterprise architects,

that might break down some stovepipes? Seems the architects are in the trenches trying to implement

ontologies without the benefit of our input...

[11:24] Cory Casanave: @Bobbin, I like breaking down stovepipe themes

[11:27] Cory Casanave: Yes, and also put effort into outreach in the interim

[11:28] Terry Longstreth: Suggestion: Ontologies - Building bridges across cultures

[11:29] Cory Casanave: @Terry: Are ontologies a solution to stovepipe problems or another stovepipe?

I don't think the mainstream users are sure.

[11:30] Terry Longstreth: I'm not sure my mainstream and your mainstream are the same

[11:30] Terry Longstreth: :>)

[11:31] Cory Casanave: @Terry - so which is the mainstream, mainstream?

[11:24] Peter P. Yim: capturing here a suggestion that Patrick Durusau sent in along with his Communique

endorsement - "The OntologySummit2012_Communique observation that systems interact with their

environments, necessitating changes in an ontology for such a system is spot on! A topic for next

year [2013] could be viewing ontologies as environments, enabling modeling relationships of

ontologies to systems and users of both. --PatrickDurusau /2012_04_25" ... I've already captured

that to: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions#nid3AC4

[11:25] Leo Obrst: Ontology and databases

[11:26] Frank Olken: I agree that Ontologies and Databases would be an interesting and useful summit topic.

[11:29] Ram D. Sriram: I need to log off.

[11:29] Peter P. Yim: thank you, Ram

[11:32] Pavithra Kenjige: Big data - Ontology discussion as a suggestion

[11:31] Peter P. Yim: === endorse the communique ... and get your friends to do it too!

[11:31] Peter P. Yim: see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012_Communique ...

access to the document and endorsements instructions can be found near the top of that page. (Note

that endorsements will close by end-of-day 12-May-2012.) ... essentially, what one needs to do is to

send an email to < communique-endorsement [at] cim.us > and put your name in the body of that message.

[11:18] Frank Olken: I can tweet about the communique.

[11:32] Pavithra Kenjige: Thank you

[11:32] Ali Hashemi: thanks, bye

[11:32] Peter P. Yim: Great session! very productive!

[11:33] Peter P. Yim: -- session ended: 11:32am 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.
    • Add further suggestions and ideas for the next year's Ontology Summit to: OntologySummit/Suggestions

Additional Resources

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Thursday, 26-Apr-2012
  • 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:
    • Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... (long distance cost may apply)
      • ... [ backup nbr: (415) 671-4335 ]
    • when prompted enter PIN: 141184#
    • Skype: " joinconference " (use the PIN above) ... (generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer)
      • for skype users who have trouble with finding the Skype Dial pad ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
  • 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 & material 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_20120426
    • 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) summit_20120426@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

  • Expecting:
    • (please add yourself to the list if you are a member of the Ontolog or Ontology Summit community, or, rsvp to <peter.yim@cim3.com>)
  • Regrets:
    • Nicola Guarino
    • Jerry Smith
    • Matthew West: For the record, I thought it was a considerable success and an incremental improvement on previous years.
    • ...



Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2012_04_26&oldid=349"