Actions

Ontolog Forum

Ontology Summit 2013: Panel Session-12 - Thu 2013-04-04

Summit Theme: "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"

Session Topic: Ontology Summit 2013: Synthesis-II

Summit General Co-chairs & session Co-chairs: - intro slides

  • Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto, Canada) and Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK)

Panelists / Briefings:

  • Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto, Canada) & Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK) - "Thoughts and Reflections on this Ontology Summit" . (intro-gruninger-slides) . (west-slides)
  • Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE) & Dr. SteveRay (CMU) - "Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2" . (slides)
  • Mr. TerryLongstreth (Ind. Consultant) & Dr. ToddSchneider (Raytheon) - "Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2" . (slides)
  • Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction) & Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council; Hypercube) - "Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-2" . (slides)
  • Dr. MichaelDenny (MITRE) & Mr. PeterYim (Ontolog; CIM3) - "Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-2" . (slides)

Archives

Abstract

OntologySummit2013 Session-12: "Synthesis-II" - intro slides

This is our 8th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by NIST, Ontolog, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD with the support of our co-sponsors. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit is: "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle."

Currently, there is no agreed methodology for development of ontologies, and there are no universally agreed metrics for ontology evaluation. At the same time, everybody agrees that there are a lot of badly engineered ontologies out there, thus people use -- at least implicitly -- some criteria for the evaluation of ontologies.

During this Ontology Summit, we seek to identify best practices for ontology development and evaluation. We will consider the entire lifecycle of an ontology -- from requirements gathering and analysis, through to design and implementation. In this endeavor, the Summit will seek collaboration with the software engineering and knowledge acquisition communities. Research in these fields has led to several mature models for the software lifecycle and the design of knowledge-based systems, and we expect that fruitful interaction among all participants will lead to a consensus for a methodology within ontological engineering. Following earlier Ontology Summit practice, the synthesized results of this season's discourse will be published as a Communique.

We have now completed the virtual sessions of the Summit that were dedicated to presentations of technical content.Each of the four tracks have hosted very exciting presentations that address the key Summit themes -- Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation, Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation, Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria, and Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies.

In today's session, we will focus on revisiting the synthesis of all of these ideas as input into the initial draft of the Summit Communiqué.

The Synthesis II session will be framed by the Communique outline. Track champions will provide discussion questions that represent the points of synthesis they need to address but feel that they don't have enough input to synthesize.

More details about this Ontology Summit is available at: OntologySummit2013 (homepage for this summit)

Agenda

OntologySummit2013 - Panel Session-12 - Synthesis-II

  • Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call
  • 1. Opening by the co-chair (MatthewWest and MichaelGruninger) [5 min.] ... [ slides ]
  • 2. General assessment on how things are developing and fine tuning of direction/approach (MichaelGruninger and MatthewWest) [10 min.]
  • 3. Track Synthesis-II (presentation of insights from the discourse around each track by their co-champions) [15 min/track]
    • 3A. Track A: Synthesis-2 (LeoObrst and SteveRay)
    • 3B. Track B: Synthesis-2 (ToddSchneider and TerryLongstreth)
    • 3C. Track C: Synthesis-2 (MatthewWest and MikeBennett)
    • 3C. Track D: Synthesis-2 (MichaelDenny and PeterYim)
  • 4. Q&A and discussion about the Communique based on the Communique Outline proposed, led by co-lead editors, Fabian Neuhaus and Amanda Vizedom - All [30 min.]
  • 5. Summary/wrap-up/announcements [10 min.]

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 --

Chat transcript from room: summit_20130404

2013-04-04 GMT-08:00 [PDT]

[9:16] Peter P. Yim: Welcome to the

Ontology Summit 2013: Virtual Panel Session-12 - Thu 2013-04-04

Summit Theme: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle

Session Topic: Ontology Summit 2013: Synthesis-II

  • Session Co-chairs

- Professor Michael Grüninger (U of Toronto, Canada) and Dr. Matthew West (Information Junction, UK)

Agenda:

- "Thoughts on Ontology Summit 2013 and session intro"

  • Dr. Matthew West (Information Junction, UK) - "Reflections on Ontology Summit 2013"

- "Track-A: Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2"

- "Track-B: Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - Synthesis-2"

- "Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - Synthesis-2"

- "Track-D: Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - Synthesis-2"

- Open Discussion on how the synthesized ideas may be represented in the Communique draft

Logistics:

  • (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName (in WikiWord format)
  • Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute
  • Can't find Skype Dial pad?
    • for Windows Skype users: it may be under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
    • for Linux Skype users: please note that the dial-pad is only available on v4.1 (or later or the earlier Skype versions 2.x,)

if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it.

  • Note: ... it has come to our attention that our conference bridge provider is running into some

problems with the "joinconference" skype connections. In case anyone gets in trouble, please try to

call the phone numbers instead (e.g. from your phone, skype-out, google-voice, etc.)

Attendees: Michael Grüninger (co-chair), Matthew West (co-chair), Ali Hashemi, Amanda Vizedom,

Bobbin Teegarden, Carmen Chui, Doug Foxvog, Fabian Neuhaus, Fran Lightsom, Francesca Quattri, Frank Loebe,

Jack Ring, Joel Bender, Julien Corman, Ken Baclawski, Lamar Henderson, Leo Obrst, Marcela Vegetti,

Mary Panahiazar, Megan Katsumi, Michael Denny, Mike Riben, Pavithra Kenjige, Peter P. Yim (scribe), Steve Ray,

Terry Longstreth, Till Mossakowski, Todd Schneider,

Proceedings:

[9:23] anonymous morphed into Carmen Chui

[9:25] anonymous1 morphed into Michael Denny

[9:25] anonymous morphed into Francesca Quattri

[9:30] Peter P. Yim: @FrancescaQuattri - did you just connect to the call? (that connection was

injecting a lot of noise into the line; you'll need to stay on mute when not speaking)

[9:31] Francesca Quattri: yup

[9:31] Francesca Quattri: Hi Everybody

[9:32] anonymous morphed into Mary Panahiazar

[9:33] anonymous1 morphed into Julien Corman

[9:34] anonymous morphed into Bobbin Teegarden

[9:34] Joel Bender: @Peter - online with Skype - no microphone

[9:33] Peter P. Yim: Hello mary panahiazar, Welcome! [ ... send me your email so you can get subscribed

to the lists and participate in the async discussion too.]

[9:34] Mary Panahiazar: mary [at] knoesis.org

[9:35] Todd Schneider: All, I have to leave at 14:00 EDT.

[9:36] Peter P. Yim: == Michael Grüninger opens the session ... see: the [ 0-Gruninger ] slides

[9:37] List of members: Ali Hashemi, Amanda Vizedom, Bobbin Teegarden, Carmen Chui, Doug Foxvog,

Fabian Neuhaus, Francesca Quattri, Frank Loebe, Fran Lightsom, Joel Bender, Julien Corman, Ken Baclawski,

Mary Panahiazar, Matthew West, Megan Katsumi, Michael Denny, Michael Grüninger, Peter P. Yim, Steve Ray,

Terry Longstreth, Todd Schneider, vnc2

[9:46] Steve Ray: With respect to conditions for ontology evaluation, we can talk about necessary

conditions for evaluation, and possibly sufficient conditions for evaluation, with respect to

various stages of development.

[9:43] Michael Grüninger: Outcome hackathon HC05

http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/Hackathon-Clinics/HC-05_Ontology-of-OntologyEvaluation/wip/HC-05_doc-snapshot_at-end-day-20130331/

[9:46] Amanda Vizedom: Note about HC-05 outputs: This is snapshot of work at the end of the weekend

sessions. Results are dispersed across a number of text and graphic files. Currently, several of us

are working on consolidating the conceptual model in both graphical and English text forms, and

making sure that we, as a group, agree that this captures what we developed. We are also drafting

formal ontologies based on this, in OWL and Common Logic, but all should be considered first drafts,

and current push is on the consolidated concept model.

[9:55] Peter P. Yim: @Amanda, Ali, et al. - at the OntoIOp working group meeting yesterday,

Till Mossakowski and I were kicking around the idea of hacking up a demo (for the

OntologySummit2013_Symposium), to evaluate two manually developed versions of the "Ontology of Ontology

Evaluation" (a la HC-05 - in OWL and CLIF), and two machine-translated versions of those Ontologies

(of Onto Eval) with Hets / DOL / OntoIOp / Ontohub (OWL->CLIF; CLIF->OWL) ... and run them through

some of the tools featured during this summit ... it'll be fun!

[10:00] Amanda Vizedom: @Peter: Excellent! I've been a bit dissatisfied that even with our follow-on

commitments to create the formal ontologies, we haven't had a specific plan for evaluating them. And

that's no good, from the practicing what we preach perspective. So, in addition to the fun of it, I

think that is an excellent idea!

[9:47] Peter P. Yim: == Matthew West presenting ... see: the [ 1-West ] slides

[9:51] Steve Ray: Interesting: Decision taking (UK) = Decision making (USA)

[9:56] anonymous morphed into Lamar Henderson

[9:58] Amanda Vizedom: Cost reduction benefits, and sponsor's ROI in general, were brought into our

HC-05 discussions this weekend, advocated especially by BobSmith. Figuring out how these fit into

the high-level evaluation has been a challenge. MatthewWest's comments related to his slide 3

suggests to me that we began to model requirements and their large dependence on usage, and we began

to model aspects of usage, and we began to model purpose as part of that, but under purpose we

focused on delivered functionality. Matthews slide 3 highlights delivered benefits, at a higher

level than specific functionalities. That, I think, we need to add explicitly.

[9:59] Peter P. Yim: == Steve Ray presenting ... see: the [ A-Obrst-Ray ] slides

[10:05] Doug Foxvog: (in response to discussion of Slide 2 of Track A) Class vs. instance distinction

being questionable arises if the ontology makes the two disjoint. If classes may be used as

arguments to predicates (and metaclasses are allowed), then one need not make the narrowest classes

into instances of their superclasses.

[10:15] Peter P. Yim: == Todd Schneider presenting ... see: the [ B-Schneider-Longstreth ] slides

[10:15] Terry Longstreth: (ref. ToddSchneider's remark that he will present, as Terry Longstreth is

having trouble talking) I'm listening, but as Todd says, having trouble with verbal communication

[10:17] Steve Ray: Disagree with Terry in calling OOPS! a blackbox evaluation. It is specifically

examining the contents of the ontology - opening up the box and looking for structural errors.

[10:18] Terry Longstreth: That was Todd, but I think he was just illustrating the ambiguity of the

dichotomy

[10:18] Matthew West: @Ray: I would expect intrinsic properties to become important (or not) in

supporting higher level extrinsic requirements. So the key is to understand the way higher level

requirements are supported by requirements for generally lower level, intrinsic properties.

[10:19] Amanda Vizedom: @Matthew +1 (independently of Steve's comments or OOPS!).

[10:20] Steve Ray: @Matthew: I agree. Intrinsic evaluation alone has no value unless related to the

ultimate system performance.

[10:20] Doug Foxvog: I agree with Steve. OOPS! ignores the *meaning* of the terms, but has access to

all the statements in the ontology. Ignoring the meaning seems to be what Todd meant by "black box".

[10:22] Steve Ray: @Doug: You may be right in how Todd (sorry Terry, got the names swapped) intended

to use the term black box, but that is an odd use of the term, somewhat opposite to what at least I

understand it to mean.

[10:21] Doug Foxvog: @Matthew, @Amanda: +1

[10:21] Michael Grüninger: @DougFoxvog: What do you mean by "ignoring the meaning"? The "meaning" of

a term should be equivalent to the possible interpretations of the axioms

[10:23] Doug Foxvog: The "meaning" of the term is defined for humans and humans use that meaning for

labeling (e.g., cells on a slide, info on medical records, etc.)

[10:25] Doug Foxvog: @Michael: I agree that the meaning of an ontology in a vacuum is just the

possible interpretations of the axioms. However, ontologies are (hopefully) used in conjunction with

other systems, and so their mappings to those systems affects the meaning of the terms.

[10:28] Michael Grüninger: @DougFoxvog: In the work with Megan Katsumi, the intended meanings of terms

are requirements that are formalized as intended models. We can then evaluate the ontology (using

the axioms alone) to determine whether or not it meets those requirements i.e. whether or no there

are intended models. When ontologies are used together, the intended models need to be in common.

[10:25] Amanda Vizedom: @Todd: While discussing slide 3, you said that the evaluation has a context,

and that when you know that context, then you can rank the results of your evaluation (metrics,

etc). This sounds to me like a different framing, but in principle equivalent to a different process

characterization that we have discussed. In this other characterization, The context comes first --

specifying the intended usage, gathering requirements. From this, evaluation criteria are identified

that are relevant to answering whether these specific, context-driven requirements are satisfied,

and evaluation is conducted over those criteria. Do you agree that both processes emphasize the

contextuality of evaluation relevance equivalently?

[10:28] Doug Foxvog: @Amanda: Should we expect the contexts to be defined (as you said they must be)

using an ontology? I.e., are the context definitions to be stated in a formal logic using terms

defined in an ontology?

[10:34] Amanda Vizedom: @doug, yes, though here I am using context as I think Todd meant it, not in

all the possible ways I might otherwise be found using it. ;-) In the HC-05 model, we've been so far

following along with the Ontology Usage characterization seeds laid down in the 2011 summit. That

is, the formalized characterization of context consists partially in the explicit capture of various

aspects of the usage (including things like application type, users, and so on), not yet nearly

exhaustively captured. Priority is on such characteristics as we come to understand that they make a

difference to what ontology features are needed.

[10:26] Steve Ray: @Michael: I'd be interested in your thoughts on the axioms when one is presented

with, say, an OWL file that contains only sub/superclass relations and some allValuesFrom or

someValuesFrom relations. In other words, no explicit axioms at all.

[10:32] Michael Grüninger: @Steve: I would say that subclass relations are still axioms. Of course,

if these are all you have, then there will most likely be many possible interpretations of the

ontology that do not correspond to the intended meanings. A great example of this is the

relationship between OWL-S and SWSO. In cases such as this, I wonder what the requirements for the

ontology are considered to be.

[10:27] Peter P. Yim: @Todd - (re. your remark during slide#7) I somewhat disagree that "testers are not

familiar with ontologies" ... if we look at (and we should) test designers as among the "testers"

(that's the group that's meaningful, we should not be talking about the test operators), then they

simply do not qualify for the job if they are not familiar with ontologies

[10:34] Todd Schneider: Peter, I qualified 'tester' to be in the context of system integration

testing (i.e., the end of the development phases and prior to deployment).

[10:37] Peter P. Yim: @Todd - fair!

[10:29] Peter P. Yim: == Matthew West presenting ... see: the [ C-West-Bennett ] slides

[10:33] Doug Foxvog: Slide 3: "The physical level would be an encoding in a formal language" such as

OWL. This is an interesting definition of "physical". It would be nice for the slide to be edited to

clarify this meaning. I might call this the "code" level.

[10:38] Amanda Vizedom: @Matthew - during HC-05, we found your Conceptual / Logical / Physical stages,

following DB usage someone, to make the most sense when mapped thusly: Conceptual: human-centric

capture in one or more artifacts, could be textual, graphical, combined, rigorous but not formal.

Logical: expressed in a formal ontology language. Physical: expressed in a serialization of such a

language. Is this compatible with your thinking?

[10:47] Matthew West: @Amanda: Possibly. In truth there are variations in interpretation of the

levels in the database world. Certainly the physical level is what is in the system running queries.

The logical level is an abstraction of that that is not implementation environment specific. I would

probably want to say that you would not have committed to FOL or DL yet, but we could debate that

(maybe another level?)

[10:44] Todd Schneider: Matthew, Instead of 'quality', would 'value' be a notion that better conveys

our intent?

[10:35] Peter P. Yim: == Mike Denny presenting ... see: the [ D-Denny-Yim ] slides

[10:39] Leo Obrst: Finally joining. Sorry I'm late.

[10:39] Peter P. Yim: glad you made it, Leo!

[10:46] Terry Longstreth: Track D makes a good point that much of our work has seemed to presume a

Waterfall model of development. We didn't explicitly talk about it but the Track B concerns with

dynamics are probably best illustrated in current practice by environments by dynamic injection of

new or unanticipated requirements as happens in agile development situations.

[10:48] Doug Foxvog: There have been several mentions that symmetric, reflexive, and transitive

predicates should have the same domain and range. This is true for symmetric predicates, but for

transitive predicates, the requirement should be that the range is a subclass of the domain. For

reflexive predicates, it really depends upon one's definition of "reflexive" -- does it mean

(forAll (X P P_Range P_Domain) (implies (and (isa P BinaryPredicate) (range P P_Range) (domain P P_Domain) (isa X P_Range) (isa X P_Domain)) (P X X)))

or

(forAll (X P P_Range P_Domain) (implies (and (isa P BinaryPredicate) (range P P_Range) (domain P P_Domain) (isa X ([[ClassUnionFunction]] P_Range P_Domain)) (P X X)))

In the second case, the domain & range must be the same. In the first, they should just not be disjoint.

[10:58] Steve Ray: @MichaelDenny: Indeed, some of us are trying to link ontology evaluation to

traditional modeling tools. I and my team convert Enterprise Architect files into OWL, and then

apply various evaluation queries against them using SPARQL. One example of output can be found at

http://fsgim.sv.cmu.edu

[11:03] Michael Denny: @SteveRay Very interesting and glad to see it. I will take a look.

[11:00] Todd Schneider: Have to go.

[11:01] Peter P. Yim: == Q&A and Open Discussion on how all of these ideas should be captured into the

OntologySummit2013_Communique ... moderated by Fabian Neuhaus and Amanda Vizedom

[11:01] Peter P. Yim: please refer to communique outline at:

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Communique/Draft#nid3O16

[11:04] Todd Schneider: Amanda, Fabian, One suggestion before I really leave, I'd suggest dropping

the in/extrinsic distinction and replace it with the lifecycle phase. It seems a better criteria for

making evaluations distinctions.

[11:06] Steve Ray: @Todd: Not sure I agree with this. Lifecycle has to do with WHEN, or at which

phase, does one evaluate. The intrinsic/extrinsic distinction relates to WHAT one is evaluating.

[11:10] Terry Longstreth: Lifecycle phases may also have multiple contexts: to the developer, the

lifecycle phase labeled development is (one of) his operational swimming pools. He may touch more

than one ontology if for example, the development environment is driven by an ontology (Rational

products have that flavor, if not directly employing the term)

[11:04] Peter P. Yim: +1 to, at least, the first half of Todd's suggestion. I think the

intrinsic/extrinsic distinction served a useful purpose to help us frame the discourse, but

introducing this "new terminology" is as confusing as not introducing it at all

[11:09] Megan Katsumi: @SteveRay, @Todd: I agree that the in/extrinsic distinction is confusing, but

I also think that Steve has a point about the proposed using of the lifecycle phase. Might another

useful distinction be the idea of functional/non-functional requirements/attributes?

[11:12] Michael Denny: @MeganKatsumi I have suggested "model quality" vs "domain fidelity" vs

application fitness.

[11:12] Steve Ray: @Michael: I like your partitioning.

[11:12] Matthew West: I also agree that intrinsic/extrinsic has not been helpful. However, I don't

think it matters very much. It gave us a way to start, and we can move on from that.

[11:12] Amanda Vizedom: As Fabian is saying on the conversation now, we do not plan on using the

intrinsic/extrinsic distinction an organizer of the Communique. See outline.

[11:14] Peter P. Yim: +1 to what Fabian Neuhaus just said about how he and Amanda Vizedom are planning to

lay out the communique

[11:06] Amanda Vizedom: This is also of great potential use to Enterprise Architecture and Business

Process Management practices themselves, and the development of semantic IT to better support them.

Enterprise semantic tech projects are often based in information sharing needs related to business

processes. In best cases, that basis is somewhat clear from documentation of business process and EA

environment from just such tools. But these tools stop at the level of the input, output, or sharing

of information bearing objects (reports, data sets, messages). They don't drill down into the

information *contents*. That is precisely where the ontology coverage needs and scoping of the

semantic projects picks up, and it is much more effectively captured and conveyed within a context

of continuity with those EA/BP models.

[11:06] Terry Longstreth: @Fabian - (in reference to Fabian's verbal remarks on how Track-A and

Track-B focused their discourse, and the gap) Track B wasn't so concerned with the physical level as

the behavioral consequences to the system of having ontology or an ontology within it.

[11:10] Fabian Neuhaus: @Terry - yes, that's what I meant, I did not put it very elegantly. My point

was that there are some aspects of ontology evaluation/quality that was not covered by either track,

should be covered.

[11:06] Leo Obrst: @MichaelDenny: (ref. slide#5 "That which we call a rose by any other name would

smell as sweet.") yes, I call it "a label does not wear its semantics on its sleeve", which a lot of

XML and database folks sometimes think, e.g., if a label is named "Person", well of course I know

what it means! This is also encouraged by very long camelCase concept names like

[[PersonsWhoWieldHammers]], where the label seems to be the composition of the semantics of natural

language terms.

[11:09] Michael Denny: @LeoObrst ...or "you can't tell a concept by its cover"

[11:12] anonymous morphed into Pavithra Kenjige

[11:15] Jack Ring: Seems to me any ontology must be evaluated with respect to domain-specific (usage)

and discipline-specific (principles and standards) contexts. Further, an ontology can be evaluated

for quality (what it is, what it does and what it knows), parsimony and beauty. I sense confusion

about whether ontology serves as framework, praxis, system or what?

[11:19] Jack Ring: Life cycle is a distracting notion. Most all ontologies evolve and morph. It may

be better to telk in terms of Usage Scenario.

[11:14] Michael Grüninger: Does it make sense to consider specific ontology evaluation tasks, and

then specify what the inputs to the tasks are? e.g. is evaluation done with respect to the

ontology's axioms alone? Is the ontology evaluated wrt a specific set of requirements?

[11:18] Matthew West: @Michael: You can only evaluate against requirements. If you look at my slide

on Properties key to Information Quality, you will find properties at a level that business folk can

state their requirements at. But then take consistency. What are the more detailed properties of an

ontology that you can measure that tell you about its consistency? how do you transform the

requirements at the business level down to this level?

[11:20] Michael Grüninger: @MatthewWest: Some of the criteria in Steve and Leo's slides use only the

axioms of the ontology

[11:18] Amanda Vizedom: I will add that I believe that there are many ways of "slicing and dicing"

ontology characteristics/ requirements / evaluation criteria. Intrinsic/extrinsic is one (or

several, given the various interpretations), as are lifecycle stages, relationship to aspects of

usage/ relationship to some aspect of theory, etc.. And different tools and methodologies utilize

different such organizations. What's more important is that we understand what the

characteristics/criteria/requirements are, and when & why they matter, and how & when they may be

evaluated.

[11:19] Matthew West: @Amanda: +1

[11:21] Megan Katsumi: @Amanda: +1

[11:22] Doug Foxvog: @Amanda: +2. The ontology evaluation ontology should have concepts and relations

for all that.

[11:20] Doug Foxvog: Leo is discussing properties of different ontology aspects relative to life

cycle phase. If the specific relations are written down, they could be encoded using the ontology

evaluation ontology.

[11:19] Peter P. Yim: Registration (either onsite or remote) is now open for the

OntologySummit2013_Symposium at NIST - Thu & Fri May 2~3, 2013 (Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA) - see

detials at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013/WorkshopRegistration

(registration for onsite attendance is mandatory ... so note the Apr-22 registration deadline!)

[11:20] Peter P. Yim: Join in the fun at this weekend's Hackathon-Clinics Activities - see details at:

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Hackathon_Clinics#nid3PG4 ... even if you

don't plan to hang around all day, you might be interested to participate at the "open webcast

segment" of the two projects being featured this Saturday (Apr-6)

[11:20] Peter P. Yim: Again, solicitation to software environment stewards and tool developers to

respond to the Ontology Summit 2013 Software Survey - goto:

http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2013_Survey ... enter name of your tool, and proceed

to questionnaire (make sure you complete all phases (questions under all tabs)

[11:20] Peter P. Yim: As Michael Grüninger just said, same time next week, for Ontology Summit 2013

session-13: "Communique Draft Review" - Co-chairs: Amanda Vizedom & Fabian Neuhaus - developing

session details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_04_11

[11:20] Matthew West: Sorry I have to go now.

[11:25] Steve Ray: Good session. Thanks!

[11:25] Peter P. Yim: great session!

[11:25] Peter P. Yim: -- session ended: 11:25 am 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.
    • (in case you aren't already a member) you may also want to join the ONTOLOG community and be subscribed to the [ ontolog-forum ] listserv, when general ontology-related topics (not specific to this year's Summit theme) are discussed. Please refer to Ontolog membership details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
      • kindly email <peter.yim@cim3.com> if you have any question.

Additional Resources

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)

Attention: Please take special note on the start time of the event, as the US, the EU and some regions are on daylight saving (summer) time on this day (the EU just changed last weekend), while there are other regions that stay on Standard Time all year round!

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Thursday, 4-Apr-2013
  • Start Time: 9:30am PDT / 12:30pm EDT / 1:30pm ART / 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 Conference ID: 141184#
    • Skype: joinconference (i.e. make a skype call to the contact with skypeID="joinconference") ... (generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer)
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
      • Unfamiliar with how to do this on Skype? ...
        • Add the contact "joinconference" to your skype contact list first. To participate in the teleconference, make a skype call to "joinconference", then open the dial pad (see platform-specific instructions below) and enter the Conference ID: 141184# when prompted.
      • Can't find Skype Dial pad? ...
        • for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it may be under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
        • for Linux Skype users: please note that the dial-pad is only available on v4.1 (or later; or on the earlier Skype versions 2.x,) if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. ... (ref.)
  • 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_20130404
    • 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_20130404@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 with your affiliation appreciated, ... or simply just by adding yourself to the "Expected Attendee" list below (if you are a member of the community already.)
  • 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_2013_04_04&oldid=1295"