Actions

Ontolog Forum

Ontology Summit 2013: Panel Session-13 - Thu 2013-04-11

Summit Theme: "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"

Session Topic: Ontology Summit 2013 Communique: First Draft Review

Communique Co-Lead Editors & Session Co-chairs: ... intro slides

  • Dr. AmandaVizedom (Ind. Consultant) and Dr. FabianNeuhaus (NIST)

Reference:

Archives

Abstract

OntologySummit2013 Session-13: Ontology Summit 2013 Communique: First Draft Review - 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.

In this 13th virtual panel session of the Summit, the co-lead editors will present their plans for the communique and an initial draft, and discuss that with the community. They will go through the document by sections, present them, and then ask for comments.

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

Agenda

OntologySummit2013 - Panel Session-13

  • Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call
  • 1. Opening (co-chairs) ... [ slides & material ]
  • 2. Presentation of plans and first draft of the communique (co-lead editors)
  • 3. Review by section and open discussion [Co-lead editors, co-editors & All] ... please refer to process above
  • 4. Wrap-up / Announcements (co-chairs) - [5 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_20130411

2013-04-11 GMT-08:00 [PDT]

[8:55] Peter P. Yim: Welcome to the

Ontology Summit 2013: Virtual Panel Session-13 - Thu 2013-04-11

Summit Theme: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle

Session Topic: Ontology Summit 2013 Communique: First Draft Review

  • Session Co-chairs

- Dr. Amanda Vizedom (Ind. Consultant) and Dr. Fabian Neuhaus (NIST)

Agenda:

1. Opening (co-chairs) ... ref.: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_04_11#nid3QHP

2. Presentation of plans and first draft of the communique (co-lead editors)

3. Review by section and open discussion [Co-lead editors, co-editors & All]

4. Wrap-up / Announcements (co-chairs)

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: Amanda Vizedom (co-chair), Fabian Neuhaus (co-chair), Ali Hashemi, AstridDuqueRamos,

Bob Smith, Bobbin Teegarden, Bruce Bray, Carmen Chui, Clare Paul, Doug Foxvog, Francesca Quattri,

Joanne Luciano, Joel Bender, Julien Corman, Ken Baclawski, Lamar Henderson, Matthew West, Megan Katsumi,

Michael Grüninger, Mike Bennett, Mike Dean, Nancy Wiegand, Pavithra Kenjige, Peter P. Yim, Ram D. Sriram,

Shari Thurow, Simon Spero, Steve Ray, Terry Longstreth, Todd Schneider, Torsten Hahmann,

Proceedings:

[9:23] anonymous morphed into Carmen Chui

[9:29] anonymous morphed into Clare Paul

[9:31] Peter P. Yim: == Fabian Neuhaus starts the session on behalf of the session co-chairs ... see: [

0-Chair ] slides

[9:34] anonymous morphed into Francesca Quattri

[9:34] List of members: Ali Hashemi, Amanda Vizedom, AstridDuqueRamos, Bob Smith, Bruce Bray,

Carmen Chui, Clare Paul, Doug Foxvog, Fabian Neuhaus, Francesca Quattri, Joel Bender, Julien Corman,

Ken Baclawski, Matthew West, Megan Katsumi, Michael Grüninger, Mike Dean, Peter P. Yim, Ram D. Sriram, Steve Ray,

Terry Longstreth, vnc2

[9:36] Steve Ray: My suggestion for a 5th high-level question for the bottom of page 1 on the

communique: We should include something that covers intrinsic evaluation, such as: -Is the ontology

free of obvious inconsistencies and errors in modeling?

[9:39] Amanda Vizedom: Slide 6 - schedule -- is off. Next week, April 18, is the 2nd draft review.

Final draft will be complete by May 1.

[9:42] Todd Schneider: Change 'IT' to 'information'.

[9:43] Peter P. Yim: +1 re Todd Schneider suggestion above

[9:44] anonymous morphed into Shari Thurow

[9:45] Amanda Vizedom: Fabian notes: We are going to have some terminology clashes. We will need to

discuss what are the best terms to use for some items; we can then do a global search & replace.

[9:46] Todd Schneider: Amanda, who is the intended audience? That should drive terminology issues.

[9:46] Matthew West: On Quality. Some of what we are doing here is rediscovering things that have

been well established over some 50 years in other areas. It is useful for us to use other language

when we are discovering that we are doing the same thing as others have done before, but once we

have understood it is the same thing, we should adopt the language that is established and try to

learn from their experience rather than re-invent it. I would hope we had reached that point during

this summit.

[9:52] Simon Spero: @MatthewWest: Are any of the definition sections of ISO 9K/9K1 available in the

public domain?

[10:05] Simon Spero: ASQ glossary: http://asq.org/glossary/

[10:05] Matthew West: @Simon how about this for quality related definitions:

http://www.praxiom.com/iso-definition.htm these look pretty good to me. You will noticed that we

have independently identified the need for many of these things.

[9:51] Amanda Vizedom: @Matthew, I agree. We discussed this, but I failed to come up with a

satisfactory alternative. So, we decided instead to put this question, of what terminology to use

where we have "model quality". Suggestions?

[9:55] Matthew West: @Amanda I'm quite happy to review the document and make specific suggestions so

that the text is consistent with standard quality management terminology if that would be helpful.

However, there is a wider point. I take the adoption of the language we use as an indicator of the

communities maturity in this area. So if the community is not yet comfortable with quality

terminology, then it is better to note this as an issue, than adopt the language when it does not

reflect where the community is.

[9:56] Todd Schneider: The term 'quality' should be banished from the communique (sorry Matthew, but

use of this term does [not] help).

[10:09] Matthew West: @Todd Interestingly when you talk about quality management, you tend not to use

the term quality very much, beyond the name of the process, mostly you talk about meeting

requirements.

[9:48] Shari Thurow: If this helps, my Information Architecture Institute colleague came up with an

RDF vocab for content inventories: http://privatealpha.com/ontology/content-inventory/1#

[9:57] Todd Schneider: Amanda, if ontology development is so similar to software, why not state it.

[10:04] Amanda Vizedom: Todd, we do.

[9:49] Todd Schneider: The diagram in the Lifecycle Overview section should be better aligned to more

common systems engineering 'stages' (e.g., the SE V).

[9:51] Steve Ray: @Todd: I think I agree with you. Or at least we should make reference to the

classic SE phases.

[10:00] Todd Schneider: Have to go. I'll be sending 'suggestions'.

[9:58] Joanne Luciano: jumping in with a comment (i have not been following - so it this is off or

redundant just ignore): in the interim (at least) in the Exec summary -- What is the purpose of this

document would be useful (esp since it is for a wider audience)

[10:00] Joanne Luciano: RE: life cycle....figure -- the figure doesn't depict a "cycle" shouldn't it?

[10:02] Joanne Luciano: If not, then maybe developmental stage or some other analogy would be better

[10:02] Fabian Neuhaus: @Joanne: true. I always thought that lifecycle is a misnomer

[10:06] Terry Longstreth: @Joanne - +1.. The cycle should show feedback from operational experience

to requirements changes and resulting ontology changes

[10:09] Peter P. Yim: the ontolology lifecycle diagram seems a bit incomplete, I suggest looking at the

7 ontology lifecycle phases from Mike Denny as used in the Ontology Summit 2013 Survey of software

capabilities:

Exploration Phase Management Phase Design Phase Build Phase General Development Concept Development

Relationship Development Validation Phase Integration & Use Phase Maintenance Phase

[10:26] Peter P. Yim: @Amanda & Fabian - my issue is with the diagram only ... I can see that you guys

have covered that well in the "Model Build Phase" writeup

[10:10] Shari Thurow: Where is user/usability testing in this list?

[10:20] Peter P. Yim: Further to the above [10:09] MikeDenny's seven ontology lifecycle phases, even

that set is missing the phases where one implements - formalizes and reduces the design into a

representation in an ontology language. I think that should be added into the diagram two ... and

presumably, there are very specific ontology evaluation needs at that phase of the lifecycle

[10:17] Simon Spero: @PeterYim: This presupposes the older forms of software engineering. In more

recent approaches, testing and integration occurs at all times, even during requirements gathering,

(which is iterative)

[10:26] Simon Spero:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Agile_Software_Development_methodology.svg

[10:22] Peter P. Yim: @SimonSpero - totally agree ... of course MikeDenny's focus was on software

tools/environments (and so he was light on the non-tools related work ... and probably just group

them under the "design phase")

[10:25] Fabian Neuhaus: @Peter: is there a document where the phases listed above are explained?

[10:30] Peter P. Yim: @FabianNeuhaus [10:25] - see what got captured at the "Ontology of Ontology

Evaluation" Hackathon HC-05 - (p.11~15) of

http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/Hackathon-Clinics/HC-05_Ontology-of-OntologyEva

luation/wip/HC-05_doc-snapshot_at-end-day-20130331/2013-03-30RequirementsGatheringWorkingFile_201303

31_at-end-day2.rtf

[10:28] Terry Longstreth: on Denny's lifecycle - I recommend Integration and Use be two phases

(Delivery/Deployment and Operational Use) From the latter we should show (repair and new

requirements requests) going into Maintenance, and a from there (change actions) splitting into

separate lines to management, design, and build.

[10:31] Simon Spero: @TerryLongstreth: Is Integration necessarily a separate phase or is that just a

feature of some lifecycle

[10:39] Terry Longstreth: @Simon [10:31] - That's why I re-labeled it Delivery/deployment. In

general, Final integration is essentially packaging up the product for deployment. It's assumed to

include a final factory integration test.

[10:39] Amanda Vizedom: NB: these steps need not be separate in time or cleanly separated. In fact,

they will often overlap and blur together. Ontological Analysis and Modelling (informal or formal)

may support each other and happen together. But they are conceptually separate and have different

requirements.

[10:11] Amanda Vizedom: We are open to suggestions for specific areas in which existing software

evaluation methods handle some aspect of the ontology evaluation without need for ontology-specific

modification. If they can so be applied as-is, we should say that. If they can be so applied in

principal, but the tools do not exist to do this for ontologies, that is an important point to make

in our future/recommendations section.

[10:12] Joanne Luciano: @Peter - I was just about to paste in the same thing! would someone point me

to where the **purpose** of the communicate is stated -- i.e. beyond a summary of the presentations

--

[10:12] Joanne Luciano: Can we put "who the audience is" in the exec summary?

[10:13] Peter P. Yim: @Joanne - check out Fabian & Amanda's opening slides for today -

http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/OntologySummit2013_Communique/2013-04-11_18_dra

ft-review/OntologySummit2013_Communique_first-draft-review--FabianNeuhaus-AmandaVizedom_20130411.pdf

... that's what they are intending to do (this year)

[10:13] Joanne Luciano: Thanks (i had to join late)

[10:14] Joanne Luciano: + agree with amanda - eval isnt being used when it could be.

[10:15] Steve Ray: Good responses, Amanda & Fabian. Let's state clearly up front who we are talking

to, such as Amanda's observation of "people who are building ontologies but are not evaluating

them".

[10:13] Matthew West: It's not just about building a good one, but building one reliably, and not be

surprised by the results.

[10:15] Fabian Neuhaus: @ Matthew: yes, I agree. I meant "good" in the sense of high quality, where

quality encompasses all of the characteristics (intelligibility, well-designed model, fitness to

operational requirements)

[10:34] Ali Hashemi: @Fabian, @Steve - doesn't it depend on how you've implemented your ontology

development processes?

[10:32] AstridDuqueRamos1 morphed into AstridDuqueRamos

[10:15] Terry Longstreth: + with amanda and Joanne, but much of today's discussion is from the

perspective of an ontologist evaluating their own work. Can we throw a bone to those who want to

evaluate an ontology as a 'found' object?

[10:17] Shari Thurow: I agree with Terry.

[10:32] Amanda Vizedom: Terry, we agree that the reuser is important and needs to be discussed and

supported. We indicate in some places that this is meant to be included, but I think that you are

pointing out that we need to make this clearer. The idea is that the exploration-ontological

analysis - design phases need to be carried out to *some* degree in order for the ontology consumer

to be able to tell, even roughly, whether an existing model might suit there needs.

[10:34] anonymous morphed into Lamar Henderson

[10:35] Simon Spero: Steve Ray describes a modeling mistake of something being made A subclass that is

really a property; can you clarify this?

[10:36] Simon Spero: ok.... that's pretty wrong...

[10:37] Simon Spero: BooksByShippingMethod

[10:38] Simon Spero: BooksThatMustBeShippedByElephant ; BooksThatCanBeShippedByBicycle ;

BooksThatWillFitInASedan

[10:37] Joanne Luciano: Great question by Steve Ray -- when does this get caught (very common) -

Shipping method is_a "Book"

[10:38] Joanne Luciano: The Manchester paper on Common errors and pitfalls is well-worth a read

(before implementation) -- but good point

[10:40] Steve Ray: @Joanne: +1. Perhaps our communique could at least provide some pointers to

resources that are a good start, such as the paper you mention.

[10:37] Mike Bennett: Isn't there a related issue here, that there is ontology with a small o -

capturing the domain knowledge formally, in which some fundamental errors need to be caught as per

Steve's example, and then there's Ontology with a bigO in OWL or CLIF as a technical artifact. These

may happen at the same time, but there may also be development lifecycles in which the ontology is

the formal capture of domain knowledge for some implementation technology other than reasoning

applications.

[10:38] Mike Bennett: So the kinds of error that relate to meaning itself would be captured at

potentially a different stage to the trapping of errors in DL-safe reasoning requirements or other

ontology application requirements. Semantics v syntax essentially.

[10:37] anonymous1 morphed into Pavithra Kenjige

[10:37] anonymous morphed into Nancy Wiegand

[10:39] anonymous morphed into Torsten Hahmann

[10:39] Pavithra Kenjige: Superclass vs Subclass .. for something to be subclass of a superclass, it

has to meet certain criteria.

[10:39] Pavithra Kenjige: Set theory is used to verify subclass and superclass verification

[10:40] Pavithra Kenjige: Dr. John F. Sowa would use one of kind of logic to verify such properties .. (

first or second order logic??)

[10:42] Steve Ray: In addition, some pointers to some of the tools we have experienced during the

Summit, or at least to some of the wiki pages where a reader can go, would be useful in a concrete

way. I just worry that we end with a nice academic paper but that doesn't provide some good tips and

links.

[10:43] Simon Spero: Terry Longstreth: Deploy cycles are getting faster in some models (this becomes

possible when testing is taking place all the time).

[10:43] Simon Spero:

http://www.amazon.com/Continuous-Delivery-Deployment-Automation-Addison-Wesley/dp/0321601912/ref=sr_

1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365702215&sr=1-1&keywords=continuous+delivery

[10:48] Terry Longstreth: @Simon - I agree, but however it's done, you still need to package and

deliver something

[10:52] Simon Spero: @TerryLongstreth: delivery in many cases is QA pushing the button to allow

applications to move from QA to production.

[10:52] Simon Spero: @Terry: That can be weekly or less depending on the enterprise

[10:53] Terry Longstreth: If QA's doing its job, it has validated the package as having conformed to

all forms and procedures, including appropriate tests of the to-be-delivered package

[10:55] Simon Spero: @Terry: right - else back it goes. The important thing is that testing is

automated throughout the cycle, so that most old-fashioned QA work is done; the same QA resources

are doing the stuff that is human only

[10:56] Terry Longstreth: @Simon - looks like we're in violent agreement.

[10:56] Terry Longstreth: I have to leave now.

[10:44] Ali Hashemi: I'm imagining a scenario, where the ontology has already largely been developed,

so it is "further along" the phase, but I want to implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that

that evaluation is complete

[10:45] Ali Hashemi: the current language is geared / tailored to those who are just embarking on an

ontology development process, as opposed to those who may have already developed to some degree.

[10:45] Simon Spero: @AliHashemi: define "evaluation is complete"?

[10:46] Simon Spero: WRT?

[10:46] Ali Hashemi: @Simon - so that the evaluation procedure that is utilized covers all the points

that are elaborated in the lifecycle phases

[10:47] Ali Hashemi: complete in evaluating all the various ways that we can evaluate ontologies

[10:47] Matthew West: The evaluation is complete when conformance (or not) to all stated requirements

has been established.

[10:48] Amanda Vizedom: Look at first full paragraph on page 3 for discussion of blending cycles,

variation in sequence, iterations, etc.

[10:49] Ali Hashemi: @Amanda, that comes much closer to addressing my question. Apologies if it was

pointed out earlier. Will add a comment to the document if appropriate.

[10:53] Amanda Vizedom: @Ali, no problem, and thanks for feedback. This session format is difficult

because we are only skimming through the document and briefly mentioning things we say, so the

detailed way that we may have addressed points is not conveyed.

[10:52] Michael Grüninger: Since notions of ontological errors and correctness are not addressed in

the "Ontological Analysis" section, we may want to include a forward pointer to say that such

notions will be addressed later in the "Formal Modeling" section.

[10:56] Joanne Luciano: I have to leave now too.

[10:56] Amanda Vizedom: Perhaps we need a extension of the diagram that shows entry by different

kinds of potential evaluators: (1) folks at the beginning of an ontology lifecycle, (2) folks with

an ontology existing, (3) folks looking to reuse an existing ontology.

[10:59] Steve Ray: Again, in the System Design Phase, I would suggest some references to standard

tomes on system design.

[11:02] Amanda Vizedom: @Steve, agreed. We have a note on our off-line working document that we need

such references. We're open to suggestions.

[11:04] Steve Ray: Uh oh. The Model Build Phase / Informal Modelling / Evaluation section makes a

backward reference to "Ontological Analysis", where I thought that you had just agreed with

Michael's suggestion that the ontological analysis section makes reference to the Model Build Phase.

Circularity?

[10:59] Pavithra Kenjige: For that we have to map the concepts to Ontology usage. If it is software,

during and after deployment .. it is testing phases and maintenance phace.

[10:59] Joanne Luciano: to all... I'm wondering if the semantic methodology and diagram we use at TWC

RPI (Fox and McGuinness) (the diagram is in the presentation on GOEF) that might be a better fit for

the communique (if we keep a diagram). sorry i have to go now -

[11:07] Peter P. Yim: @Joanne [10:59] - are you referring to the slide that is labeled: "Semantic Web

Development Methodology"? (slide#2 on the slide deck -

http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-03-28_OntologySummit2013_Hackathon-Clinics

_Launch/OntologySummit2013_HC-02_GOEF-iChoose_HackathonClinic--JoanneLuciano-et-al_20130328.pdf

[11:01] Matthew West: Apologies. I need to leave now.

[11:02] Peter P. Yim: @Fabian - why are we calling it "Model Build" Phase and not "Ontology Build"

[11:02] Peter P. Yim: I think the latter is more appropriate

[11:12] Amanda Vizedom: re: "Ontology" vs "Model" We don't object to this replacement. Amanda favors

it.

[11:14] Peter P. Yim: +1 "Ontology Build" please

[11:16] Fabian Neuhaus: concerning "model", just as historical explanation: in some previous version

I tried to make the distinction between the track A view and track B view by talking about

ontology-as-model and ontology-as-system, during the editing process this was shortened

[11:08] Steve Ray: Minor point under Formal Modeling: Suggest not using the term "OWL Full" which is

no longer used with OWL 2.0.

[11:09] Simon Spero: Steve Ray: ""OWL 2 Full" is used informally to refer to RDF graphs considered as

OWL 2 ontologies and interpreted using the RDF-Based Semantics." -

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/

[11:10] anonymous morphed into Pavithra Kenjige

[11:11] Fabian Neuhaus: Michael: add concrete example for ontology adaption

[11:14] Steve Ray: Page 7: Suggest editing "Structural properties include branching factor, density,

counts of ontology constructs, averages, and the like are intrinsic." to "Structural metrics include

branching factor, density, counts of ontology constructs, averages, and the like."

[11:15] Julien Corman: Just a reaction to the definition on page 7 : The domain is represented

accurately if all axioms within the ontology are true. In order to accurately represent the domain,

one may also require this axiomatization to be strong enough, i.e. the set of interpretations

satisfying this ontology to be restricted enough, so that the ontology actually rules out unintended

usage, or misunderstanding of its concepts. Page 4, it is suggested that the documentation should be

unambiguous enough, but this could be a requirement for the ontology as well.

[11:27] Amanda Vizedom: @Julien, yes, thank you for making that point. It is one we noted as needing

further discussion but not get to. One of our top-level questions is about intelligibility. This

must include whether the interpretations supported by the ontology are those intended!

[11:15] Pavithra Kenjige: Are you all establishing that Ontology is separate from software all the

time or in some cases?

[11:21] Peter P. Yim: @PavithraKenjige - that would depend on what you mean by "separate" ... if that

means "not equivalent to," then, I'd say the answer is: "yes, all the time"

[11:21] Fabian Neuhaus: @pavithra: we try to accommodate the fact that there is a view of

ontologies/knowledge base as data bases. This is the view from track B. In that sense ontologies are

software. Then there is a view of ontology as a model of reality. In that sense it is not software,

but just a set of declarative statements written in some formal language.

[11:31] Doug Foxvog: @Fabian, @Pavithra: It is useful to define different kinds of ontology: basic

definitional ontologies, theory ontologies, and knowledge bases.

[11:24] Pavithra Kenjige: Ontology is conceptual .. but most of the time, it is used to build or by

systems..

[11:26] Pavithra Kenjige: One outcome of Ontology can be logical and physical design and development

stages and deployment & usage are referred to as databases ..

[11:35] Pavithra Kenjige: @DougFoxvog, you have a good point. We have discussed domain and usage.. .

[11:27] Todd Schneider: Fabian, Track B presented the notion that there is a large similarity between

ontology and relational databases, hence many of the evaluation techniques from that field maybe

used, with modification, for ontology evaluation.

[11:29] Peter P. Yim: (ref. verbal suggestion) - Recommendations should be in a separate section ...

maybe putting them with (as proposed in the outline) "Future Steps What issues need to be addressed

to improve ontology evaluation and its adoption by ontology developers?" would be fine (... but not

with support or tools)

[11:24] Steve Ray: I think we could help a lot by providing links to the tools we have uncovered

during this Summit.

[11:31] Fabian Neuhaus: link to summary pages wiki

[11:31] Fabian Neuhaus: link to wiki page tools

[11:29] Steve Ray: Logistics question: Can we somehow allow comments by all us reviewers on the

Google Doc?

[11:32] Ali Hashemi: @Amanda, i thought you can highlight text within the document to add a comment

to a specific word/sentence/paragraph

[11:32] Ali Hashemi: You should be able to have the Share setting be "add comment" with link

[11:32] Amanda Vizedom: Comments on the Google doc are now enabled.

[11:37] Amanda Vizedom: To comment, select the text you want to comment on, then right click and

select "comment". Enter your comment an save.

[11:35] Torsten Hahmann: @Peter: (responding to Peter's call to tools developers to respond to the

Survey) I did update some of the information on the survey, please check that.

[11:35] Peter P. Yim: @Torsten - this is great! I didn't check lately!

[11:37] Doug Foxvog: Goodbye all!

[11:37] Peter P. Yim: great session!

[11:37] Pavithra Kenjige: thank you

[11:37] Simon Spero: ;;;; good work

[11:37] Joel Bender: Thank you!

[11:37] Peter P. Yim: Great job, Fabian and Amanda!

[11:39] Peter P. Yim: -- session ended: 11:37am 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)

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Thursday, 11-April-2013
  • Start Time: 9:30am PDT / 12:30pm EDT / 1:30pm ART / 6:30pm CEST / 5:30pm BST / 16:30 UTC
  • Expected Call Duration: 1.5~2.0 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's 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 and 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_20130411
    • 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_20130411@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

  • 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> with your affiliation.



Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2013_04_11&oldid=1296"