Session	Domain Specific Needs for Context
Duration	1.5 hour
Date/Time	Jan 31 2018 17:00 GMT
	9:00am PST/12:00pm EST
	5:00pm GMT/6:00pm CET
Convener	DavidWhitten and Ravi Sharma

Ontology Summit 2018 Domain Specific Needs for Context Session 2

Agenda

12:00 - 12:30 Dov Dori on The Minimal Universal Ontology of Stateful Objects and Processes that Transform Them Slides in PPT format Slides in PDF format
12:30 - 12:45 Discussion
12:45 - 1:15 Cory Casanave on Context aware ontologies for information and system integration Slides in PDF format Slides in PPT format
1:15 - 1:30 Discussion

Conference Call Information

Date: Wednesday, 31-January-2018
Start Time: 9:00am PST / 12:00pm EST / 6:00pm CET / 5:00pm GMT / 1700 UTC
- World Clock
Expected Call Duration: ~1.5 hours

Video Conference URL: https://bluejeans.com/703588230
- If you have not used BlueJeans before, then connect to the URL above before the meeting time so that the required plug-in can be installed.

Chatroom: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontology_summit_2018
- 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.
This session, like all other Ontolog events, is open to the public. Information relating to this session is shared on this wiki page.
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

Proceedings

[12:13] ToddSchneider: You need a way to 'distinguish' or differentiate 'things'.

[12:14] Ravi Sharma: Notes: So context about I and Universe have space, time, movement with time, etc to begin with.

[12:14] ToddSchneider: For whom do 'things' exist?

[12:14] Ravi Sharma: Todd source is not important, object or thing is?

[12:15] ToddSchneider: Ravi, what does 'source' refer to?

[12:16] Ravi Sharma: from where?

[12:17] Gary Berg-Cross: Is a abstract thing like a number an informational object?

[12:17] Ravi Sharma: I see you meant for Whom? we do not need to assign object to target who uses or sees the object, Todd!

[12:18] Cory Casanave: @Bobbin, what format? Can you open from here: https://github.com/ModelDriven/ConceptLibraries/tree/master/Presentations

[12:19] ToddSchneider: Does OPM describe or represent 'state'? Is it a 'Stateful Object'?

[12:20] ToddSchneider: Does OPM allow a 'Process' to affect a 'Process'?

[12:21] Ravi Sharma: Notes: Object and Processes.

[12:22] Gary Berg-Cross: How is this model than the model underlying Petri Nets? A Petri net is a directed bipartite graph, in which the nodes represent transitions (i.e. events that may occur, represented by bars) and places (i.e. conditions, represented by circles). The directed arcs describe which places are pre- and/or postconditions for which transitions (signified by arrows).

[12:23] Ravi Sharma: Todd - object process model I assume?

[12:25] Ravi Sharma: Notes: Object Process can affect or create objects.

[12:26] Ravi Sharma: Notes: Diagram describes Object Process Language?

[12:28] KenBaclawski: @BobbinTeegarden: I have been working to fix Cory's slides. The PDF seems okay now.

[12:28] Ravi Sharma: @Dov Dori - There is the more fundamental way, understanding what is seen and what is conceptualized (Audio, Visual, Language simultaneously) or constructing internally a model to improve our understanding.

[12:30] Ravi Sharma: @Dov Dori - does context define also the time scale of interest for changes or dynamics?

[12:32] John Sowa: The object-process distinction is not universal.

[12:32] ChristiKapp: How is this different than what is modeled using traditional state transition diagrams? Is it because this is a broader concept ? (process can either change state of an object, modify an object, or create a new object)?

[12:33] John Sowa: More precisely, every object is a process whose changes are slow relative to the time scale of the context.

[12:34] John Sowa: In fact, processes are more fundamental than objects.

[12:35] John Sowa: A process can create an object or another process. But objects cannot create processes.

[12:36] Ravi Sharma: @Dov Dori - OPM describes large part of Context? Is this the overarching Message, without going into very detail of OPL such as recognized or unrecognized system. Also is everything a system?

[12:38] janet singer: How does the object-process distinction compare to Barry Smiths distinction into continuant and occurrent?

[12:38] Ravi Sharma: @Dov Dori - where you put any event is that part of Process? obviously the Start is, and is that what would better define the context, we want you to take us to the relationship between OPM OPL and CONTEXTS

[12:38] BobbinTeegarden: @Dov Dori -- each of your models are planar, what happens if you want to look at the same thing at a different level of abstraction, e.g 5000 foot view (it's context), or more detail (zooming in)?

[12:38] MikeBennett: @John isn't there a distinction there between 'what is' and how we conceptualize what is? everything is a process but some processes are conceptualized as objects. That takes time out of the equation.

[12:39] ChristiKapp: Also this system definition on page 22 reminds me of some things in a System-of-Systems article (DeLaurentis, Daniel. Understanding Transportation as a System-of-Systems Design Problem, 43rd AIAA, Aerospace sciences meeting, Reno, Nevada, January 10 13, 2005; AIAA-2005-0123. )

[12:42] Jack Ring: John, Where does process come from and what is a process made of?

[12:45] BobbinTeegarden: Object and process views are similar to the wave (process) vs particle (object) views in physics... no? Different 'contexts'...

[12:46] MikeBennett: @Bobbin per Dov's response, the context has a role in determining which conceptualizations we apply to world-stuff.

[12:49] BobbinTeegarden: @MikeB Is the 'conceptualization' itself a context? So you're pointing at the context of the context? Holonic again?

[12:49] MikeBennett: @Bobbin I think so. Needs exploring.

[12:50] Cory Casanave: @Bobbin, perhaps the perspective is a context that determines the conceptualization

[12:51] BobbinTeegarden: @Cory, hmmmm... cause and effect among contexts?

[12:51] Jack Ring: It will be therapeutic to talk about System 1, 2,etc. and NOT about 'WE'

[12:51] Ravi Sharma: Dov - then events are important and help us in context.

[12:54] Ravi Sharma: Thanks Dov for a very exciting presentation, and let us stay engaged during Summit on the relationship of your work to define or ficus on CONTEXT in onto-semantic areas !

[12:54] ChristiKapp: @Bobbin - is the context the filter that we personally apply to the process to create the abstraction = object?

[12:55] John Sowa: The idea of reference ontology is vague.

[12:55] BobbinTeegarden: @Chris if the 'object' is a system, then I would think yes.

[12:56] David Whitten: Cory's idea of Reference Ontology or any common ontology such as Cyc's BaseKB, might be a way to ground symbols in smaller ontologies to specify the context of the smaller ontologies through the use of the genlMt relation.

[12:56] John Sowa: In fact, the concept of reference ontology is so vague that it is indistinguishable from a terminology stated in a natural language.

[12:57] MikeBennett: @John reference ontology refers to its function rather than its nature, but in general these would be concept-focused (concepts of real things) as distinct from the kinds of ontology we often see in OWL that tend to be used-case specific application ontologies.

[12:57] David Whitten: @johnSowa, do you then think that something like WordNet could be treated as a reference ontology ?

[12:58] John Sowa: Mike, I agree with you. But that does not distinguish a reference ontology from a terminology.

[12:58] David Whitten: @mikeB : good point. being a "reference ontology" is a role played by an ontology.

[12:59] David Whitten: @johnSowa if I used an ontology "TOP" as a reference ontology, I would expect to inherit rules and properties as well as names.

[12:59] MikeBennett: @John right, because they have the same purpose. But one is an ontology. Banks often use business glossaries in this way, while everyone who mentions ontology to them is talking about an OWL application (data-focused) deliverable. In work like FIBO we have to make this distinction to explain how an ontology can be used in business governance.

[12:59] John Sowa: David, WordNet is widely used to align different ontologies. In that regard, it is more universal than any formally defined ontology.

[12:59] Jack Ring: Cabrera's DSRP is very helpful. P=perspective which is only one aspect of context,

[13:01] Jack Ring: Massive confusing of map vs. territory?

[13:01] Gary Berg-Cross: One idea of a reference ontology is that it attempts to provide a standard that restricts fairly generic scientific terms (classes and relations), such as in geoscience where there are alternate definitions for geologic unit, water body, or aquifer, to a single interpretation.

[13:03] Mark Underwood: @Mike.. would like to know more about how FIBO ontology contexts can be used in workflow governance, e.g., how they play in workflow engines. How overcome hard-coding of context via RESTful API settings

[13:03] Mark Underwood: Maybe a later session topic if relevant?

[13:05] MikeBennett: @Mark that could be fun. FIBO has an underlying conceptual framework that is not part of the formal standard, that deals with process (workflow) and other real-world nuances.

[13:07] Ravi Sharma: @John - referring to Dov's talk, is ontology that part of O_R or Process Limits, that are relevant to a given problem, e.g., let us say awareness of all ships in a 10 mile radius then identify allied ships from maritime and other unknown ships, the relations and things describe such ontology and also provide context.

[13:08] Gary Berg-Cross: I think of lbs. and kgs as measurement of the same concept. No wt/mass distinction to them.

[13:09] Gary Berg-Cross: kg to lbs | kg to pounds converter - RapidTables.com

https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/weight/kg-to-pound.html

1 kilogram (kg) is equal to 2.20462262185 pounds (lbs). 1 kg = 2.20462262185 lb. The mass m in pounds (lb) is equal to the mass m in kilograms (kg) divided by 0.45359237: m(lb) = m(kg) / 0.45359237. https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/weight/kg-to-pound.htm

[13:09] John Sowa: Gary, the need for a standard is why WordNet is so popular. It's also why terminologies are so important. Every branch of science and engineering has an official or at least a de facto terminology.

[13:12] John Sowa: Re context: Cory is stating many important points. But there is one universal principle that explains and characterizes every type of context: Intentionality.

[13:13] John Sowa: The intentions of some human or group/organization/society of humans determines the context.

[13:13] Jack Ring: Situations contain context. The challenge is to discern the relevance.

[13:14] John Sowa: Intentionality is also the determining context for the distinction between objects and processes.

[13:14] Gary Berg-Cross: John, extant terminologies in some "branch" branch of Science when branches meet at cross domain issues. One can see slightly different perspectives on terms in these cases and they are numerous.

[13:15] Jack Ring: Situations contain types AND class

[13:15] DouglasMiles: as much as people can argue the use of particular name are good or misleading, I think SUO/SUMO it still did something correct for being a "reference ontology" a since it intent was to create a methodology to create new ontologies

[13:16] DouglasMiles: that is what we look for right is just an ontology that create a methodology ?

[13:17] Gary Berg-Cross: I think of hospitals less a type (woman, mother) than as a type of situation.

[13:17] BobbinTeegarden: @JohnSowa Isn't Intentionality more part of the context of the target context?

[13:18] John Sowa: Gary, Jack, and Douglas, the intentions of some human or group of humans always determines the context or kind of context.

[13:18] Ravi Sharma: @Cory - how would you formalize perspective, it is known in image processing but in a more general sense?

[13:19] DouglasMiles: In a upper or "definitional" ontology I expect to only reason about how to distinguish that Situations are different than a Class

[13:19] Jack Ring: Perspective, point of view, bounds Context

[13:19] Ralph Schaefermeier: Are types really contexts, or do the relations (restrictions) contextualize a type?

[13:20] BobbinTeegarden: @Jack aren't perspective and point of view just other ways of saying 'context'?

[13:20] David Whitten: @ralph so you are thinking that the type is dynamically defined using the relations that are defined in its own context?

[13:20] DouglasMiles: (So I am saying that there is the context of humans wishing to define how terms can be used later)

[13:21] John Sowa: Ravi, perspective is determined by what and how some human chooses (intends) to view the matter that they are viewing or discussing..

[13:21] Ravi Sharma: @Cory

[13:21] Gary Berg-Cross: John, I would say that the context of context is a result of a series of cognitive activities of which intention is part, along with prior knowledge, beliefs and the like.

[13:21] Ralph Schaefermeier: I was thinking of types that can be defined by different relations in different contexts, thus "contextualized types".

[13:22] David Whitten: @ralph so if the type uses "domain-of" to focus its definition, but then is used in a context which defines "domain-of" differently than another context, you can have a "lazy" evaluation of the type's axioms ?

[13:22] Ravi Sharma: @cory - Would you consider viewpoints, perspectives as overarching but containing "Context" within them?

[13:22] John Sowa: Douglas, the human intentions determine the context. Without intensions, there is no context.

[13:22] DouglasMiles: Question: Is it possible to create a context free ontology ?

[13:22] Ralph Schaefermeier: @David: yes

[13:23] John Sowa: In the previous note, I meant 'intention' with a T. Intensions with an S are a special case of intentions with a T.

[13:26] BobbinTeegarden: @JohnSowa isn't intention the 'Why' in who-what-when-where-why-how of a potential context?

[13:26] Jack Ring: Bobbin, There are N kinds of context. The human aspects, point of view and perspective, are only one kind.

[13:26] John Sowa: Intention is always the deepest and most fundamental answer to any question of the form "Why?"

[13:27] MikeBennett: @John barring accidents?

[13:28] John Sowa: When your mommy gets tired of answering why-questions, her final answer is "because I said so."

[13:28] Ravi Sharma: Notes: We need synthesis among our 3-4 talks on context and ontologies in last 3 weeks such as Dov, John, David and Spencer/Sub and Cory's talks, for example a context helps set up boundaries of ontology i.e. relationships of relevance, etc?

[13:30] Gary Berg-Cross: Perspective and context seem like the same thing at times. Each has some sense of as a limited characterization of reality (by a cognitive agent). They are specific to the peculiarities of a particular circumstance, and contains elements that could not be found easily in other situations or perspectives. Another way of saying this is that it is information that is embedded in a specific domain, conversation or situation.

[13:30] Mark Underwood: @Cory A family of use cases arises when trying to map from a cybersecurity model (e.g., https://ebiquity.umbc.edu/paper/html/id/722) to the context that arises from a user story. But user stories in the agile world produce UML representations, not ontologies. What does the crosswalk for context look like then?

[13:31] DouglasMiles: Sometimes I wish we forced ourselves to say "Microtheory" when we say "Context" it would be helpful

[13:31] Ravi Sharma: Notes: We also need to distinguish situations, namely are we describing the universe versus actionable objectives such as improving clinical practices? hence almost invariably, we need to describe what as john said human intention? then context is more definable?

[13:32] Jack Ring: Our leader is Strong. John Strong. John is a strong leader puts strong in the role of describing effect.

[13:32] John Sowa: Mike, when an accident occurs, different people with different intentions will choose different actions.

[13:32] DouglasMiles: since "Microtheory" usages are based on some intent and require ourselves to label such contexts as "MicrotheoryType" that we have to enumerate "ContextTypes"

[13:32] Gary Berg-Cross: Some types of roles make sense in a particular situation.

[13:34] Jack Ring: No john.

[13:34] BobbinTeegarden: @John but in your example, the lack of intentionality is also an intention...

[13:34] MikeBennett: @John got it. So it's more about how people interpret and conceptualize things.

[13:35] DouglasMiles: examples of ContextTypes: DefinitionalVocabulary, ApplicationStateConext, ParsedEnglishToLogicContext etc

[13:35] David Whitten: A role may be a category that includes a particular intention (perspective)

[13:36] Mark Underwood: Two very apt presentations: thanks!

[13:36] Ravi Sharma: Notes: What is likelihood that a description of nature is relevant only when cognizer or life is present! thanks John.

[13:38] Ravi Sharma: Notes: I meant to say two different things. 2. Life is needed for understanding the Universe, as John said.

[13:39] Mark Underwood: @Jack I *knew* I was little more than a fastener. True enough.

[13:40] Cory Casanave: Gary, perspective seems a special case of context, this is where the intent comes in.

[13:40] Ravi Sharma: Notes: item 2. is what John calls intention. Any Perspective, Concept, History or Maps of universe, are relevant only if there is a higher likelihood that someone will be interested in it!

[13:40] MikeBennett: @Cory presumably what differentiates the kid of context that is a perspective, is that it is the perspective of some person (or AI or corporation etc.)

[13:41] Ravi Sharma: Notes: Hence Context is in relation to human Intention.?

[13:41] DouglasMiles: the context of adding Dimensionality :P

[13:41] David Whitten: @ravi - the creator of the map has an intended meaning for all the symbols in a key for the map. The viewer of the map must be able to view the map using the perspective of the map-creator.

[13:42] BobbinTeegarden: And lack of place and time is a context unto itself...

[13:43] DouglasMiles: A timepoint is a Process or an Object?

[13:43] Ravi Sharma: @Gary - but there was no one to discuss or describe it, only in retrospect, these attributes such as space, time, matter, void, force were relevant as they were created but help us understand universe?

[13:43] David Whitten: @bobbinT : if you have no time, everything happens now. if you have no space, everything happens here.

[13:43] Cory Casanave: @Ravi, at least perspective is. I am not sure about context not existing without intelligence, two rocks collide in space - it is still a situation that involves those rocks. However, the formalization is certainly human. But, I understand where John comes from.

[13:44] Ravi Sharma: John and Gary, there is no full agreement on Big Bang, Current universe can be described from non- big bang theories as well, including particles, expansion, dark matter etc.

[13:45] Gary Berg-Cross: Expansion of spacetime seems more important than banging now.

[13:46] Cory Casanave: Considerations of intent and context without human are just not that interesting for the more pragmatic concerns of using these concepts for mediation and reasoning. It is interesting philosophy.

[13:48] MikeBennett: So... Perspective is a matter of human intention. From a given perspective, our human forms intensions (concepts) of the world. These include contexts like time, place, why etc.; for most (all?) sets of intensions, there are also implied contexts. Particularly for words. Per Cory's definition, those contexts outside a given set of intensions, are that which is needed to understand those words / model etc. But in a very broad e.g. reference ontology, we would seek to make those implicit contexts explicit so more of the model is unambiguous within itself. Does that work?

[13:48] Cory Casanave: @Mike; What differentiates perspective? I would say it is arbitrary and based on "intent".

[13:49] MikeBennett: @Cory I would say hat is the answer to your question. Perspective is arbitrary, is of a person, may depend on their intents?

[13:54] MikeBennett: We are effectively discussing the old koan: If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, does it make a noise?

[13:55] DouglasMiles: I think a point Cory almost got to important as realizing intent is important what comes down to it is what Model is required

[13:55] David Whitten: Or the koan, if a boulder rolls down a hill and causes a tree to fall, if no one pushed it, can you say the broken tree has turned into firewood ?

[13:56] DouglasMiles: I meant that that a context is based on what bags of propositions are made to work together

[13:57] David Whitten: I would argue that viewing something as firewood is assigning a role to it that requires intention.

[13:57] MikeBennett: @David interesting example. In my kind of ontology we use "Relative Thing" which is a thing in a context. Firewood is wood in the context of its use for fire.

[13:57] DouglasMiles: (Cory didn't say "Models".. but he did say "grouped Propositions")

[13:57] MikeBennett: @David exactly. Firewood is necessarily a context-specific (relative) thing, as are things like asset, tool, instrument etc.

[13:58] MikeBennett: For each of these, the corresponding context can be identified.

[13:58] David Whitten: what is the difference between an ontology and a group of propositions ?

[13:59] DouglasMiles: Though John is right in order to group propositions it does require some intentional use

[14:01] DouglasMiles: It seems like the some ontologies are supposed to be a guide for grouping of propositions

[14:02] DouglasMiles: I mean i see usually the role of an ontology

[14:02] David Whitten: So the commonality that defines the reason for creating a group to begin with requires some intention? maybe...

[14:02] DouglasMiles: being a way to design how propositions will be grouped later

[14:03] David Whitten: So a role for an ontology has an intendor.

[14:03] ChristiKapp: @Mike - I understand what you are saying. If I walk up to a faucet in a restroom and put my hands under it and the water comes on. Implied Context enables me to expect this. However, if I was born in 1910 and time traveled to today's time, and I saw someone do this, I would perceive witchcraft because all the context about the faucet's process is implied. But if the time traveler had explicit context attached to the faucet that described the evolution of electricity, sensors, etc, then they would perceive something closer to correct.

[14:04] MikeBennett: @Christi good example.

[14:05] David Whitten: @mike, is Relative Thing in your system the same as in JohnSowa's ?

[14:05] DouglasMiles: There is no such things as context without dimensionality

[14:05] DouglasMiles: (is what Christi says)

[14:05] David Whitten: I did like the full list of contexts in Cycorp's Context Space paper.

[14:06] DouglasMiles: John says that all dimensionality is created with some end purpose or intent)

[14:07] MikeBennett: @David yes, directly.

[14:07] DouglasMiles: What john is saying right now about the thermostat is a perfect example

[14:08] Cory Casanave: The rocks colliding in space are not designed and have no intent. A model/ontology we build to understand them has intent.

[14:11] ChristiKapp: @Mike @John - So the intention was possessed by the person that designed the faucet. Would the time traveler (receiver of information) have any intention other than to perceive the faucet process and context? (and if they did have an intention, would that be a bias caused by an interfering contextual assumption?)

[14:12] MikeBennett: @Christi hmmm. I'll have to think about that. More next week perhaps.

[14:12] Ravi Sharma: Notes: seed ontology, intention related components, micro macro or design vs use were some of the topics discussed.

[14:14] MikeBennett: Of course I assume that when you use the word faucet, you mean what I would call a 'tap'.

[14:22] ChristiKapp: @mike yes - my perception of 'tap' generally outputs beer ;-) Which is another example of your original point "But in a very broad e.g. reference ontology, we would seek to make those implicit contexts explicit so more of the model is unambiguous within itself."