Ontolog Forum

Session Communique
Duration 1.5 hour
Date/Time Apr 25 2018 16:00 GMT
9:00am PDT/12:00pm EDT
5:00pm BST/6:00pm CST
Convener KenBaclawski

Ontology Summit 2018 Communique Session 3


Version 01 of the Communiqué is available at [1].

The Symposium will be held on 30 April and 1 May 2018 at NITRD in Washington, D.C.

The Communiqué will be based on the blogs:

Track BlogChampions
Domain Specific NeedsDavid Whitten and Ravi Sharma
Upper OntologiesMike Bennett and David Whitten
Open Knowledge NetworkRam D. Sriram and Gary Berg-Cross
Integration and InteroperabilityCory Casanave assisted by Ravi Sharma
Systems EngineeringJanet Singer and Jack Ring
Representation of ContextCory Casanave

Video Recording

Conference Call Information

  • Date: Wednesday, 25-April-2018
  • Start Time: 9:00am PDT / 12:00pm EDT / 6:00pm CST / 5:00pm BST / 1600 UTC
  • Expected Call Duration: ~1.5 hours
  • Video Conference URL:
    • 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:
    • 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.



[12:09] Gary Berg-Cross: There is an ontology of Phenotypes as well as genotypes called PATO. It addresses some of these issues being discussed under healthcare measures like BP.

[12:10] KenBaclawski: Domain Specific Issue: Distinguishing domain specific from general. This is at the meta-level so it is a context issue.

[12:12] KenBaclawski: There could be multiple meta-levels involved in the decision.

[12:12] maparent: My personal approach to a lot of this is that many aspects of knowledge are implicit until problematized. In this case, we'd assume a "default" generic context until someone confronts the assertion with a conflicting context; then we can infer that the original assertion was context-bound.

[12:12] Gary Berg-Cross: Ref to PATO might include Miguel Ángel Rodríguez-García, Georgios V. Gkoutos, Paul N. Schofield and Robert Hoehndorf, "Integrating phenotype ontologies with PhenomeNET." Journal of biomedical semantics 8.1 (2017): 58.

[12:12] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: Yes... in previous Summits, measurement ontologies were suggested as not domain specific? Do we think this is generally true, though if you look at a specific domain, say radiology, some "measurements" are clearly domain specific

[12:14] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: I wanted to stick to what had been presented vs. my own experience, but in cybersec we need to treat DMTF CIMs as non domain specific. But it's relative

[12:14] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: Discussion: Where do agents fit . . .

[12:15] RaviSharma: Domain and context: David, Mark and Ken addressed need to provide metalevel and specific, Todd on agent-role, and need to give examples, etc.

[12:16] janet singer: @Todd - or a pluralistic realism

[12:16] KenBaclawski: Domain Specific Issue: Different kinds of agent and their roles. Agents have intentions. How can this be formalized and operationalized (Is this the right word here?)

[12:17] RaviSharma: Context: Domain neutral not all agreed

[12:17] maparent: certainly history of scientific measurement shows huge contextual variability

[12:17] Gary Berg-Cross: There may be different units depending on granularity of the domain that we are talking about.

[12:18] RaviSharma: Notes continued: X-domain vs categorical are adjunct

[12:19] Gary Berg-Cross: We are getting into a situational context when we talk about hypertension.

[12:19] Ram D. Sriram: @mark: I remember we discussed units and ontology in one of the summits.

Added by KenBaclawski: It was

[12:20] maparent: that is background, and certainly interpretative background. But when presenting a data point, it _might_ be sufficient to (eg) point to measurement apparatus and procedure.

[12:20] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: Ram - exactly... was trying to incorporate that thinking into this distinction between what is domain specific

[12:21] Ram D. Sriram: @Mark: We will probably focus this discussion as we have only few days left for the summit

[12:22] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: @Ravi . I will look at your existing DS content and modify

[12:24] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: @Ram I will try to cite that earlier measurement discussion and leave it at that

[12:25] John Sowa: I sent a note to the Ontology Summit list with two paragraphs that state my point about contexts and metalevel reasoning.

[12:28] RaviSharma: @John, Is it is the communique, I thought parts of it are and I have also incorporated some of your ideas on Domain-context track.

[12:29] RaviSharma: @John - I meant the Blog page.

[12:30] John Sowa: Ravi, I wrote those two paragraphs just this morning, and I didn't have time to go to the blog.

[12:30] RaviSharma: @John kindly send us those two paragraphs.

[12:31] John Sowa: Ravi, please put those pages into the section where you added that information.

[12:32] RaviSharma: @John, I saw these and we request Ken to use them in intro and definition parts of Communique'.

[12:34] John Sowa: Ravi, OK.

[12:35] jackpark:

[12:36] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: @Ravi - if you want me to help with integration, ping me

[12:37] RaviSharma: @John thanks will incorporate relevant statements in domain-context track.

[12:38] RobertRovetto: Guest 6 is me, but I don't know where the settings are to change the name

Added by KenBaclawski: Unfortunately, you can't change your BlueJeans name after starting. You need to start over.

[12:39] KenBaclawski: Janet can you tell me the status of the Systems Engineering track. Could it be incorporated into interoperability?

[12:39] RaviSharma: @Mark, @Todd need all the help that Cory and I can get to succinctly include material covered at Summit and relevant references in the blog page for Integration and interoperability.

[12:39] Gary Berg-Cross: Here are John's 2 paragraphs from his posted email to the Forum:

The context needed to understand any text or discourse may include information of any kind, general or specific. For this reason, any reasoning about context is at a metalevel: it's not about the current subject matter, but about the methods for finding some implicit information that should be added to the subject.

That information can come from several sources. The immediate context includes the sentences that precede or follow the current sentence. The background knowledge includes information about the subject matter that is assumed by the speaker or author. The situation includes the time, place, and audience or readers. All these sources of information may change at different points in a document or discourse.

[12:40] ToddSchneider: What about folding the the engineering section into the interoperability section?

[12:41] RaviSharma: @Todd the Sys Engg is separate (all tracks are not without overlap) from interoperability.

[12:42] maparent: I get the impression that a lot of the Upper Ontology work is relevant to representation of context.

[12:42] ToddSchneider: Ravi, yes but they are closely related: systems may not interoperate.

[12:44] RaviSharma: Notes: Ken said redundancy and overlap are inherent and common issues from multiple tracks are very important.

[12:44] Gary Berg-Cross: On this idea of "representing context", don't we address one part of this when we represent an entity and/or process as part of a situation??

[12:45] John Sowa: @maparent, as I said in my two paragraphs, every source of information may be included in the context.

[12:46] John Sowa: That includes any or all of whatever ontology is being used -- or any info about anything in the universe.

[12:47] John Sowa: That is why context should not be identified with any particular part of the ontology.

[12:49] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: John apparently subjected to a Rorschach at some point in the past

[12:50] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: It is useful to have a logo that can be iconized for socialization

[12:51] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: I vote for using it as is, but objections as noted

[12:52] RaviSharma: Notes: Graphic needs improvements if it is to be used for logo.

[12:53] RaviSharma: Notes: Volunteers are needed if time permits for graphic!

[12:54] Gary Berg-Cross: I will do some editing of the Synthesis page over the next 2 days.

[12:54] janet singer: @Ravi Does this have a better sense of moving outward?

[12:54] RaviSharma: Notes: Mark, Todd, Cory and Ravi to create a few paragraphs for interoperability and Integration track. Content and also issues!

[12:56] Gary Berg-Cross: I prefer having a keynote early as context.

[12:56] RaviSharma: @Todd Great:

[12:57] RaviSharma: @Todd - can we request Ken to flash this version?

[12:58] John Sowa: I have to leave at 1 pm

[13:00] RaviSharma: Notes: We will look at Logo from other sources, offline.

[13:00] RobertRovetto: Can you set-up remote-attendance, video-conferencing, etc. for the symposium?

[13:01] RaviSharma: @rob, I am hoping Ken will give us bluejeans and Chat as usual, I have not registered nor required for online participation.

Added by KenBaclawski: Yes, Ravi there will be BlueJeans and chat available at the Symposium. The BlueJeans URL will be posted. The chat is the same as today. Virtual attendees do not need to register.

[13:02] RaviSharma: @Robert - I meant Robert.

[13:02] janet singer: FYI from Standard License

(default with all content) You may use our content in newsletters, magazines, and advertising / promotional material, business cards, letterhead, promotional posters, billboards, and brochures; all of up to 500,000 reproductions. You may use our content on your website, video presentations, and multimedia displays. You can not use our content as your legal logo, or as part of products for resale. You may not redistribute or re-sell our content in any way.

[13:03] RaviSharma: @John - thanks especially for inputs.


Video Recording

Previous Meetings

... further results

Next Meetings