Session	Topic Discussion
Duration	1 hour
Date/Time	August 7 2019 16:00 GMT
	9:00am PDT/12:00pm EDT
	5:00pm BST/6:00pm CEST
Convener	Ken Baclawski

Ontology Summit 2020 Topic Discussion

Agenda

The session will begin with a working session on the Ontology Summit 2019 Communiqué, so if you were not involved in the development of the communiqué, then you might prefer to join the session at 12:30pm US Eastern Time.

Draft Communiqué

Conference Call Information

Date: Wednesday, 07-August-2019
Start Time: 9:00am PDT / 12:00pm EDT / 6:00pm CEST / 5:00pm BST / 1600 UTC
- ref: World Clock
Expected Call Duration: 1 hour

The Video Conference URL is https://zoom.us/j/689971575
- iPhone one-tap :
  - US: +16699006833,,689971575# or +16465588665,,689971575#
- Telephone:
  - Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 646 558 8665
  - Meeting ID: 689 971 575
  - International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/Iuuiouo
Chat Room

Participants

Proceedings

[12:21] janet singer: IEP Does have this: While Chinese philosophical thought has a wide variety of ontologies, it has not stressed metaphysics in the traditional Western sense. Some ontological questions Chinese philosophers have considered are these: What is reality composed of? Is reality a single type of thing (monism), two types of things (dualism, such as minds and bodies; matter and spirit), or many kinds of things (pluralism)? Is reality composed only of transient things in constant change or are there eternal substances that form its content? Is reality actually as it appears to us, or is it something different than what we think it is? Is reality teleological; that is, is it purposing or going toward an end? Is the process of reality guided by a mind or intelligence to occur as it does, or does it follow some internal pattern of its own nature, or do humans attach meaning or purpose to a reality that is devoid of any inherent meaning?

[12:28] janet singer: https://www.iep.utm.edu/chin-ovr/

[12:34] MikeBennett: If we were including everything there would surely be North American sources also. If we are tracking the set of philosophies that have contributed to ontology, fine but include e.g Russell and Whitehead. However, we are only interested in explanations here, not ontology history I suggest.

[12:35] RaviSharma: Ken and Ram - I would provide a sentence on explanations from Indian philosophy and knowledge books such as Upanishads that came at least a millennium before the Buddhist thoughts and Confucius listed by Janet above. The whole universe is appearance and apparent reality as well as why of thought and lot of logic and reasoning as well as explanations, but I do not know whether it is helping focus us on this communique.

[12:36] RaviSharma: Yes to Mike

[12:39] RaviSharma: John Sowa has a book on Knowledge representations that covers history of this subject - all.

[12:39] MikeBennett: John's book is 'Knowledge Representation; Logical, Philosophical and Computational Foundations'

[12:46] ToddSchneider: 2020: Domain ares - Medical, Finance, Engineering, Software ??\

[12:47] ToddSchneider: Can we refer to there 'domain areas' as 'application domains' or 'application areas'?

[12:51] RaviSharma: ken - 38 industry / categories from UN or US DoC relating to Knowledge or ontologies, ken and others discussed.

[12:52] RaviSharma: Ken co-edited "information onslaught" topic

[12:54] RaviSharma: coherence and chaos.

[12:55] RaviSharma: applications and issues - Janet

[12:56] RaviSharma: issue is challenge and opportunities

[12:59] ToddSchneider: Common Issues: Interoperability - terminological, ontological; Ontological Consistency; Logical Consistency

[12:59] RaviSharma: Ravi Said where are knowledge graphs in the overall ontology (tree ) of knowledge.

[12:59] RaviSharma: Todd Yes

[13:02] RaviSharma: How about Canvas of Knowledge and where are knowledge graphs placed?Actually let us see Gary's PPT

[13:03] RaviSharma: Gary addresses this can we review or flash his slides or do it when he is present?

[13:06] MikeBennett: There's also Eccenca in Europe (Germany)

[13:08] ToddSchneider: And Ontotext (or whatever their name is now).

[13:10] janet singer: Relevant recent Ontolog forum discussion in representation vs storage structure - was Rows and columns versus graphs

[13:12] RaviSharma: Janet you mean KR vs KG?

[13:13] RaviSharma: or KG within KR?

[13:14] RaviSharma: Todd - Virtual Graphs, apps and domains?

[13:14] janet singer: Todd's question: Why do you get value out of a knowledge graph approach vs a relational approach?

[13:15] RaviSharma: Conceptual graphs are imp according to John - ?

[13:16] RaviSharma: CGs represent logic - referred John.

[13:18] RaviSharma: that was David Whitten speaking on Conceptual Graphs.

[13:19] RaviSharma: Ken - need people from Industry, Todd providers of KG and also Users and Janet said KG and RDBMS?

[13:20] RaviSharma: David - sparse storage.

[13:23] ToddSchneider: Have to go. Thank you.

[13:25] RaviSharma: Our range of topics included original title suggested as KG hype vs reality and versions of same such as why now, to KGs and RDBMS, conceptual graphs,

[13:25] RaviSharma: metaphors

[13:26] RaviSharma: Ravi asks all - where do we want to go next week before we discuss organization, schedule and sub-topics, etc.

[13:27] RaviSharma: janet and others, skeptics to talk in coming weeks

[13:29] janet singer: Could have session with skeptics on Why KGs are nothing new (William Frank, John Sowa); then we could summarize the arguments in bullet points and require all subsequent speakers to address them

[13:31] janet singer: David W: That sounds like expecting people to learn something

[13:32] janet singer: Jans was interested in addressing the question of: KG - Why Now?

Previous Meetings

... further results

Next Meetings