|Date/Time||September 11 2019 16:00 GMT|
|9:00am PDT/12:00pm EDT|
|5:00pm BST/6:00pm CEST|
Ontology Summit 2020 John Sowa on Knowledge Graphs
This session will last one hour and will be in two parts of roughly equal length: a speaker presentation and a discussion session. Participants at the session will not only be able to ask questions but will also have an opportunity to contribute to the topic.
- John Sowa "Knowledge Graphs: Past, Present, Future" Slides Video Recording YouTube Video
- General Discussion. All attendees are invited to participate in the discussion. To ask a question or make a contribution, please "raise your hand" on the Chat Room. The meeting will be recorded and the recording will be posted on this meeting page.
Conference Call Information
- Date: Wednesday, 11-September-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#
- 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
- iPhone one-tap :
- Chat Room
- Alex Shkotin
- Andrew Dougherty
- David Eddy
- Douglas R Miles
- Eswaran Subrahmanian
- Ilya Zaslavsky
- Janet Singer
- Janette Wong
- John Sowa
- Ken Baclawski
- LaVern Pritchard
- Marcia Zeng
- Mark Underwood
- Mike Bennett
- Ohad Asor
- Paul Tyson
- Ram D. Sriram
- Ravi Sharma
- Russell Reinsch
- Terry Longstreth
- Todd Schneider
- William Nadal
[11:55] Ken Baclawski: Welcome! John's slides are available at http://bit.ly/34DyeQi
[12:03] RaviSharma: thanks for slides link - Ravi
[12:06] RaviSharma: notes: KG are subset of semantic network
[12:07] RaviSharma: will define Kyndi work and correlation
[12:19] David Eddy: and when do we start to look at "un-natural language"? The text artifacts called software.
[12:21] MikeBennett: John is right that an ontology standard is a fixed thing, but that is not necessarily bad - it's the same as a natural language dictionary (but for concepts not words): it freezes things at a point in time to make some tasks easier, and must evolve slowly over time. As dictionaries do.
[12:21] RaviSharma: ken hope we are recording?
[12:22] Ken Baclawski: @RaviSharma: Yes, we are recording.
[12:25] David Eddy: @Mike... but dictionaries EXCLUDE the un-natural language in use in software
[12:32] MikeBennett: @David I'm making an analogy not an example.
[12:36] janet singer: @Mike - and dictionaries don't really fix meanings. They arguably fix pronunciations but treat meaning in prioritized cases of use (current and archaic). They are well set up to evolve by incorporating new use cases. What would such a treatment of ontology look like?
[12:39] MikeBennett: @Janet what they have in common is that they make static what is generally fluid. My point wrt John's point is that doing this is not necessarily a problem, as he suggests. It has a use.
[12:39] MikeBennett: Indeed this is what standards are, in general.
[12:42] janet singer: @Mike -Yes, but a lot of thought needs to go into a standard to make it evolvable.
[12:46] janet singer: A dictionary happens to be structured to be evolvable, which is why it persists. A glossary that presented single meanings for terms is more analogous to a fixed ontology
[12:48] David Eddy: @Janet - but formal, published dictionaries evolve at the publishing pace of the content owner (publishers like OAD, Webster, etc.)... what about local language with local meanings?
[12:50] janet singer: @David - Like online internet/urban slang dictionaries? They update more quickly
[12:51] David Eddy: @Janet... you would allow use of internet dictionaries in a project?
[12:53] David Eddy: Having just checked, jcl, cics & db2 are not in WordNet.
[12:54] RaviSharma: is Arun Majumdar on chat?
[12:55] janet singer: @David - Each standard is appropriate/inappropriate per context of use. I was thinking through Mikes response of the example of dictionaries to Johns critique of fixing ontologies
[12:55] David Eddy: I'm pretty sure I can anticipate Christiane's response if I asked to have such technical terms include in WordNet.
[12:57] janet singer: Yes, inclusion of new words and uses in dictionaries is a newsworthy event depending on how conservative that resource is
[12:58] Ken Baclawski: @RaviSharma: I don't see Arun Majumdar yet.
[12:59] David Eddy: @Janet - Jcl, cics & db2 are hardly new terms
[13:02] janet singer: New or too specialized a community of use, or otherwise outside the purview of the resource.
[13:02] RaviSharma: @john - in cog mem when one queries, are you addressing a subset of software that then accesses repository or sources of info?
[13:03] RaviSharma: John can you request Arun
[13:03] janet singer: Each dictionary has criteria for evolving. But dictionaries in general are structured to be evolvable. What are lessons from dictionaries for evolvability in ontologies?
[13:04] Ram D. Sriram: @John: It would be useful to get an understanding on the gaps and what needs to be done for future work.
[13:06] MikeBennett: @Janet that is the important question.
[13:06] David Eddy: @Janet >> But dictionaries in general are structured to be evolvable. << but not on the time scale needs of projects.
[13:08] David Eddy: @Janet... this gives me the idea to ask people with iPhones know the OAD is embedded in both iOS & macOS. Sorry... no idea for Android or Windows.
[13:09] AlexShkotin: where we on youtube?
KenBaclawski: There will be links in the meeting pages to the youtube recordings. Here is the YouTube Channel
[13:10] janet singer: @David - can you explain re OAD and iPhones?
[13:10] David Eddy: @Janet... connect with me on LinkedIn & we can discuss... not trivial topic.