Ontolog Forum

OpenOntologyRepository: OOR Team Conference Call - Fri 2008-05-09

  • OpenOntologyRepository team conference call, Fri 2008.04.18, 1.0~1.5 Hr. call starting 12:00pm EDT / 9:00am PDT / 16:00 UTC

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Friday, May 9, 2008
  • Start Time: 12:00pm EDT / 9:00am PDT / 16:00 UTC
  • Expected Call Duration: 1.0~1.5 hours
  • Dial-in Number:
    • Direct call from from Skype: +990008275823120
    • When calling in from a phone, use Conference ID: "5823120#"
    • from a US telephone (US): +1-605-475-8590 (South Dakota, USA)
    • from Europe, call:
      • Austria 0820-4000-1574
      • Belgium 070-35-9989
      • France 0826-100-277
      • Germany 01805-00-7649
      • Ireland 0818-270-034
      • Italy 0848-390-175
      • Netherlands 0870-001-932
      • Spain 0902-886-051
      • Switzerland 0848-560-195
      • UK 0870-738-0763
    • callers from other countries please dial into either one of the US or European numbers
  • 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.


  • Expecting:
    • (please add yourself to the list or rsvp to <>)

Agenda Ideas

  • (please insert content above; identify yourself for follow-up purposes)

Agenda and Proceedings

1. Meeting called to order:

  • review and adopt agenda

2. Roll Call:

3. Status Review and Discussion:

  • What's New:
  • Logistics and Communications
  • Discussions:
  • debriefing and follow-ups from the Ontology Summit 2008 4/28~29 face-to-face workshop
    • on the invited OOR-presentation -
      • what went well?
      • what needs to be improved?
        • communications with presenter
      • what would we have done differently?
    • on the 4/28~29 F2F workshop proceedings - for those of us who were there:
      • what went well?
        • we did get buy-in (despite a fairly tedious process)
      • what needs to be improved?
        • Leo: we should avoid wordsmithing of the communique at the workshop in the future
        • Ken: the communique could have been shorter (with links to more comprehensive material)
        • Kate: use some technology to facilitate the convergence (e.g. something Dick Burke used before)
          • Leo: suggestion of the right tools from anyone, please ...
        • Ravi: we should be converging, rather than adding new material during the F2F;
        • Evan: the 2nd day was actually better than the first day; we accomplished something, at least; some sessions on the first day was less useful
        • Ken: the demo session was good, but too late, and people were too tired.
        • Ken: breakout session - some pre-defined process (e.g. appointed chair, facilitator & scribe, etc.) would have been helpful
      • what would we have done differently?
    • reactions for those of us who weren't there (at the 4/28~29 F2F)
    • on the overall Ontology Summit 2008 (Jan~Apr.2008) proceedings
      • what went well?
        • collaborative spirit; all 3 months' proceedings
      • what needs to be improved?
        • Leo: (as always) people should not have waited till the last week; and especially not until the 2-day F2F
        • those going into the F2F should have at least spent some time going through earlier material
      • what would we have done differently?
    • Anything else?
      • Evan: is issuing a communique critical to the success of all this?
      • Leo: a consensus document and a collaborative spirit ... the process may be necessary, it just shouldn't be prolonged
  • Given that the OntologySummit2008_Communique has now been adopted and published
    • what is its impact on this OOR-team
      • it's provides a strong basis we can move forward on
      • Ken: any conflict between the communique and what's being planned
        • no
        • OOR is not bound to the letter on the communique either
  • Planning:
  • Timeline / Milestones:
  • Immediate action items:
    • Peter to setup a brainstorming call between established grantees and agencies who may be supportive of this endeavor - still outstanding
  • since we won't be able to address all the areas below at this call, we will
    • assigning (temporary) area champions just to move things forward: (these roles are not long term; the individuals are not committee chairs)

To be covered:

  • Actions in the next few months:
  • Longer term plan:
  • Resources and Funding: - mostly from previous discussions
  • Funding: getting organized
    • possibilities - government agencies (NSF?, NIST?, whoever would fund open infrastructure, DARPA, IARPA (Jeff), ... etc.); EU funders; Vulcan (Mark)?; bring in W3C in a exploratory (XG) working group (e.g. Semantic Web Deployment) (although they are a funding sink rather than a funding source; but good for visibility);   
    • grant proposal team(s) / submit proposal(s) to
    • Frank: NSF next solicitations due July-1, interop, data network partners, programs coming back
      • consider NSF-OCI (Office of Cyber Infrastructure)
    • try contacting Todd Hughes and see if DARPA is a possibility (Leo)
    • Peter: consider multiple smalls proposals and a big one ($20 million +/-) to make OOR a sustainable OOR operation
    • consider Foundations, and institutions like Vulcan (Peter).
      • Peter: Mark G already responded that funding chances are low, but possibility of collaboration with HALO ontologies hosted on OOR
    • Fabian: the climate at NIST (now that they are hosting the summit on this particular theme) would be conducive ... we should ping Steve on this.
    • we should set aside some off-line time to discuss this when some of us are at the summit F2F
      • Peter: this never got done because the communique editing process ate into the time we were planning to do it see bullet under immediate action items above)
  • Use Cases & Requirements
    • soliciting 'early adopter' partners who can offer up their ontologies, help refine requirements, and provide user feedback.
    • the immediate people should be projects represented by those the two joint OOR-OntologySummit2008 Requirements panel discussion sessions (3/27 & 4/3/2008)
    • Kate to champion
  • Organization & Process <--we said we will defer the discussion after the summit workshop
    • need to clearly identify team membership: active members vs. observers; and, more importantly, who are voting (decision making) members?
      • Active members: those who will be (a) building the OOR, and (b) those who will be early adopters with content (open ontologies) AND have specific requirement input to provide -- does that sound good? (Yes: Peter, Bruce, Fabian)
      • will need to deliberate on this when we have more people on the call ... and/or doing it through the mailing list
    • how shall we organize ourselves? ... sub-workgroups? how many? <--(discussion deferred to next meeting)
    • relationship to Ontolog? sponsors? funders?
      • discussion postponed until we have a clearer approach toward funding
    • Peter to champion
  • IPR Policy - a discussion on this will need to come up, some time not today
    • we'll go find a lawyer
    • Kate: suggest putting this under organization and process

4. New Issues:

5. Any Other Business:

6. Action items:

  • All members on the oor-team should contact the sub-group champions within the next few days if they want to sign up
    • Leo to send this message out to the [oor-forum] list
  • the champions should coordinate their area, move things forward and report back at the next call.

7. Schedule Next Meeting & Adjourn:

  • Next Meeting:
    • next OOR-team meeting Fri 2008.05.23 - 1.0~1.5 Hr. starting 12:00noon EDT / 9:00am PDT - see (closer to the time): OOR/ConferenceCall_2008_05_23
    • Note: earlier resolution: all team members please (if possible) block out Fridays 1.5 Hr starting 12:00pm EDT / 9:00am PDT / 16:00 GMT/UTC
  • Call adjourned at: 09:57 am PDT


notes taken by: Peter P. Yim / 2008.05.09-09:57am PDT

All participants, please review and edit to enhance accuracy and granularity of the documented proceedings.