Actions

Ontolog Forum

Ideas and Draft Plans for the Joint OpenOntologyRepository-OntologySummit2008 Panel Sessions

Panel Discussion Session - Thu 28-February-2008

  • Format: opening by co-chairs; each panelists has 15 minutes to present a brief; 45 minutes Q&A and open discussion among all participants
  • Initial questions (for preparation purposes) for the panelists:
    • (a) describe the technology/infrastructure that you are bringing to

the table for the OOR project?

    • (b) how do you see that contributing to the overall OOR initiative?
    • (c) how does that fit in with the other things that the rest of the

teams are bringing to the table ... you can start on this during the talk, but this should be the focus of the ensuing discussion.

Panel Discussion Sessions - Thu 27-March-2008 & Thu 03-April-2008

  • Session Title: An Open Ontology Repository: Rationale, Expectations & Requirements
    • updated - previously :
      • "Requirements and Expectation in an Open Ontology Repository" ... and then,
      • "Why We Need an Open Ontology Repository?"
    • this is a session for ontology developers and stewards telling us their requirements & expectations in an OOR
  • Candidate Panelists: ... hopefully early adopters of an OOR
  • all speakers are requested to send in a 2-slide summary of their brief (in addition to the slide deck they use during the briefing) for use in a presentation that the OOR-team will be making at the Ontology Summit 2008 face-to-face workshop   
  • All speakers and participants please note that these session will be recorded, and the audio archive as well as the entire proceedings (slides, discussions, etc.), are expected to be made available as open content to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.
  • Initial questions (for preparation purposes) for the panelists:
    • The basic question is what would you want/expect from an Open Ontology Repository (OOR) from your perspective?
    • Peter P. Yim: My first thoughts will be for each panelist to:
      • (a) tell us about the "ontology(ies)" they develop or are custodians of that could be hosted in the OOR (if one gets developed, be it central or federated), and whether they have an ontology that could be hosted as a early adopter example for alpha and beta purposes.
        • (a.1) what it is (name, technology it is based on etc.)
        • (a.2) why would an OOR be good for it
        • (a.3) how is it used (for people or for machine-agents; show application and use case(s); if it is already available)
        • (a.4) how is it maintained (how updated; continued development done locally or in a distributed fashion)
      • (b) what are their expectations and requirements for an OOR, as a developer or steward of the ontology
        • (b.1) must haves
        • (b.2) good to have
        • (b.3) ideally, it can ...
      • (c) expectation or requirements from the user perspective (be they people or machine)
        • (c.1) must haves
        • (c.2) good to have
        • (c.3) ideally, it can ...
      • I'm sure there will be a lot of duplications among panelists, therefore, we might want to do something to (ameliorate) mitigate the time wasted on the redundancies.
    • Ken Baclawski: we should ask the panelists for their use cases too [already added to the above. =ppy]
  • all speakers are requested to send in a 2-slide summary of their brief (in addition to the slide deck they use during the briefing) for use in a presentation that the OOR-team will be making at the Ontology Summit 2008 face-to-face workshop   
  • Format: opening by co-chairs; each panelists has 10 minutes to present a brief; ~45 minutes Q&A and open discussion among all participants
  • Session-1:
  • Date / Time: Thu 2008.03.27, ~2.5 Hr session starting 10:30am PDT / 1:30pm EDT / 6:30pm CET / 17:30 UTC
  • Title: An Open Ontology Repository: Rationale, Expectations & Requirements - Session-1
  • Co-chairs: Leo Obrst & Fabian Neuhaus
  • Panelists: Bill Bug, Evan Wallace, JohnLMcCarthy, Ken Baclawski, Peter Benson Rex Brooks & Suzi Lewis
  • Session page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2008_03_27
  • Panelists please note: (please email the following to Leo Obrst, Fabian Neuhaus & PeterYim)
    • confirmation of your availability, presentation title, OOR-content-name(s) and your bio - due end-of-day Fri 2008.03.21
    • slides (presentation deck), 2-slide-summary, additional resources (reference/links) due end-of-day Tue 2008.03.25
  • Panelists - "Title" - [ OOR-content ]
    • BillBug - "Driving large-scale neuroscience data federation by wrestling complex semantic domains to the ground (or foundation)" - [ BIRNlex] and [ NIFSTD]
      • Resource(s) - Both BIRNLex (OWL-DL ontology for the BIRN project) and NIFSTD (OWL-DL ontology for the Neuroscience Information Framework [NIF] project) are split up into separate, re-usable domain ontologies (e.g., neuroanatomy, organisms, nerve cells, etc.) which are collectively imported into a base OWL file. NIFSTD actually imports all of BIRNLex and adds a few additional domains. The files are available respectively at:
    • EvanWallace - "Thoughts on hosting an Ontology and Vocabulary Repository at OMG"
      • Remarks (--EvanWallace / 21 Mar 2008 17:43:09 -0400): regarding OOR-content - Specific content for this repository is to be determined. The intent is to provide reliable availability of reusable semantic models in various forms related to OMG standards. These would be include:
        • ontologies based on any of the logic languages supported by ODM metamodels such as Common Logic, OWL, and RDFS;
        • vocabularies based on the Semantics for Business Vocabularies and Rules specification and Topic Maps; and
        • conceptual models based on UML.
    • JohnLMcCarthy - "Standard & Prototype Starting Point for An Open Ontology Repository: The Extended Metadata Registry Project"
      • slide deck received
    • KenBaclawski - "Enhancing Organism Based Disease Knowledge Using Biological Taxonomy, and Environmental Ontologies" - [ Medline, Agricola, GBIF, ProMED, WHO Health Reports, GENBANK and the Encyclopedia of Life ]
      • Remark: This is joint work with Neil Sarkar of the Marine Biological Laboratory. Neil is the Principal Investigator.
    • PeterBenson - "NATO codification system as the foundation for the eOTD, ISO 22745 and ISO 8000"
      • abstract, 2-slide summary, and presentation slide deck received.
    • RexBrooks - "Content Provider-Repository Builder Focus on Architecture, Registry-Repository & Emergency Data Exchange Language Reference Information Model (EDXL-RIM)" - [EDXL-RIM]
      • Remarks: EDXL-RIM is the content that will be produced by the OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee, EDXL-RIM Subcommittee (under formation now). EDXL-RIM will have three representations: XMl Schema, RDF Schema and OWL-DL Ontology.
      • 2-slide summary received;
    • SuziLewis - "How the Gene Ontology led directly to the Open Biomedical Ontology Foundry, or How I learned to stop worrying and love standards" - regretfully, Suzi was unable to make it to the session (due to the loss of Internet connection at the place she was visiting at the time.)
  • Session-2:
  • Date / Time: Thu 2008.04.03, 2.5 Hr session, starting 10:30am PDT / 1:30pm EDT / 6:30pm CET / 17:30 UTC
  • Title: An Open Ontology Repository: Rationale, Expectations & Requirements - Session-2
  • Co-chairs: Leo Obrst & Fabian Neuhaus
  • Panelists: Deke Smith, Denise Bedford, Doug Lenat, Mala Mehrotra, Marcia Zeng, Pat Hayes & Rob Raskin
  • Session page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2008_04_03
  • Panelists please note: . . (please email the following to Leo Obrst, Fabian Neuhaus & PeterYim)
    • confirmation of your availability, presentation title, OOR-content-name(s) and your bio - due end-of-day Fri 2008.03.21
    • slides (presentation deck), 2-slide-summary, additional resources (reference/links) due end-of-day Tue 2008.04.01
  • Panelists - Title - OOR-content
    • DougLenat - "Is OpenCyc doomed to be the new Esperanto, or is OOR doomed to be the new Electronic Data Interchange, or -- even worse -- both!"
    • DekeSmith - "National Building Information Modeling Standard"
    • MarciaZeng - "Issues in reusing and sharing the content of thesauri and

taxonomies in OOR"

      • I plan to bring up three issues to the panel. (I do not have solutions

but want to bring up the questions for developers to think about).

        • 1, Reusing thesauri and taxonomies (or pieces of them) for ontologies (There are many very good, large thesauri in information retrieval. They have already constructed very good representations for domain

knowledges. However they may have a looser control in terms of hierarchical relationships. A related issue in terms of reuse is the encoding -- thesauri can use SKOS easily rather than OWL. It is more economical.)

        • 2, Concept mapping in relation to the reuse of contents in an ontology repository (Currently various registries/repositories and terminology services usually do not provide concept-based mapping when one looks for a reusable piece of ontology to create a new or aggregated ontology.)
        • 3, Multilingual and multi-cultural issues in the mapping process (In a non-symmetrical multilingual system, how will these issues impact the reuse and sharing of ontologies in OOR?)
    • DeniseBedford - "Practical Requirements for Every Day Ontology Management and Use"
    • PatHayes - "Describing Concept Relationships"
    • MalaMehrotra - "Exposing and Capturing Mapping Relationships across OOR resources"
      • here are the top two questions I will be addressing for the panel discussion:
        • What are the various types of relationships that would be useful to discover across resources in OOR?
        • What do we need in our knowledge representation formalisms to capture such relationships?
    • RobRaskin - "SWEET 2.0 Ontology" - [ SWEET 2.0 ontology ]
  • Additional input received from candidate panelists who weren't able to join us:
    • NigelCollier - [ BioCaster] - My very brief thoughts on our expectations are really rather on a technical level than a philosophical one. ... I don't have a strong expectation

at this time beyond being able to provide shared access to our ontology on the web and a secured list of people who can have permission to edit it. Just to contribute my ten pence worth: if asked to think a bit further the working model that comes to mind is something that could build up eventually to a kind of source forge for ontologies - with edit permissions, discussion lists and so on as well as some minimum agreed level of quality in terms of system up time and response time over different geographic areas. This later requirement is quite a strong one as our development teams are geographically dispersed. I don't have any particular line at the moment on standards for ontologies although within Bio Caster we are basically trying to keep within those set out by the OBO guidelines. Again this comment is very superficial - we apply quality control beyond that at both the design stage and at the population stage. The reviewing process I have in mind that a future OOR system might provide is also somewhat similar to that within source forge - where the registered developers take responsibility for ensuring that the ontology is fit for purpose for whatever task they had in mind and the open community at large can provide feedback and review. It's rather pragmatic I'm afraid and just a personal view. (--NigelCollier / 21 Mar 2008 14:48:24 +0900)

due a prior engagement. However I support your effort and we will make all the ontologies we develop available for your repository. (--AsumanDogac / 21 Mar 2008 14:53:07 +0200)

    • BillAndersen - regretfully, I don't believe I'll be able to participate. ... I will be happy to

monitor the discussion, however, and contribute where and what I can. (--BillAndersen / 21 Mar 2008 12:40:34 -0400) ... [which he did] see: the post Bill made shortly thereafter.

Panel Discussion Session - Thu 10-April-2008

  • Date / Time: Thu 2008.04.10, 2.0~2.5 Hr session starting 10:30am PDT / 1:30pm EDT / 6:30pm CET / 17:30 UTC
  • Subject: Developing an Ontology of Ontologies for OOR
  • Co-chairs: Barry Smith & Michael Grüninger
  • Candidate Panelists: Michael Grüninger (2007 summit framework), Peter Haase (OMV), Natasha Noy (BioPortal) & Elisa Kendall (related OMG work)
  • Session page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2008_04_10
  • Panelists please note: (please send your input to <peter.yim@cim3.com> and the session co-chairs)
    • confirmation of your availability by Fri 2008.03.28,
    • presentation title, abstract and your bio - due end-of-day Wed 2008.04.02
    • slides (presentation deck), 2-slide-summary, additional resources (reference/links) due end-of-day Tue 2008.04.08
  • all speakers are requested to send in a 2-slide summary of their brief (in addition to the slide deck they use during the briefing) for use in a presentation that the OOR-team will be making at the Ontology Summit 2008 face-to-face workshop   
  • Format: opening by co-chairs; each panelists has 20 minutes to present a brief; 45 minutes Q&A and open discussion among all participants
  • All speakers and participants please note that these session will be recorded, and the audio archive as well as the entire proceedings (slides, discussions, etc.), are expected to be made available as open content to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.
  • Notes to panelists:
    • Michael Grüninger: please refer to this [ont-of-ont] post on some initial thoughts
    • Initial questions for preparation of your briefing:
      • 1. could you give us a summary description of your work that is relevant to this "Ontology of Ontologies" topic?
      • 2. how do you see that work being applied to an OOR or an OOR development effort?



Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=OOR/JointPanelSession_Strawman&oldid=2150"