Actions

Ontolog Forum

Revision as of 06:47, 9 January 2016 by imported>KennethBaclawski (Fix PurpleMediaWiki references)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Ontology Summit 2014 session-06: Synthesis-I & Communique Discussion-I - Thu 2014-02-20

  • Summit Theme: OntologySummit2014: "Big Data and Semantic Web Meet Applied Ontology"
  • Session Topic: OntologySummit2014 Synthesis-I & Communique Outline Discussion
  • Session Co-chairs: Dr. Leo Obrst and Dr. ToddSchneider

Program:

  • Dr. Leo Obrst, Professor MichaelGruninger (in absentia) & Dr. ToddSchneider - "Opening, General Assessment & Fine-tuning of Ontology Summit 2014 Direction & Approach" ... slides
  • Ms. Andrea Westerinen, Dr. GaryBergCross, Mr. Mike Bennett - Track A: Common Reusable Semantic Content - Synthesis-I ... slides
  • Dr. Christoph Lange, Professor Alan Rector - Track B: Making use of Ontologies: Tools, Services, and Techniques - Synthesis-I ... slides
  • Dr. Matthew West, Professor Pascal Hitzler, Professor Krzysztof Janowicz - Track C: Overcoming Ontology Engineering Bottlenecks - Synthesis-I ... slides
  • Professor Ken Baclawski, Professor AnneThessen (in absentia) - Track D: Tackling the Variety Problem in Big Data - Synthesis-I ... slides
  • The Track Syntheses is followed by an Open Discussion on what are the key take home messages, and positions we want to assume, as the Summit community
  • Dr. Leo Obrst & Professor MichaelGruninger (in absentia) - Approach to the Ontology Summit 2014 Communique and Proposed Draft Outline ... slides
  • The Draft Communique Outline presentation is followed by an Open Discussion towards finalizing the 2014 Communique Outline

Archives

Abstract

OntologySummit2014 Session-06: "Synthesis-I & Communique Outline Discussion" - intro slides

This is our 9th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by Ontolog, NIST, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD with the support of our co-sponsors.

Since the beginnings of the Semantic Web, ontologies have played key roles in the design and deployment of new semantic technologies. Yet over the years, the level of collaboration between the Semantic Web and Applied Ontology communities has been much less than expected. Within Big Data applications, ontologies appear to have had little impact.

This year's Ontology Summit is an opportunity for building bridges between the Semantic Web, Linked Data, Big Data, and Applied Ontology communities. On the one hand, the Semantic Web, Linked Data, and Big Data communities can bring a wide array of real problems (such as performance and scalability challenges and the variety problem in Big Data) and technologies (automated reasoning tools) that can make use of ontologies. On the other hand, the Applied Ontology community can bring a large body of common reusable content (ontologies) and ontological analysis techniques. Identifying and overcoming ontology engineering bottlenecks is critical for all communities.

Ontology Summit 2014 will pose and address the primary challenges in these areas of interaction among the different communities. The Summit activities will bring together insights and methods from these different communities, synthesize new insights, and disseminate knowledge across field boundaries.

At the Launch Event on 16 Jan 2014, the organizing team has provided an overview of the program, and how we will be framing the discourse - namely, to pursue that along four different content tracks that address different aspects of the issue at hand.

In today's session, we will take inventory of the what has transpired in the Ontology Summit 2014 proceedings so far, and present the syntheses of the discourse of each of the four content tracks. The co-lead Editors will be presenting a first draft of the Communique Outline. An open discussion among the editors, the track co-champions and all the participants will ensue, with an aim towards arriving at a near-final Ontology Summit 2014 Communique Outline, which will frame how this year's Communique will get developed by all parties concerned.

More details about this Ontology Summit is available at: OntologySummit2014 (homepage for this summit)

Agenda

OntologySummit2014 - Panel Session-06

  • Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call
  • 1. Opening and General assessment on how things are developing and fine tuning of direction/approach (LeoObrst) [5 min.] ... [ slides ]
  • 2. Track Synthesis I (presentation of the interim deliverables by one of the co-champions of each track) [7~8 min/track]
    • 2.1 Track A: Common Reusable Semantic Content Synthesis-1 (AndreaWesterinen, GaryBergCross, MikeBennett)
    • 2.2 Track B: Making use of Ontologies: Tools, Services, and Techniques Synthesis-1 (ChristophLange, AlanRector)
    • 2.3 Track C: Overcoming Ontology Engineering Bottlenecks Synthesis-1 (MatthewWest, Pascal Hitzler, KrzysztofJanowicz)
    • 2.4 Track D: Tackling the Variety Problem in Big Data - Synthesis-I Synthesis-1 (KenBaclawski, AnneThessen)
  • 3. Q&A and Open Discussion-I: what are the key take home messages, and positions we want to assume, as a Summit community [30 min.] ... please refer to process above
  • 4. Approach to the Communique and a proposed Communique Outline (LeoObrst) [10 min.]
  • 5. Q&A and Open Discussion-II: developing and building consensus on our Communique Outline (moderator: ToddSchneider) [25 min.]
  • 6. Summary/wrap-up/announcements [5 min.]

Proceedings

Please refer to the above

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session

see raw transcript here.

(for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)

Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.

-- begin in-session chat-transcript --

Chat transcript from room: summit_20140220

2014-02-20 GMT-08:00 [PST]

[9:11] Peter P. Yim: Welcome to the

Ontology Summit 2014 session-06: Synthesis-I & Communique Discussion-I - Thu 2014-02-20

Summit Theme: Ontology Summit 2014: "Big Data and Semantic Web Meet Applied Ontology"

Session Topic: Ontology Summit 2014 Synthesis-I & Communique Outline Discussion

Session Co-chairs: Dr. Leo Obrst and Dr. Todd Schneider

PROGRAM:

- "Opening, General Assessment & Fine-tuning of Ontology Summit 2014 Direction & Approach"

  • Professor Ken Baclawski, Professor Anne Thessen (in absentia) - Track D: Tackling the Variety Problem in Big Data - Synthesis-I
    • followed by an Open Discussion on what are the key take home messages, and positions we want to assume, as the Summit community (ALL)
    • followed by an Open Discussion towards finalizing the 2014 Communique Outline (ALL)

Logistics:

  • (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName;

also please enable "Show timestamps" while there.

  • Mute control (phone keypad): *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute
    • you may connect to (the skypeID) "joinconference" whether or not it indicates that it is online

(i.e. even if it says it is "offline," you should still be able to connect to it.)

    • if you are using skype and the connection to "joinconference" is not holding up, try using (your favorite POTS or

VoIP line, etc.) either your phone, skype-out or google-voice and call the US dial-in number: +1 (206) 402-0100

... when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#

    • Can't find Skype Dial pad?
      • for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
      • for Linux Skype users: if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it
  • when posting in this Chat-room, kindly observe the following ...
    • whenever a name is used, please use the full WikiWord name format (every time you don't, some volunteer will have to make an edit afterwards)
    • always provide context (like: "[ref. JaneDoe's slide#12], I think the point about context is great" ... rather than "that's great!"

as the latter would mean very little in the archives.)

    • when responding to a specific individual's earlier remarks, please cite his/her full WikiWord names *and*

the timestamp (in PST) of his/her post that you are responding to (e.g. "@JaneDoe [11:09] - I agree, but, ...")

    • use fully qualified url's (include http:// ) without symbols (like punctuations or parentheses, etc.) right before of after that URL

Attendees: Alan Rector, Aleksandra Sojic, Amanda Vizedom, Anatoly Levenchuk, Andrea Westerinen,

Bart Gajderowicz, Bobbin Teegarden, Bruce Bray, Carol Bean, Christi Kapp, Christoph Lange, Dennis Wisnosky,

Earl Glynn, Ed Bernot, ElieAbiLahoud, Elisa Kendall, Eric Chan, Frank Olken, GaryBergCross, Harold Boley,

Henson Graves, JacoDuPreez, Jon Tutcher, Ken Baclawski, Krzysztof Janowicz, Lamar Henderson, Leo Obrst,

Les Morgan, Liana Kiff, Marcela Vegetti, Matthew West, Mike Bennett, Mike Dean, Oliver Kutz, Peter P. Yim,

Sunday Ojo, Terry Longstreth, Todd Schneider, Uri Shani, Victor Agroskin,

Proceedings

[9:29] anonymous morphed into Alan Rector

[9:31] Christine Kapp morphed into Christi Kapp

[9:33] anonymous morphed into Earl Glynn

[9:33] anonymous morphed into Les Morgan

[9:34] anonymous1 morphed into ElieAbiLahoud

[9:35] anonymous morphed into Lamar Henderson

[9:36] Peter P. Yim: == Leo Obrst starts the session on behalf of the Summit General Co-chairs and the

Session Co-chairs - see slides under:

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_02_20#nid46PQ

- [9:36] anonymous morphed into Elisa Kendall

- [9:38] anonymous morphed into Bobbin Teegarden

[9:43] Peter P. Yim: == Andrea Westerinen presenting Track-A Synthesis-I ...

[9:53] Leo Obrst: @AndreaWesterinen: good point about "governance". We should add this to our list of

important issues for the Communique.

- [9:54] anonymous morphed into Jon Tutcher

[9:54] Leo Obrst: Vocabularies vs. ontologies: need both.

[9:55] Terry Longstreth: @Andrea slide 4, item 7 "Can the data and its quality be trusted"- I think

this is one of the most important unexplored questions across all disciplines mentioned, and it's

not just pertinent to reuse, but to ANY use.

[9:56] Christoph Lange: @TerryLongstreth: our group is doing research on assessing the quality of

LOD, currently implementing this: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj556.pdf

[9:58] Todd Schneider: Track-A: Could you explain more about the following item that was on slide 10:

  • Each module and its concepts, properties, axioms, ... well-documented via well-established labels

and predicates ** SKOS, etc. ** A search for primitives "

[10:05] Mike Bennett: @ToddSchneider [9:58] one thing that we found with people's practical

experience of ontologies, was how it helps if the concepts in the ontology are well documented. for

example FIBO has an extended set of SKOS annotations for definitions, scope notes and the like, and

this was found to be helpful to someone re-using the ontology.

[10:09] Todd Schneider: Mike Bennett, Most assuredly the documentation of ontology and provenance of

sources use in the development is critical (and very tedious). Use of SKOS or similar capabilities

for annotations, to the extent they are relevant, would be useful.

[10:05] Andrea Westerinen: @ToddSchneider, [9:58] Slide 10's reference to well-documented and

established labels and predicates meant to highlight the need for deciding on a set of labels and

primitive predicates that can be used in tooling. For example, SKOS defines a wide set of labels

that convey different kinds of information/documentation, and also defines simple primitives about

broader/more specific (superclassing/subclassing) concepts. The problem is usually not a

disagreement about the semantics but a disagreement about the name of it. We need to get the

primitives right, and then maybe define how different existing ontologies and schemas implement

them.

[10:10] Todd Schneider: Andrea, I still not clear as to what you have in mind. What did you have in

mind regarding 'Primitives'? How should this be interpreted?

[10:17] Mike Bennett: @Todd [10:10] In terms of "Primitives" one thing that came up was the

comparison of the idea of discoverable ontology design patterns versus framing of semantically

primitive concepts as ODPs. Partly 2 ways of saying the same thing, partly something to unpack

further in terms of what to look for in re-usable high level concepts that can be extended or

re-applied in people's own ontologies.

[10:18] Todd Schneider: Mike Bennett, could you expand on what you mean by, or the intended

interpretation(s) of, "semantically primitive concepts"?

[10:20] GaryBergCross: @ToddSchneider, [9:58] question on Slide 10 for track A - the idea of

primitives was raised in the [ontology-summit chat] Are there primitive concepts?

[10:20] Mike Bennett: @Todd My own take on this would be concepts which are the "Simplest kind of

thing" for a particular definition of a kind of thing. Example: Event. The simplest thing which is

an event is something with a time and a place. The simplest thing that is a contract is something

which, if you remove any one property, it's no longer that which is a contract (perhaps it is a deed

or a covenant).

[10:23] Todd Schneider: Gary, Mike Bennett, Got it. Thank you. I agree there should be some notions

that for many (most?) uses don't require further decomposition.

[10:24] GaryBergCross: @Todd on this topic of primitives WernerKuhn's talk also raised this idea of

image schema basics.

{{{ [10:28] Mike Bennett: Re @GaryBergCross [10:24} WernerKuhn's talk is at http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/2014-02-06_OntologySummit2014_Overcoming-Ontology-Engineering-Bottlenecks-1/OntologySummit2014_abstracting-behavior-in-ontology-engineering--WernerKuhn_20140206.pdf }}}

[9:56] Peter P. Yim: == Christoph Lange & Alan Rector presenting Track-B Synthesis-I ...

all of knowledge representation], what about looking at a spectrum of things that are more or less ontological? It seems that much progress has been allowed in recent years by allowing for variety among things that are properly considered ontologies, without equating that with all of KR. Specifying all dimensions of such variety is hard and unsettled, but even with this vagueness it has allowed for progress.


[10:01] Todd Schneider: [ref. slide#4 - "Limitations of tools"] Tools? Many people would like better,

or perhaps some, visualization capabilities.

[10:16] Jon Tutcher: visualisation tools may well be difficult, but they would be extremely handy in

demonstrating ontologies - and would dramatically help the 'buy-in' issue from industry in my

case...

[10:05] Bobbin Teegarden: @ToddSchneider Tool with real visualization capabilities, plus CRUD

capabilities to enable a wider group of modelers/developers to create their own ontologies.

[10:06] Andrea Westerinen: @BobbinTeegarden, [10:05] +1 for CRUD

[10:11] Todd Schneider: Bobbin, many people create 'ontologies' now. The quality is another issue.

Visualization by itself probably won't help with the quality issue.

[10:13] Christoph Lange: @BobbinTeegarden [10:05] "real visualization capabilities" may be hard to

achieve. E.g. in our research group we are working with Linked Data obtained from diverse sources

such as relational DB, XML, CSV, etc., which are turned into LOD to facilitate integration and

reuse. Fine, but when you then apply LOD visualization tools (which exist!) to such data, we are at

this point not sure whether they will be helpful, as representing RDB, XML, CSV, etc. in RDF graphs

create artifacts that hinder visualization. OTOH how _would_ you visualize "big" knowledge from

these diverse sources in a coherent, integrated fashion?

[10:09] Bobbin Teegarden: @Todd @Andrea It would be even greater to make CRUD into CRUDE -- the E for

Execute, the ability to trigger a 'uri' such as ...url.fooJavaCode.exe to actually execute,

surrounded by properties and data it needs in the ontology. Too far out?

[10:13] Todd Schneider: Bobbin, the ability to integrate an ontology into an operational system to

allow the scenario you suggest is still an open problem.

[10:14] Amanda Vizedom: @BobbinTeegarden [10:09] -- Not too far out, depending on what you mean by

"Execute." IMHO, ontology development and evaluation (including for potential use), work best when

the tool environment enables testing out the behavior of some executable application using the

ontology. Some environment do provide the ability to trigger indexing, reasoning, or q&a types of

tests manually or automatically on ontology revision. In principle, many other types of application

could be hooked in. Unfortunately the environments that do this are mostly proprietary / in-house.

But it can be done, and it isn't too soon.

[10:23] Bobbin Teegarden: @Amanda thanks, and true. But is there were a development tool that lets

you model 'executable' things (via URIs) into your ontology, then add an E capability even to the

Sparql CRUD, you can almost get to a new generation of 'executable' ontologies. And I agree, there

are a few tools that almost get there; maybe it's emergent?

[10:06] Matthew West: What are the tools that are being used for Big Data?

[10:09] Amanda Vizedom: @MatthewWest [10:06] - I think you've just nailed a question we could do

better with: we've sampled some tools, but we don't have a good sense of the range of what's out

there. Even just focusing on tools used to bring elements of Big Data, Sem Web, and Ontology

together, I think we don't yet have an overall sense of what is in use.

[10:11] GaryBergCross: [ref. the Track-B slide#9 re. UML issues] Alan There was discussion on the

Ontolog Forum of grounding UML - e.g. John F. Sowa and William Frank had an exchange on UML See

http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2014-02/msg00227.html

[10:09] Peter P. Yim: == Matthew West presenting Track-C Synthesis-I ...

- [10:13] Peter P. Yim: ... now on slide#7 (labeled "8") ... [I have since renumbered the slide. =ppy]

- [10:16] Peter P. Yim: ... now on slide#8 (labeled "7") ... [I have since renumbered the slide. =ppy]

[10:17] Peter P. Yim: == Ken Baclawski presenting the Track-D Synthesis-I ...

- [10:25] Krzysztof Janowicz: (I have to leave now)

[10:28] Peter P. Yim: == Open Discussion on what are the key take home messages, and positions we want

to assume, as the Summit community ...

[10:26] Lamar Henderson: Paper on visualization tools: Simon Suigen Guo and Christine W. Chan - "A

Comparison and Analysis of Some Ontology Visualization Tools" (2011)

[10:19] Bobbin Teegarden: @Christoph Would love URLs to visualization tools. The one's I've seen

present 'isA' trees, which don't really show the rich ontology around them. In the presence of the

plethora or Big Ontologies, it would be great to see a target item plus a few 'rings' out from that

focal point, with the ability to refocus on other things presented.

[10:31] Christoph Lange: @BobbinTeegarden [10:19] But doesn't the thing that you wish for sound like

the "touch graph" visualization that has been around for RDF for quite a while?

[10:32] Bobbin Teegarden: @Christoph Tool(s)?

[10:35] Christoph Lange: @BobbinTeegarden [10:32] not sure what you mean by "Tool(s)"? If you are

referring to "thing" in my question, yes, this word should have been "tool(s)

[10:40] Bobbin Teegarden: @Christoph I was looking for a URL to tools such as TouchGraph, found lots

for TouchGraph, thanks.

[10:45] Christoph Lange: @BobbinTeegarden [10:40] actually I haven't _used_ a touch graph browser for

a while. If you found anything particularly useful, you might want to post the link

[10:31] Andrea Westerinen: @ToddSchneider, Mike Bennett and GaryBergCross "Primitives" (IMHO) are not

just concepts but predicates and properties too. So, you get the generalization/inheritance concepts

in OWL, ISO 15926, SKOS, ..., labels and concepts like events. They are the semantics that are not

broken down further.

[10:32] Mike Bennett: @Andrea good way of putting it.

[10:32] GaryBergCross: One observation which reflects what Ken Baclawski said - the 4 tracks have

interesting overlaps. Tools are needed for reuse and to handle variety and bottlenecks.

[10:33] GaryBergCross: We in Track A have made an effort in our 2nd session to have speakers address

LOD and Big Data issues more directly.

[10:23] (repeating) Bobbin Teegarden: @Amanda thanks, and true. But is there were a development tool

that lets you model 'executable' things (via URIs) into your ontology, then add an E capability even

to the Sparql CRUD, you can almost get to a new generation of 'executable' ontologies. And I agree,

there are a few tools that almost get there; maybe it's emergent?

[10:35] Amanda Vizedom: @Bobbin [10:23] - Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, that's a bit different. There

are tools that recognize some kinds of documents and will open them with appropriate software if

clicked on. That suggests execution hooks that may (depending on tool architecture) be readily

extensible, but I don't know. Some environments have an architecture that allows for the

representation of tests and execution from within the KB browser / ontology environment (Cyc has

this). Some have the ability to do a two-layer thing, in which you represent an executable thing and

what it does (especially what it knows about, if it is an information source), and then a code

plug-in is needed to provide translations to-from the objects input language, enabling integrated

querying. Otherwise, I think that the kind of thing you're talking about is present in many specific

integrated Semantic Information Systems, but not general tools for building new ones.

[10:35] GaryBergCross: Michel Dumontier Associate Professor of Medicine at Stanford Center for

Biomedical Informatics Research Stanford University will speak at the Track A session. He has worked

in Drug Discovery area and serves as a co-chair for the World Wide Web Consortium Semantic Web for

Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group (W3C HCLSIG) and is the Scientific Director for

Bio2RDF, a widely recognized open-source project to create and provide linked data for life

sciences. ... [ref. also MichelDumontier's talk he gave at the last Ontology Summit -

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_03_21#nid3NSX ]

[10:38] Terry Longstreth: @Christoph [9:56] & [10:13] The work you describe is useful for particular

contexts, but I'm more concerned with trust and trustworthiness. We continue to receive lessons from

day-to-day life about how little control there is in simple things like protecting personal data

(credit card numbers for example). Not all breaches of trust are intentional or malicious, but any

breach can create problems for processes relying on the affected intensional or extensional data. If

you establish that certain LOD instances properly represent the intension or extension to be used in

some circumstance, what measures are in place to prevent changes to those instances (or to

communicate necessary changes). Also the source of the information has its own

quality/trustworthiness questions. When the OOR, or github or CYC or NIH goes out of business, what

guarantees can dependent processes have that the information in question won't be breached.

Admittedly that's a little far-fetched, but I'm sure this forum can bring forward other, more

subtle, examples as for example, changes in medical knowledge that may not have been properly

included in some central data source.

[10:42] Terry Longstreth: For an example of evaluating trustworthiness, see AUDIT AND CERTIFICATION

OF TRUSTWORTHY DIGITAL REPOSITORIES, ISO 16363, available from CCSDS as CCSDS 652.0-M-1 -

http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/652x0m1.pdf

[10:44] Christoph Lange: @TerryLongstreth [10:38] Trust (but rather trust_ability_ of datasets, not

really the "preventing change"/"dependent processes" aspects _you've_ just mentioned) is named as

one dimension of "data quality" in http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj556.pdf

section 4.3. However I can't say much more as I'm not personally a trust expert.

[10:51] Terry Longstreth: Thanks Christoph.

[10:38] Andrea Westerinen: It is important to get "concrete" and not just discuss the problems in

general, but specific examples and solutions.

[10:41] GaryBergCross: One small caution on "concrete" and "specific." One may cite work that is

both but it may not be clear how to reuse or build on these. I like it when a speaker bridges from

specific work to show how it might be a building block or lever for other efforts.

[10:42] Dennis Wisnosky: I believe that spending at least as much time on success stories such as the

Encyclopedia of Life talk[1] and the where is the ice talks[2] that we heard last week, and mining

them for incremental progress as we spend on identifying problems and making wishes would well serve

the community. ... [1] ref.

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_02_13#nid468J ; [2] ref.

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_02_13#nid468L

[10:45] Todd Schneider: Dennis, many of the success stories are hidden behind corporate policy.

[10:50] Ken Baclawski: @Todd [10:45] One cannot expect to get open source software from corporations

(although sometimes they do release software this way), but they frequently seem to be very willing

to say quite a lot about their projects, as we have seen from IBM and Oracle.

[10:52] Todd Schneider: Ken, my experience suggests that IBM, Oracle, Wells Fargo may be in the

minority w.r.t. their willingness to provide public information about their projects.

[10:43] Peter P. Yim: == Leo Obrst presenting the proposed Ontology Summit 2014 Communique draft outline on

behalf of the co-lead editors ... see:

http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/2014-02-20_OntologySummit2014_Synthesis-1/Communique_OntologySummit2014_draft-outline--LeoObrst-MichaelGruninger_20140220c.pdf

[10:49] Todd Schneider: Andrea, [10:31] Andrea Westerinen: @ToddSchneider, Mike Bennett and

GaryBergCross "Primitives" (IMHO) are not just concepts but predicates and properties too." My

interpretation of 'concept' is not constrained to types/classes/categories. I usually use the term

'notion' to avoid mis-interpretation.

[10:50] Mike Bennett: @Todd surely there a concept and there are ways in which you represent that

concept.

[10:55] Todd Schneider: Mike Bennett, The notion of 'concept' is itself 'fuzzy' and open to multiple

interpretations.

[10:57] Andrea Westerinen: @ToddSchneider [10:55] Agree that the word "concept" is overloaded. Is

your use of "notion" = the more general concepts, predicates, etc.?

[10:58] Todd Schneider: Andrea, Yes. I try to avoid specificity as long as possible.

- [10:58] ElieAbiLahoud: Thank you Leo and all for this session, I have to drop off now.

[10:56] Andrea Westerinen: @Leo, slide #5 Track A and B certainly align on the need for tooling and

ontologies assisting in Big Data annotation or understanding/aligning the data.

[10:58] Christoph Lange: @AndreaWesterinen: not yet sure how we'll resolve this in the final document

-- maybe by the Track A champions and the Track B champions each writing up on their view on tools,

and then moving text between the sections and/or cross-referencing as appropriate?

[10:59] Andrea Westerinen: @ChristophLange [10:58] Or, we outline and split up the work - making the

discussions relevant/tuned to the different foci?

[11:00] Andrea Westerinen: @ChristophLange [10:58] I see your discussion as more general and Track A

as more focused on reuse.

[11:03] Andrea Westerinen: @LeoObrst, slide #7 Again, there is lots of overlap but Track D seems more

tuned to specific, concrete uses and expanding on the Big Data issues, while Track A is again more

about reuse.

[11:09] GaryBergCross: Expanding on my comment of [10:32] I would expect that Track A would broach

the topic of Tools and Tooling but do this in coordination with Track B and help introduce what they

might elaborate on.

[11:05] Andrea Westerinen: Slide #9 - It might be better to talk about governance in #4 AND curation.

[11:06] Peter P. Yim: == Open Discussion towards finalizing the 2014 Communique Outline ...

[11:06] Terry Longstreth: @LeoObrst - slide 9, item 4 - Crowdsourcing curation has major implications

for content quality and trustworthiness of the content and the source/supplier.

[11:12] Terry Longstreth: Experiences with the Delphi technique might inform our crowdsourcing

discussion. Assuming that the goal of crowdsourcing is consensus, it certainly is vulnerable to the

same pitfalls as Delphi.

[11:13] Ken Baclawski: @TerryLongstreth [11:06] Maintaining provenance information is especially

important for crowdsourcing so that one can develop and apply tools that can help determine quality

and trustworthiness. The results of such analyses are themselves subject to testing for quality and

trustworthiness.

[11:17] Terry Longstreth: @KenBaclawski [11:13] Good. Would the communique perhaps discuss approaches

to recording and managing provenance information?

[11:18] Andrea Westerinen: @TerryLongstreth [11:17] Provenance is one of our (Track A) key points for

reuse.

[11:22] Ken Baclawski: @TerryLongstreth [11:17] Provenance cross-cuts many of the tracks. It is a

good candidate for a theme of the communique.

[11:24] Terry Longstreth: @KenBaclawski [11:22] - Provenance is a necessary but not a sufficient

condition for evaluating and maintaining quality

[11:04] Peter P. Yim: @LeoObrst and Track Champions - ref. the Communique Outline slides#4~6 - I think

that captures the track synthesis (so far) quite well, but also shows signs of incoherence, given

the fact that the original track syntheses were developed separately (each being complete and

self-consistent by itself). Granted that each track is addressing a totally different aspect of the

overall theme, it might still be useful if we can develop a generalize sub-section outline, that

consistently address each track's goals, issues, challenges, solutions, success stories, best

practices, etc.

[11:09] Matthew West: A common framework would be helpful for us too.

[10:59] Todd Schneider: A major challenge to this year's communique will be an ability to integrate

the large range of material.

[11:10] Matthew West: I agree with Todd that the shear breadth of this years summit is daunting.

[11:11] Matthew West: I think Amanda may have a point in merging input from the tracks. However, it

is probably better to do that as a second step after producing track based output.

[11:14] Amanda Vizedom: @MatthewWest [11:09] That was Andrea Westerinen, actually.

[11:13] Andrea Westerinen: Can we update the Communique outline to introduce the common themes

(reuse, tooling, intersection with big data, ...) and then move into the particular foci of the

tracks. These will both support the common themes and then get more specific, or expand on the

themes where they are unique to the foci.

[11:14] Amanda Vizedom: I agree with need to pare down what the communique covers. Fabian & I faced a

similar issue last year, and concluded that there was no way to cover everything with any

effectiveness. The consequence was that we focused the communique tightly, including setting aside

discussion of the track structure. We focused on one set of issues and pulled them together

regardless of how they were distributed across tracks. I think the approach worked, and the

alternatives wouldn't have.

[11:14] Terry Longstreth: @Amanda +1

[11:15] Matthew West: @Amanda. Yes. We need to remember we are not trying to produce a "This is what

we did" type document.

[11:18] Matthew West: Common themes include re-use, patterns, processing issues, change management...

[11:18] Andrea Westerinen: Tooling is a key message ... Tooling brings in key notions (for definition

and searching), provenance and curation, etc.

[11:19] Terry Longstreth: @Andrea - good, but it's not just for reuse. It's also important for

conflict resolution, change management, ...

[11:19] Matthew West: On bottlenecks we tend to take a view on some of these things overlapping with

other tracks, rather than doing something entirely distinct.

[11:21] Andrea Westerinen: @TerryLongstreth [11:19] +1. That is why I said that there are different

foci, and why it is important to present the big picture and then specifics.

[11:20] GaryBergCross: Our theme is where ontologies meet Big Data and LOD so we start with a vision

of this and then proceed to discuss how we can overcome bottlenecks using tools and reusing

knowledge for various type of domains.

- [11:21] GaryBergCross: Have to leave....

[11:21] Matthew West: [ref. KenBaclawski's verbal suggestion to keep the number of common themes to 7

+/- 2; Todd Schneider concurred and suggested "more close to 5"] Agree we need to keep the number of

themes limited. Otherwise by talking about some we effectively detract from others. We should be

happy to prioritize ruthlessly. The sooner the better too.

[11:22] Andrea Westerinen: @MatthewWest [11:21] +1 on priorities and "the sooner the better".

[11:24] Matthew West: I think paring things down is the editors job. We will reserve the right to

discuss and disagree.

- [11:30] Todd Schneider: I have to go. Thank you all. Cheers.

[11:31] Andrea Westerinen: Thanks Leo, Todd, and all.

[11:31] Anatoly Levenchuk: Please, remember about Hackathon!

[11:32] Christoph Lange: thanks to the chairs and all others!

[11:32] Bobbin Teegarden: Enterprise/system architects and business modelers designing implementable

systems are yearning to incorporate ontologies. Right now the tools are holding them back; but if

you open that logjam, we will see many trials and errors -- i.e. not great quality ontologies in our

terms; and in this scenario, maybe quality is not the primary criteria for (eventual) wide ontology

usage.

[11:33] Peter P. Yim: ref. narrowing down the scope of the Communique (maybe to 5 +/- 2 key themes) ...

I'd suggest we focus (among others) on the "outreach" aspect, and try to use the Communique to

convince practitioners in "Big Data and Semantic Web" information systems (designers and developers)

that the use of ontologies is viable and will contribute to their solution approach

[11:34] Andrea Westerinen: @PeterYim [11:33] I disagree, a bit ... We also need to focus on

ontology/schema developers and get them to develop and document reusable content.

[11:33] Peter P. Yim: Please mark you calendars and reserve this time, every Thursday, for the

Ontology Summit 2014 virtual panel session series. In particular ... Session-07 will be up next

Thursday - Thu 2014.02.27 (same time) - Ontology Summit 2014: "Track E: Hackathon - Launch" - see

developing details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_02_27 and

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014_Hackathon

[11:34] Peter P. Yim: great session!

[11:34] Peter P. Yim: -- session ended: 11:30 am PST --

-- end of in-session chat-transcript --

  • Further Question & Remarks - please post them to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv
    • all subscribers to the previous summit discussion, and all who responded to today's call will automatically be subscribed to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv
    • if you are already subscribed, post to <ontology-summit [at] ontolog.cim3.net>
    • (if you are not yet subscribed) you may subscribe yourself to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv, by sending a blank email to <ontology-summit-join [at] ontolog.cim3.net> from your subscribing email address, and then follow the instructions you receive back from the mailing list system.
    • (in case you aren't already a member) you may also want to join the ONTOLOG community and be subscribed to the [ ontolog-forum ] listserv, when general ontology-related topics (not specific to this year's Summit theme) are discussed. Please refer to Ontolog membership details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
      • kindly email <peter.yim@cim3.com> if you have any question.

Additional Resources

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Thursday, 20-Feb-2014
  • Start Time: 9:30am PST / 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm CET / 17:30 GMT/UTC
  • Expected Call Duration: ~2.0 hours
  • Dial-in:
    • Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184# ... (long distance cost may apply)
    • Skype: joinconference (i.e. make a skype call to the contact with skypeID="joinconference") ... (generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer ... ref.)
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
      • Unfamiliar with how to do this on Skype? ...
        • Add the contact "joinconference" to your skype contact list first. To participate in the teleconference, make a skype call to "joinconference", then open the dial pad (see platform-specific instructions below) and enter the Conference ID: 141184# when prompted.
        • you may connect to (the skypeID) "joinconference" whether or not it indicates that it is online (i.e. even if it says it is "offline," you should still be able to connect to it.)
      • Can't find Skype Dial pad? ...
        • for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
        • for Linux Skype users: please note that the dial-pad is only available on v4.1 (or later; or on the earlier Skype versions 2.x,) if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. ... (ref.)
  • Shared-screen support (VNC session), if applicable, will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/ ... view-only password: "ontolog"
    • if you plan to be logging into this shared-screen option (which the speaker may be navigating), and you are not familiar with the process, please try to call in 5 minutes before the start of the session so that we can work out the connection logistics. Help on this will generally not be available once the presentation starts.
    • people behind corporate firewalls may have difficulty accessing this. If that is the case, please download the slides above (where applicable) and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.
  • In-session chat-room url: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/summit_20140220
    • 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.
    • thanks to the soaphub.org folks, one can now use a jabber/xmpp client (e.g. gtalk) to join this chatroom. Just add the room as a buddy - (in our case here) summit_20140220@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!
  • Discussions and Q & A:
    • Nominally, when a presentation is in progress, the moderator will mute everyone, except for the speaker.
    • To un-mute, press "*7" ... To mute, press "*6" (please mute your phone, especially if you are in a noisy surrounding, or if you are introducing noise, echoes, etc. into the conference line.)
    • we will usually save all questions and discussions till after all presentations are through. You are encouraged to jot down questions onto the chat-area in the mean time (that way, they get documented; and you might even get some answers in the interim, through the chat.)
    • During the Q&A / discussion segment (when everyone is muted), If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please raise your hand (virtually) by clicking on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the session moderator (again, press "*7" on your phone to un-mute). Test your voice and introduce yourself first before proceeding with your remarks, please. (Please remember to click on the "hand button" again (to lower your hand) and press "*6" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)
  • RSVP to peter.yim@cim3.com with your affiliation appreciated, ... or simply just by adding yourself to the "Expected Attendees" list below (if you are a member of the community already.)
  • 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.

Attendees

  • Expecting:
    • ...
    • (please add yourself to the list if you are a member of the Ontolog or Ontology Summit community, or, rsvp to <peter.yim@cim3.com>)



Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2014_02_20&oldid=2791"