Ontolog Forum

Revision as of 15:30, 16 December 2022 by Forum (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Session Planning
Duration 1 hour
Date/Time 19 Oct 2022 16:00 GMT
9:00am PDT/12:00pm EDT
5:00pm BST/6:00pm CEST
Convener Ken Baclawski

Ontology Summit 2023 Planning

Helping scientific researchers make better use of ontologies


Conference Call Information

  • Date: Wednesday, 19 Oct 2022
  • Start Time: 9:00am PDT / 12:00pm EDT / 6:00pm CEST / 5:00pm BST / 1600 UTC
  • Expected Call Duration: 1 hour
  • Video Conference URL
    • Conference ID: 837 8041 8377
    • Passcode: 323309
  • Chat Room

The unabbreviated URLs are:



[11:56] RaviSharma: Welcome everyone

[11:57] RaviSharma: Andrea Westerinen gave these suggestions

  • Ontologies for natural language understanding
  • Ontologies and narratives

[11:58] AlexShkotin: And my proposal is to have track or at least session "Theoretical knowledge as is and its relationship with formal ontology". Let me remind you that we had a great discussion about the definition of the term "service" for the new science "theory of service systems". What is a structure of theoretical knowledge for different domains? Is this knowledge formalizable? What kind of formal knowledge processing do we have and do need? etc.

My way is to take some theoretical book - in my case M. Swami, K. Thulasirman, Graphs, networks and algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, 1981, and try to formalize just one section 1.1 but all knowledge. Is that possible? Yes!

[12:12] RaviSharma: Ken mentioned that disaster domain experts were not using ontologies. Why they were using ad hoc templates. Was it because there were no toolings available. Some of Gary's suggestions help with that Q. as well.

[12:14] Mike Bennett: +1 for connecting ontology to knowledge i.e. epistemology (how the data / truth assertions relate to meaning)

[12:14] RaviSharma: Ram mentioned Knowledge Management e.g. publications databases. How these mine KBs framework for Knowledge Management. These require ontologies and it is not being used. Such umbrella topic related to these suggestions would be useful.

[12:16] RaviSharma: Gary added tools and methods

[12:16] Mike Bennett: Tools, methods and standards - yes

[12:17] RaviSharma: Mentioned non bio areas and speakers such as Mungall, Hitzler, Jano and others

[12:18] RaviSharma: Thanks Mike

[12:22] RaviSharma: Alex mentioned Graph Theory and Service as well

[12:23] RaviSharma: Ken - may be as mini series!

[12:24] Robert Rovetto : Andrea offered other proposals, such ad NLP, narratives, etc

[12:25] RaviSharma: Ken Onto-AI connections?

[12:28] Robert Rovetto : My input on the topics so far: all are worthwhile. caveat: if a topic is on tools, then it would be more valuable to have a diverse set of tools, from industry or elsewhere. eg mike mentioned enterprise. and other companies, agencies, from different countries should be included

[12:29] RaviSharma: Thanks Robert

[12:36] RaviSharma: Janet - we have better tools not necessarily not market pull, improve tools, not only vendor driven but developed by groups! Needs are more such as KM as mentioned by Ram are relevant. What is diff bet Taxonomy and Vocabs? Unification of Math knowledge! Ontology friendly domains! Alex also mentioned. Theory of Knowledge and usefulness.

[12:37] RaviSharma: Janet - AI and Onto debate on robots taking over the world could stimulate Discussion.

[12:40] RaviSharma: Ram Mentioned that KM would draw general interest

[12:46] RaviSharma: Discussion on what was needed by users came up. I mentioned that KM and domain use of ontologies are important.

[12:46] RaviSharma: Alex - formal definitions are useful - formal knowledge

[12:47] RaviSharma: Janet- needs and tools

[12:48] RaviSharma: Janet - Group modeling

[12:50] RaviSharma: I think what Janet mentioned is also used in Agile development methodologies it is group development, validation and verification and starting with business processing modeling, these use cases often end-up generating software solutions!

[12:52] Mike Bennett: Agile ontology development!

[12:53] janet singer: Yes, Agile ontology development could be one of the disruptive alternative visions for how to span the tools-users gap

[12:53] Mike Bennett: It would be interesting to relate the 10 AI Commandments with Asimov's 3 Laws

[12:56] janet singer: In contrast, Alex's approach (track?) could emphasize formalization, and automated formalization.

[12:57] AlexShkotin: there are a lot of routine work with knowledge

[13:02] janet singer: Ken's story re prosthetic developers mistakenly assuming that people who were missing limbs wanted them to be realistic replacements is a great cautionary tale. Are there comparable unexamined framing assumptions that are behind the observed user-ontology tool gaps?

[13:03] RaviSharma: KM and Knowledge reuse

[13:08] janet singer: Steve Jobs for one didn't think one could rely on focus groups for guidance in developing 'insanely great' products since their vision is constrained by what they have experienced in the past. Overcoming a persistent user needs-available tools gap as with ontologies arguably needs a Jobs-like 'thinking different' approach


Previous Meetings

ConferenceCall 2022 10 12Planning

Next Meetings

ConferenceCall 2022 10 26Planning
ConferenceCall 2022 11 09Planning
ConferenceCall 2022 11 30Planning
... further results