OntologySummit2011: Panel Session-2 - Ontology Application Framework - I - Thu 2011_02_03    (2MAO)

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology    (2MAP)

Session Title: Strawman for the Ontology Application Framework    (2MAQ)

Session Co-chairs: Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto) & Dr. MichaelUschold (Semantic Arts)    (2MAR)

Panelists:    (2MAS)

Abstract:    (2MAY)

OntologySummit2011 Theme: "Making the Case for Ontology"    (2MFY)

This is our 6th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by NIST, Ontolog, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit is: "Making the Case for Ontology."    (2MG1)

This year's Ontology Summit seeks to address the need to provide concrete evidence of successful deployment of ontologies by examining several application domains for such examples, and in better articulating where different "strengths" of ontological representation are best applied. To support that, the summit also aims to classify the categories of applications where ontology has been, and could be, successfully applied; to identify distinct types of metrics that might be used in evaluating the return on investment in an ontology application (cost, capability, performance, etc.); to lay out some strategies for articulating a case for ontological applications; and to identify remaining challenges and roadblocks to a wider deployment of such applications that represent promising application areas and research challenges for the future. The findings of the summit will be documented in the form of a communiqué intended for public consumption.    (2MG2)

In this kickoff meeting for Track 1: Ontology Application Framework, panelists will be presenting various ideas for a strawman proposal for the framework. The objectives of the meeting will be find enough agreement so that we can initiate online discussions to identify and classify applications of ontologies within business and industrial use cases. This classification will be used to organize the uses cases proposed by Track 2.    (2MG3)

See developing details on this Summit series of events at: OntologySummit2011 (home page for this summit)    (2MG4)

Agenda:    (2MG5)

Ontology Summit 2011 - Panel Session-2    (2MG6)

Proceedings:    (2MGC)

Please refer to the above    (2MGD)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:    (2MGE)

 see raw transcript here.    (2MGF)
 (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.    (2MGG)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (2MGH)
	PeterYim: .    (2N3D)
	Welcome to the OntologySummit2011: Panel Session-2 - Ontology Application Framework - I - Thu 2011_02_03    (2N3E)
	Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology    (2N3F)
	Session Title: Strawman for the Ontology Application Framework    (2N3G)
	Session Co-chairs: Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto) & Dr. MichaelUschold (Semantic Arts)    (2N3H)
	Panelists:    (2N3I)
	* Dr. MichaelUschold (Semantic Arts) - "A Framework for Understanding and Classifying Ontology 
	Applications"    (2N3J)
	* Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto) - "Notes for an Ontology Application Framework"    (2N3K)
	* Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE) - "Ontologies & Applications"    (2N3L)
	* Professor AlanRector (U of Manchester) - "Problems arising in applications: Background Knowledge 
	Representation, Data modelling & Ontologies"    (2N3M)
	.    (2N3N)
	Please refer to session details (dial-in, agenda, slides, etc.) at: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_02_03    (2N3O)
	.    (2N3P)
	anonymous morphed into PatBarkman    (2N3Q)
	anonymous morphed into ToddSchneider    (2N3R)
	anonymous1 morphed into BruceBray    (2N3S)
	anonymous2 morphed into AmandaVizedom    (2N3T)
	anonymous morphed into RamSriram    (2N3U)
	Susan Turnbull (GSA) morphed into SusanTurnbull    (2N3V)
	anonymous morphed into AntoinetteArsic    (2N3W)
	AlanRector: Please put details of paper on chat show - the line looses some detail - thanks    (2N3X)
	PeterYim: @MichaelUschold - it's slide#2 (not #1) now    (2N3Y)
	PeterYim: slide#15 (not #14)    (2N3Z)
	YuLin: where is it now? I got lost    (2N40)
	PeterYim: For some reason, our speakers haven't been calling out their slide numbers very 
	accurately, therefore (especially asynchronous participants) please bear with the situation, and try 
	to sync up to the content as they are presented    (2N41)
	ArturoSanchez: @MichaelUschold: the main issue with all the approaches, as I understand them, is 
	that semantic information that drive the mapping is not explicitly represented, and therefore needs 
	to be mediated by humans and properties that are supposed to be preserved by the mappings is not 
	explicitly exposed. If you get the chance, I'd like to hear your opinion (as well as Michael 
	Gruninger's, Leo's, and Professor Rector's) Thanks!    (2N42)
	ArturoSanchez: @MichaelUschold: Also, it is not clear to me how change management is represented in 
	all these approaches/architectures. That is to say, when the ontologies change, what happens?    (2N43)
	ArturoSanchez: @MichaelUschold and the rest of the team: to document architectural concerns, I would 
	suggest to use the notations proposed by the Software Engineering Institute (CMU). "Documenting 
	Software Architectures", latest edition (Addison-Wesley)    (2N44)
	PatBarkman: thanks Micheal    (2N45)
	AmandaVizedom: Thank you Leo!    (2N46)
	AntoinetteArsic: bye Leo    (2N47)
	ToddSchneider: Leo, there are apps that allow the generation of source code from an ontology (e.g., 
	Top Quadrant)    (2N48)
	PeterYim: MichaelGruninger is presenting ... on slide#2 now    (2N49)
	ArturoSanchez: @ToddSchneider: it would be interesting to analyze--or come up with--software 
	development frameworks that support the lifecyle of ontologies, including automatic code generation 
	injected into the application and directly derived from the ontology/ies.    (2N4A)
	ToddSchneider: Instead of using application as the distinguishing criteria it may be more effective 
	to use problem space.    (2N4B)
	SteveRay: @Todd: I agree that if the application is used for categorization, then we at least need a 
	mapping provided from problem categories to application categories.    (2N4C)
	anonymous morphed into Peter Bahnsen    (2N4D)
	ToddSchneider: Arturo, I've been referring to this as ontologically driven development (with the 
	subtext of displacing UML / SysML).    (2N4E)
	SteveRay: @Todd: ....keeping in mind that we want to provide information to people trying to make 
	the case to stakeholders that know what problems they are facing. i.e. I'm agreeing with you.    (2N4F)
	ArturoSanchez: @ToddSchneider: I think MichaelGruninger's characterization is with respect to the 
	functionality that can be implemented by "ontology-based" or "ontology-driven" applications    (2N4G)
	ArturoSanchez: @ToddSchneider: ... and therefore, the characterization is domain-independent ...    (2N4H)
	ToddSchneider: Problems resolved by applications realized by functionality    (2N4I)
	SteveRay: @Arturo: I think Todd's point is that if I were trying to make the case to someone, say in 
	my company, I might know what problem I'm trying to solve, but may not be sure what functionality 
	would be best to invoke. Or even if I knew what functionality was appropriate, my deciding vice 
	president might not recognize it in those terms.    (2N4J)
	ToddSchneider: @Steve, exactly. Referring to what John Sowa suggested, you have to convince someone 
	they have a problem (that your solution can solve).    (2N4K)
	SteveRay: We could provide guidance such as: Problem category --> Needed functionality --> 
	Ontological approach --> Benefits    (2N4L)
	ToddSchneider: @Steve, sounds good and make a simple graphic.    (2N4M)
	ArturoSanchez: @Todd & Steve: yes, your points are well taken, but that is why the summit has 
	diffferent tracks. This track is about "A Framework for Understanding and Classifying Ontology 
	Applications". There are other tracks that address the concern you are expressing. Now, it would 
	also make sense to document the architecture of well-known exemplars of ontology-driven/based 
	applications, for specific domains, which CIOs and CEOs associated with these domains can relate to.    (2N4N)
	AntoinetteArsic: It would be awesome to have instances of the ontologies for these in KM and 
	Decision Support.    (2N4O)
	SteveRay: @Arturo: Agreed.    (2N4P)
	ToddSchneider: @Arturo, I think 'Framework' is the important part, 'application' may not be the best 
	qualifier/criteria for categorization (relative to the larger goals of the summit).    (2N4Q)
	PeterYim: = Alan Rector presenting now =    (2N4R)
	ArturoSanchez: Very good presentations ... sorry I must leave now. I'll catch up through the Wiki.    (2N4S)
	PeterYim: @Peter Bahnsen - Hello, would you let us know which organization are you affiliated with, 
	please?    (2N4T)
	Peter Bahnsen: @ PeterYim I'm contracting with the GSA and am here on invite of SusanTurnbull    (2N4U)
	PeterYim: @Peter Bahnsen - welcome! we are glad you can join us today    (2N4V)
	PeterYim: @SusanTurnbull - Hi Susan!    (2N4W)
	Peter Bahnsen: Thanks for the welcome! I am new to the ontology community    (2N4X)
	PeterYim: @Peter Bahnsen - hope you like what you see here!    (2N4Y)
	Antoinette Arsic: on slide 5    (2N4Z)
	PeterYim: @Antoinette - thank you    (2N50)
	MichaelGruninger: I agree with Arturo -- the purpose of this track is to provide the frame of 
	reference for discussing how ontologies are used and how to demonstrate benefits.    (2N51)
	AmandaVizedom: @Steve and all: I think we do need a multi-dimensional categorization. As suggested, 
	there are things we'd normally think of as "application"-oriented, such as the functional 
	requirements and technology context. There are also user characterizations, subject matter 
	considerations (single-domain/cross domain), process considerations, organizational goals (things 
	down the road for which ontos should be reusable? mandates? legal, policy, other issues?), and on.    (2N52)
	MichaelGruninger: If we tell someone that ontologies provide the technology that they need to solve 
	their problems, we need to ensure that they understand exactly what is being delivered.    (2N53)
	SteveRay: @Michael: Agreed, but someone should provide a mapping from problem categories to 
	application categories. Seems like that would either be this track, or possibly Track 4 - Strategies 
	for making the case.    (2N54)
	MichaelGruninger: @Steve: What are examples of problem categories?    (2N55)
	PeterYim: @AmandaVizedom, MichaelGruninger and All - "multi-dimensional" is the key challenge ... 
	how can we effectively document and present it    (2N56)
	SteveRay: @Michael: Let's see... "We don't know how to assign the right expert to a customer 
	account", or "I'm trying to optimize the load balancing in my electrical grid". These are off the 
	top of my head. Some answers may be obvious, some not. Kind of gets into systems design.    (2N57)
	SteveRay: @Michael: I just realized you asked for categories, not examples. I'll have to think 
	further.    (2N58)
	AmandaVizedom: I don't think is news as an idea, but I've had a great opportunity to experience and 
	observe the factors recently. I've been working on Ontology Design Pattern & Best Practice 
	documentation for ontology developers within our project, translating general ontology best 
	practices and ODPs to specifically what to do in our context. Because target audience is (a) often 
	only lightly trained, learning on the job, and (b) not necessarily interested in more general level, 
	except where understanding it will help them again later, and (c) mixed in desire/ability/tendency 
	to find related external resources and try to understand and integrate them, I need to be able to 
	articulate, in complementary guidance, in what ways these docs are tailored. Meantime, I'm thinking 
	about how the tailored docs could be part of a larger body of guidance docs in which context one 
	could find the bits that apply to ones own cases. I've not gotten to the point of listing such 
	factors (not part of client task, of course), but the variety is very salient.    (2N59)
	YuLin: @MichaelGruninger: I don't think gene sequencing is using ontology technology. Could you 
	please give an example?    (2N5A)
	BruceBray: sequence ontology is an evolving example of use of ontology for representing gene 
	sequences see: http://www.sequenceontology.org/    (2N5B)
	MichaelGruninger: @Yu Lin: I was referring to ontologies (such as the Sequence Ontology) that are 
	used to support the analysis of gene sequence data e.g. query all databases for all genes whose 
	transcripts are edited, or trans-spliced, or are bound by a particular protein.    (2N5C)
	YuLin: @Bruce Thank you very much. I think it rather a tool for data integration than for the 
	sequencing analyzing.    (2N5D)
	YuLin: Thank you Michael, I got what you meant    (2N5E)
	ToddSchneider: Thank you to all the speakers. Have to go.    (2N5F)
	AldenDima: @PeterYim,@SteveRay - For me, a high-level way of presenting the categories revolves 
	around saying that ontologies enable efficient 1) coordination 2) cooperation and 3) coherence 
	between sofware systems and their users. I'm sure that there are other high-level categories as 
	well.    (2N5G)
	FabianNeuhaus: @Alan: about integrity constraints: it might be of interest to you that there is a 
	W3C Member Submission called "Validating Semantic Web Data with OWL Integrity Constraints" on its 
	way    (2N5H)
	AlanRector: Glad to hear it - I have been concerned that this stream was critical but not getting 
	the attention we require.    (2N5I)
	RamSriram: @MichaelGruninger: I believe the track's title is "Application Framework." I presume you 
	are going to synthesize the presentations into a "framework" perspective. Such a framework should 
	help us to resolve various views for ontologies and applications.    (2N5J)
	AlanRector: One important difference is uses of ontologies as payload or "coding" or a common 
	structured vocabulary - e.g. the Gene Ontology or SNOMED - and use of ontologies as structure for 
	software or standards.    (2N5K)
	PatBarkman: Search Engine Optimization. Were looking for a way to use an ontology for SEO because we 
	have a dataset that blends and makes really no distinction between a broad selection of knowledge 
	domains (for example: biology, physics, cosmology ...) In the vast number of data sources these 
	subjects are considered separate disciplines -- segmented. Our dataset defines commonalities and 
	treats everything as one subject. Well, you might think that sounds great ... but it kinda sucks for 
	SEO because our web content is semantically very different than the rest of the web so we score 
	poorly based on the existing Search Engine algorithms. So, were looking at creating Topic Pages 
	based on our data. Then when those Topic Pages get crawled we believe we will begin to educate 
	Search Engines about the commonalties between various disciplines and that will enhance our search 
	engine scores. Then we also need to make our data (which is in English) searchable in multiple 
	languages. And frankly, we also need an ontology to search our data more effectively ourselves.    (2N5L)
	PatBarkman: so, those are our use cases: SEO, multi-lingual & enhancing our own search capabilities 
	of a dataset that's likely unprecedented in it's cross-disciplinarily nature    (2N5M)
	PatBarkman: wouldn't the use cases be the set of system requirements for developing the ap 
	framework??    (2N5N)
	SteveRay: @Pat: What is your dataset? Could you expand on this?    (2N5O)
	PatBarkman: @steve our data is in the form of text, video & audio, discusses all aspects of science 
	as one subject    (2N5P)
	PatBarkman: ...kinda hard to describe other than as a "complete" dataset    (2N5Q)
	SteveRay: @Pat: Could you say what purpose your are trying to fulfill? Education? Consumer service 
	provision? ....    (2N5R)
	PatBarkman: OK ... thanks for that clarification ... Ap FW summit/community    (2N5S)
	PatBarkman: @Steve - education, primarily    (2N5T)
	SteveRay: @Pat: So perhaps educational curriculum material might be an ontology. In this forum we 
	have talked about an ontology for curricula (last year in fact).    (2N5U)
	PatBarkman: @Steve, so I can probably find something in the archived discussion threads on that, 
	right?    (2N5V)
	PatBarkman: thanks    (2N5W)
	SteveRay: Yes, I'll try to dig up some links.    (2N5X)
	JimDisbrow: The Ontology Case Study I tried to put together (on an Energy-Water-Climate nexus) has 
	failed so far. The lack of funding may be the single largest factor. The lack of volunteers (and not 
	getting done what was needed) was also a factor.    (2N5Y)
	PeterYim: @AmandaVizedom - please capture you point here ... it's great!    (2N5Z)
	AmandaVizedom: Here's the point I just made on the call: In addition to looking at and collecting 
	use cases, there is tremendous value in looking at them comparatively and *specifically* looking at 
	what worked and didn't work in each case. Doing this kind of collection and comparison of LL in many 
	use cases is also valuable, as discussed a bit last year, for identifying Best Practices and 
	building that body of shared knowledge we don't yet have. But comparing what worked and didn't in 
	different use cases is often just the light one needs to bring out the dimensions (and important 
	points along those dimensions) we're looking to understand. Comparing use cases with LL, we can ask 
	What are the differences between those cases, such that one thing worked here and another thing worked there?    (2N60)
	AmandaVizedom: In follow-up, Michael, Alan, and others noted the difficulty in getting people to 
	talk about their failures, and that these haven't been solicited as part of the summit use case 
	call. Michael added this to that call. I agree, and having been aiming to get a workshop set up at 
	one of the major conferences to talk about use cases and LL, collaborating to identify both 
	meaningful differences between the use cases and best practices.    (2N62)
	PeterYim: Great session ... fantastic presentations from all the panelists! Thanks you All! Bye!    (2N63)
	PatBarkman: thanks!    (2N64)
	AlanRector: Thanks bye    (2N65)
	AntoinetteArsic: Thank you bye    (2N66)
	SteveRay: Logging out. Thanks Michael and team for another great session.    (2N67)
	PeterYim: I will keep the chat board going until 11:30am PST (i.e. for another 8 minutes or so) ... 
	past that, what goes into the chat-board will not get captured into the session proceedings.    (2N68)
	PeterYim: - session ended 11:21am PST --    (2N69)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (2MGI)

Audio Recording of this Session    (2MGO)

Additional Resources:    (2MGX)

For the record ...    (2MH3)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (2MH4)

Conference Call Details    (2MEY)

Attendees:    (2LC6)