OntologySummit2011: Virtual Session-7 - "Perspectives from the European Commission" - Thu 2011_03_17    (2P4R)

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology    (2P4S)

Session Theme: Perspective from the European Commission    (2P4T)

Session Chair: Dr. Nicola Guarino (ISTC-CNR)    (2P4V)

Invited Speakers: Dr. Márta Nagy-Rothengass & Dr. Stefano Bertolo (INFSO-DG, European Commission)    (2P4W)

Title: "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind but you must set priorities and budgets for what you want to look at (with an eye to the EU's Digital Agenda and apologies to Kant)"    (2P4U)

Background:    (2P55)

OntologySummit2011 Theme: "Making the Case for Ontology"    (2P56)

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."    (2P58)

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.    (2P59)

The session has been organized and chaired by NicolaGuarino to bring us the perspective from the European Commission.    (2P5A)

See developing details on this Summit series of events at: OntologySummit2011 (home page for this summit)    (2P5B)

Abstract:    (2P5C)

Title: "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind but you must set priorities and budgets for what you want to look at (with an eye to the EU's Digital Agenda and apologies to Kant).    (2P5D)

by: Dr. Márta Nagy-Rothengass & Dr. Stefano Bertolo (INFSO-DG, European Commission)    (2P5E)

The explosive growth of linked data on the web has dramatically upended the knowledge representation landscape (at least as funding at the EU level is concerned). In Framework Programme 6 (2003-2008) much work was devoted on developing toolchains for sophisticated conceptual models but such models very seldom ended up being populated with a meaningful number of interesting instances, they were thoughts with much less content than had been expected. The situation has changed dramatically in the last two years: there are now on the semantic web hundreds of millions of entities with useful but minimal conceptual characterization attached to them, intuitions with very few concepts. The future points to a neo-Kantian synthesis, with expert ontologists developing conceptual models to provide a valuable layer of actionable intelligence on top of this growing mass of particulars. In this talk we will describe the broad objectives of the Digital Agenda for Europe the European Commission's top policy document for information and communication technologies. We will then explain why that policy makes certain knowledge representation domains more significant than others and what this might mean in terms of funding and cooperation opportunities.    (2P5F)

Agenda:    (2P5G)

Ontology Summit 2011 - Panel Session-8    (2P5H)

Proceedings:    (2P5N)

Please refer to the above    (2P5O)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:    (2P5P)

 see raw transcript here.    (2P5Q)
 (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.    (2P5R)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (2P5S)
	PeterYim: Welcome to the ...    (2QG3)
	OntologySummit2011: Virtual Session-7 - "Perspectives from the European Commission" - Thu 2011_03_17    (2QG4)
	Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology    (2QG5)
	Session Theme: Perspective from the European Commission    (2QG6)
	Session Chair: Dr. NicolaGuarino (ISTC-CNR)    (2QG7)
	Invited Speakers: Dr. Marta Nagy-Rothengass & Dr. Stefano Bertolo (INFSO-DG, European Commission)    (2QG8)
	Title: "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind but you must set 
	priorities and budgets for what you want to look at (with an eye to the EU's Digital Agenda and 
	apologies to Kant).    (2QG9)
	Please refer to details (dial-in, agenda, slides, etc.) on the session page at: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_03_17    (2QGA)
	.    (2QGB)
	anonymous morphed into MartinGladwell    (2QGC)
	anonymous morphed into NicolaGuarino    (2QGD)
	anonymous morphed into RhettMoeller    (2QGE)
	anonymous morphed into ChristopherSpottiswoode    (2QGF)
	anonymous morphed into SeanBarker    (2QGG)
	anonymous morphed into DuaneNickull    (2QGH)
	anonymous1 morphed into AndreasHarth    (2QGI)
	anonymous morphed into DennyVrandecic    (2QGJ)
	SteveRay: Cheat sheet: *2 = mute; *3 = unmute    (2QGK)
	SteveRay: Good idea, Matthew    (2QGL)
	FrankOlken: Hi, this is FrankOlken. I have joined the call. I seem to be unable to edit the web page 
	(attendee list).    (2QGM)
	SteveRay: Frank, please don't edit the wiki. PeterYim is editing it. Since you are logged in to the 
	chat, Peter can see that you are present.    (2QGN)
	PeterYim: @Frank - I have added you to the attendee list already (only one person should be editing 
	the wiki anyway) ... thanks for joining    (2QGO)
	RhettMoeller: @Frank, have you tried clicking the Settings link in the main area of the window? Then 
	there's a field for you to type your name in.    (2QGP)
	anonymous morphed into AldenDima    (2QGQ)
	LeoObrst: Just joined.    (2QGR)
	anonymous morphed into PavithraKenjige    (2QGS)
	MartaNagyRothengass presenting -> from slide#1 (recording time-point 0:01:19) on    (2QGT)
	SteveRay: I would be interested to know the source of the funding numbers. Does this include private 
	investment or just government investment. My impression was that EU was outspending the US in 
	government investment.    (2QGU)
	RexBrooks: As a SOA person in OASIS, I'm pleased to see "service' so prominent in this slide.    (2QGV)
	RexBrooks: The difficulty with interoperability is the continuing corporate emphasis on some degree 
	of proprietariness for maximizing profits. They have not gotten enough value yet.    (2QGW)
	NicolaGuarino: @RexBrooks: yes, but even without proprietary concerns still huge interoperability 
	problems remain. Interoperability has remained a priority for the EU for many years now, and still 
	we are far from achieving it    (2QGX)
	RexBrooks: @Nicola: agreed!    (2QGY)
	NicolaGuarino: Marta's point on ensuring interoperability even in absence of standards is very 
	important from the ontology community point of view...    (2QGZ)
	SteveRay: Agreed. Ontologies will help with mapping among heterogeneous models of information.    (2QH0)
	RexBrooks: @Nicola: Agreed again. I am building a couple of de facto use-based, user-defined 
	ontologies for emergency management as an example for people to have terminologies they can use, and 
	as a basis in the future for mapping other terminologies to these or other ontologies.    (2QH1)
	RhettMoeller: Steve / Nicola, that's where I get excited and really interested in this topic-- the 
	ability to provide a consistent framework in spite of the differences between different lines of 
	business.    (2QH2)
	SteveRay: @Rhett: Indeed. From a pragmatic perspective, we will never get everyone to stick to a 
	single model of information important to them (often for good reason); therefore, mapping among 
	models becomes the mechanism for interoperability.    (2QH3)
	DennyVrandecic: Yay to semantic wikis!    (2QHB)
	RexBrooks: Very surprised to see 3D objects and models. Excellent!    (2QH4)
	NicolaGuarino: @Rex: AIM@Shape was one of the most successful projects, in my opinion. Not much 
	ontology there, but promising good stuff    (2QH5)
	RexBrooks: @Nicola:My surprise is due to the convergence of 3D and KM, especially with regard to 
	CMS. You can show or visualize a higher density of information, especially as categories if you use 
	3D constructs such as flippable pages we see now in iPad and XOOM as interfaces. You can get a much 
	nigher density of material into a given screen.    (2QH6)
	NicolaGuarino: @Marta (slide 1: despite EU efforts on promoting strong interdisciplinary 
	communities, still the ontology community in EU is a bit scattered, and many researches working on 
	EU-funded projects involving ontologies are suspicious towards an open interdisciplinary approach 
	(especially if this philosophy-oriented research on formal ontology).    (2QH7)
	StefanoBertolo presenting -> from slide#35 (recording time-point 0:42:24) on    (2QH8)
	PeterYim: @StefanoBertolo - your slide numbering seems to be 1 (count) less than the shared deck,    (2QH9)
	PeterYim: ALL: please note, and try to add 1 to the slide number called out by StefanoBertolo    (2QHA)
	SteveRay: Ah - good quote: "The need comes first, ontologies come later"    (2QHC)
	RhettMoeller: I like that-- strong design element.    (2QHD)
	RhettMoeller: Exposing what the user is *intending* to use is a huge thing.    (2QHE)
	RhettMoeller: Why can't cable companies offer that?    (2QHF)
	BrandNiemann: Sounds like cloud computing to me!    (2QHG)
	SteveRay: I think his point is this is cloud "data" as an analog to cloud "computing"    (2QHH)
	BrandNiemann: Every European Digital by their use of cloud computing tools!    (2QHI)
	anonymous morphed into BobbinTeegarden    (2QHJ)
	PeterYim: slide#58    (2QHK)
	DennyVrandecic / RhettMoeller / NicolaGuarino / MartinGladwell / SeanBarker / EricChan / 
	MichelVandenBossche: We lost stephano    (2QHL)
	PeterYim: @Stefano - we lost you ... can you call in again!    (2QHM)
	RhettMoeller: I need to go anyway-- thank you for the fascinating introduction.    (2QHN)
	PeterYim: Nicola - is there some way to reach Marta or Stefano?    (2QHO)
	NicolaGuarino: The problem is that Stefano is not on the chat board...    (2QHP)
	AldenDima: @peter - Is audio down?    (2QHQ)
	AlanRector: The sound seems just to have dropped out    (2QHR)
	PeterYim: @Alden and All - Yes ... the speakers' line seems to be off    (2QHS)
	NicolaGuarino: I am trying to speak, but it doesn't work    (2QHT)
	DennyVrandecic: i hear someone    (2QHU)
	NicolaGuarino: looks like a different call!    (2QHV)
	RexBrooks: Yes, it sounds like our telecon line got crossed with another.    (2QHW)
	DennyVrandecic: i hear    (2QHX)
	MartinGladwell: yes    (2QHY)
	SteveRay: I dialed back in, and unmuted. That worked. We have still lost the speakers though.    (2QHZ)
	RexBrooks: The speakers don't have a vnc connection, I believe.    (2QI0)
	RexBrooks: This has been a terrific presentation so far. Very informative.    (2QI1)
	DennyVrandecic: tweeting to stefano    (2QI2)
	RexBrooks: I lost him on slide 58.    (2QI3)
	PeterYim: we're on slide#59 now - when Stefano calls out the number, please add 1 (the numbering on 
	our deck and his differs by one)    (2QI4)
	SteveRay: Question for the speakers: In your opinion what do you find most compelling when proposers 
	are "Making the case" for an ontology-based proposal? And what do you believe commercial 
	stakeholders find most compelling? I imagine the answers to these two questions will be different.    (2QI5)
	RexBrooks: Marta's point on interoperability is key for me. What has been provided about the EU 
	effort adds numerous powerful arguments especially about knowledge management and content management 
	that should help make the case for interoperability for which ontology is essential.    (2QI6)
	NicolaGuarino: @Stefano: the paradoxical aspect is that the ontologies used (and advocated for) by 
	the linked data people have been becoming poorer and poorer while the Web of data was increasing... 
	Do linked data people feel the need of good ontologies?    (2QI7)
	RexBrooks: the Good Relations ontology is just a start. Could be exciting to see eCommerce take off.    (2QI8)
	NicolaGuarino: @Stefano: Well, I would not insist on the fact that the Good Relations ontology helps 
	to specify *exactly* the kinds of services offered... For instance, they don't distinguish clearly 
	between goods and services... they mainly describe goods...    (2QI9)
	PeterYim: @Nicola & Stefano - I guess LOD folks still need "good ontologies" (by whatever label one 
	calls them) ... ref LeoObrst's recent post responding to DieterFensel - see: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2011-03/msg00148.html - vocabularies/ontologies to 
	describe linked data are indeed needed ... and are "not quite available" yet    (2QIA)
	PeterYim: @StefanoBertolo - ref. your slides #70 & #71 - well said!    (2QIB)
	RexBrooks: @Stefano: Our Ontology Application Framework is not aimed at central focus of editor, but 
	to the range of applications which can be amplified or made possible by the overall set of 
	ontological resources, including editors.    (2QIC)
	RexBrooks: Excellent slides on Value Metrics, Models.    (2QID)
	SteveRay: This is great input, although I fear Stefano has misunderstood Nicola's questions to be 
	whether they are interested in projects with titles corresponding to our 5 tracks.    (2QIE)
	RexBrooks: Volume, Value, Integration stories will definitely aid us in making the case for 
	ontology.    (2QIF)
	SteveRay: Slide 78 speaks to our core question.    (2QIG)
	NicolaGuarino: @Steve: yes, and it is more or less in agreement with the discussion we had so far. 
	Matthew, do you agree?    (2QIH)
	Matthew West: @Nicola: Yes I agree.    (2QII)
	RexBrooks: Excellent Presentation!    (2QIJ)
	PeterYim: @Marta & Stefano - bravo! Great Talk! ... simply awesome!    (2QIK)
	NicolaGuarino: @ALL: If you want to ask questions, please raise your hand    (2QIL)
	NicolaGuarino: The point on volume, value and integration is really new (as Rex underlined)    (2QIM)
	Q&A and Open Discussion commences --> (recording time-point 1:44:02) on    (2QIN)
	RexBrooks: In making the case for ontology, it seemed to me that the explosion of data, including 
	unstructured data in textual form, is a BIG argument in our favor, provided we offer real solutions 
	rather than explanations about ontology. Correct?    (2QIO)
	StefanoBertolo: I would put my bet on "sensors" rather than "textual understanding"    (2QIP)
	CoryCasanave: And by "sensors" include all the transactional data in the world developed by existing 
	IT systems    (2QIQ)
	RexBrooks: @Cory: Agreed.    (2QIR)
	ChristopherSpottiswoode: @Stefano: (My mic isn't getting thru...) Isn't there a quality problem 
	with those quantities of LOD triples? And ontologies should be able to address it.    (2QIS)
	RexBrooks: Ahh, good points!    (2QIT)
	ChristopherSpottiswoode: Masses of well-defined LOD from different sources tends to miss the 
	value-add from interrelationships in the T-box.    (2QIU)
	SteveRay: Excellent session. Thanks very much.    (2QIV)
	PeterYim: Yes ... great session!    (2QIW)
	ChristopherSpottiswoode: Many thanks Stefano for your most articulate presentation!    (2QIX)
	PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:58 am PDT --    (2QIY)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (2P5T)

Audio Recording of this Session    (2P5Z)

Additional Resources:    (2P68)

For the record ...    (2P6L)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (2P6M)

Conference Call Details    (2NEN)

Attendees:    (2NDM)