OntologySummit2011: Panel Session-10 - "Communique draft review session" - Thu 2011_04_07    (2REY)

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology    (2RF0)

Session Title: Communique draft review    (2RF1)

Session Chair: Dr. MichaelUschold    (2RF2)

Communique Co-Lead Editors: Dr. MichaelUschold, Dr. JohnSowa, Mr. MillsDavis & Professor JohnBateman    (2RF3)

Contributing co-editors: All Co-chairs & Track Champions    (2REZ)

Today's Panelists: Communique co-Lead Editors    (2RKX)

Abstract:    (2RM3)

OntologySummit2011 Theme: "Making the Case for Ontology"    (2RM4)

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."    (2RM6)

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.    (2RM7)

In this Communique draft review session today, we will take a look at a rough draft that JohnBateman has put together, basing partly on the writing segments that various tracks have contributed. The chair, MichaelUschold, will summarize the approach that the co-lead editing team is planning to proceed with, based on their meeting earlier this week, discuss some key ideas (which they have captured during their meeting) and pose some questions for discussion. JohnSowa and MillsDavis, who is writing the opening, and the ending of the Communique will also be taking a few minutes each to summarize their parts. The goal of this session is to allow all of us to do a status check on the progress of Communique writing, and sync up on a plan for moving forward so we can have a fairly advanced draft by the time of the Symposium (Apr-18 & 19).    (2RM8)

See developing details on this Summit series of events at: OntologySummit2011 (home page for this summit)    (2RM9)

Agenda:    (2RMA)

Ontology Summit 2011 - Panel Session-10    (2RMB)

Proceedings:    (2RMI)

Please refer to the above    (2RMJ)

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

 see raw transcript here.    (2RML)
 (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.    (2RMM)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (2RMN)
	PeterYim: PeterYim: Welcome to the    (2RUH)
	OntologySummit2011: Panel Session-10 - "Communique draft review session" - Thu 2011_04_07    (2RUI)
	Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology    (2RUJ)
	Session Title: Communique draft review    (2RUK)
	Session Chair: Dr. MichaelUschold    (2RUL)
	Communique Co-Lead Editors: Dr. MichaelUschold, Dr. JohnSowa, Mr. MillsDavis & Professor JohnBateman    (2RUM)
	Contributing co-editors: All Co-chairs & Track Champions    (2RUN)
	please refer to details on the session page at: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_04_07    (2RUO)
	anonymous morphed into KurtConrad    (2RUP)
	anonymous morphed into FabianNeuhaus    (2RUQ)
	ToddSchneider: Here's a revision to Ali's suggestion.    (2RUR)
	ToddSchneider: Every person, organization or system has an ontology: the things presumed to exist in 
	the world and how they behave. Interactions with the world are based on these internal ontologies. 
	Indeed, these ontologies pervade and underpin our deliberations, inform our decisions and guide our 
	actions.    (2RUS)
	In large socio-technical systems, such as companies or organizations, each person, each 
	technological artefact and system carries with it a view of the world relevant to its 
	responsibilities in this context. Operations and interactions in such environments entails 
	reconciling and streamlining these multiple sometimes conflicting and often tacit ontologies.    (2RUT)
        Growing complexity and a need for smarter use of resources and solutions that cut across silos, 
	means that it has become ever important to make explicit these implicit ontologies thereby easing 
	interoperability and improving operational effectiveness.    (2RUU)
        Concurrently, advances in computing, networking technologies and the Internet means that it is 
        possible to effectively use ontologies to address the increasing array of socio-technical problems. 
        Moreover, in recent years, we have witnessed the increased maturation and transition of ontology from 
        academia to industry and government. The time is ripe to know what you know and share it with others.    (2RUV)
	anonymous morphed into NicolaGuarino    (2RX2)
	NicolaGuarino: implicit ontology -> conceptualization    (2RUW)
	anonymous morphed into AliHashemi    (2RX3)
	ToddSchneider: Nicola, I agree.    (2RUX)
	AliHashemi: +1 to Nicola's suggestion    (2RUY)
	AliHashemi: I think we can also emphasize the paragraph on "Growing complexity" further as well.    (2RUZ)
	AliHashemi: it is a natural extension of the increased dependencies on so many people and 
	organizations on networked and federated communication and work.    (2RV0)
	MikeBennett: I think Nicola has clarified what I meant about systems having an [implicit] ontology.    (2RV1)
	ToddSchneider: Ali, that notion is sometimes referred to as 'net-centricity'.    (2RV2)
	ToddSchneider: There are many types of networks, not all technological.    (2RV3)
	AliHashemi: Todd, thanks for the clarification. Given that then - does it make sense to add and 
	elaborate on that angle in that paragraph    (2RV4)
	anonymous morphed into PavithraKenjige    (2RV5)
	ToddSchneider: MikeBennett, in fact Ali's original terminology is more accurate. But the 
	introduction to the communique needs to be more general and the notion of 'conceptualization' is 
	better.    (2RV6)
	ToddSchneider: Ali, not sure. There are volumes on net-centricity, but I usually am involved only 
	with interoperability issues.    (2RV7)
	ToddSchneider: Ali, for more on net-centricity and interoperability see the materials at 
	https://www.ncoic.org/technology/deliverables/scope/    (2RV8)
	AliHashemi: What I mean to suggest is that part of the problem (and solution) in the growing 
	complexity is this net-centricity(?) of many people and organizations --> further highlighting the 
	growing importance of ontological solutions    (2RV9)
	ToddSchneider: Ali, yes. The internet and information systems have greatly added to the number of 
	interactions among people and systems, hence the increase in complexity (in addition to the number 
	of people available to participate).    (2RVA)
	AliHashemi: Peirce: "Find a scientific man who proposes to get along without any metaphysics... and 
	you have found one whose doctrines are thoroughly vitiated by the crude and uncriticized metaphysics 
	with which they are packed" (CP 1.129).    (2RVB)
	ToddSchneider: Rex, could you send me the latest version of the "Use Case Matrix" compilation? Or 
	just post it in the chat?    (2RVC)
	RexBrooks: Okay [subsequently added] - the latest version of it is at: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/ValueMetrics/OntologySummit2011-CaseStudy--UseC 
	aseMatrix.pdf    (2RVD)
	RexBrooks: @Todd: I will send a snapshot of it as an attachment to the [ontology-summit] list too.    (2RVE)
	anonymous morphed into JamesDavenport    (2RVF)
	PeterYim: For those who joined us late ... we are viewing the Communique draft together - try 
	opening up [3-snapshot] (local on your desktop) or [4-wip] (shared google-doc) - under: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_04_07#nid2RL0    (2RVG)
	Ramdsriram: I need to log off to attend a meeting scheduled to address likely scenarios for next 
	week. Not sure whether this is relevant to the communique, but we may want to discuss some action 
	items for the future, i.e., what needs to be done to make ontology use more pervasive.    (2RVH)
	MikeBennett: Re Ontologies save lives: there was a case study at SemTech 2010 from the Amsterdam 
	Fire Brigade, using ontology mash-up with maps, to get to fire scenes.    (2RVI)
	RexBrooks: How about "de facto" ontologies, where they more or less "accidentally" happen to be in 
	force save lives?    (2RVJ)
	BruceBray: In healthcare, ontologies are especially valuable for interoperability/integration and 
	representing knowledge explicitly. I don't think we have any evidence that we save lives directly 
	with ontologies, but of course hope they will contribute to improved health care in a meaningful and 
	measurable way.    (2RVK)
	RexBrooks: I can add a bunch of examples from Haiti and other emergency management situations 
	similar to what Steve noted and in the standards I work on with others in OASIS which translate into 
	operations across the domain of emergency management.    (2RVL)
	ToddSchneider: @MichaelUschold, MikeDean and BBN has such an example. It was presented at SemTech a 
	couple of years ago.    (2RVM)
	AliHashemi: Re what MikeUschold is currently saying -- I think it can be useful to define a semantic 
	technology path, where a taxonomy or a terminology are landmarks, according to the organization / 
	tasks needs -- as a takeaway    (2RVN)
	AliHashemi: It could be useful to situate ontology within the context of an ecosystem of solutions    (2RVO)
	ToddSchneider: Ali, are you suggesting an ontology of information systems?    (2RVP)
	AliHashemi: No sorry. What I am suggesting is that it important that one of the take aways be that 
	an ontology is an integral component in any semantic technology solution to a problem.    (2RVQ)
	SteveRay: MichaelUschold, has the editing team reached a position with respect to the notion of the 
	communique serving as a toolkit for an ontologist trying to make the case? That aspect seems to be 
	less evident now.    (2RVR)
	AliHashemi: It really makes the most sense as something that ameliorates existing solution 
	approaches.    (2RVS)
	AliHashemi: (from selling a business solution - tying it to things that are known)    (2RVT)
	AliHashemi: So it's not a wholly new technology that is unclear how it fits with your current 
	business. But it is a natural extension of applying semantic technologies to your organization.    (2RVU)
	AliHashemi: The intent of what I was saying is to make it seem less "foreign" to people already 
	engaged in similar problems. It isn't a competing technology, but in the environment of semantic 
	technologies -- if you already have a terminology, a taxonomy, or a data dictionary, then a natural 
	extension is ontology. That's taking it to the "next level"    (2RVV)
	AldenDima: @Ali - re situating an ontology with the context of an ecosystem of solutions - I think 
	that many will be confused by the distinction between an ontology and a model. I found this 
	interesting presentation which draws a distinction between the two: "Models versus Ontologies - 
	What's the Difference and where does it Matter?" 
	http://www.pms.ifi.lmu.de/mitarbeiter/assoziierte/spies/presentations/VORTE2006-Atkinson.pdf    (2RVW)
	MikeBennett: @Alden good paper, but what the author means by a "model" is a "Logical Data Model" 
	(except near the end).    (2RVX)
	NicolaGuarino: @AldenDima: There are many kind of models. For instance, system engineers and 
	physicists are used to simulation models, which allow one to make preditions about a system's 
	behavior. Ontologies are *reference* models, which help to clarify the intended meaning of the 
	symbols adopted.    (2RVY)
	RexBrooks: What Todd is asking about is important. A toolkit needs to have the ability to be adapted 
	to different markets or problems. So it should be made clear that the example used is just one for 
	its market/problem.    (2RVZ)
	JohnBateman: Maybe we *should* write a book!    (2RW0)
	JohnBateman: @RexBrooks: there should be several examples, and the ODF should indicate how to select 
	among examples I guess.    (2RW1)
	RexBrooks: We could sponsor the writing of a book, but we don't have time to do that even with "many 
	hands" making "small work."    (2RW2)
	RexBrooks: @JohnBateman: Yes, definitely. I'm working on compiling the Case Studies and Use Cases 
	now.    (2RW3)
	SteveRay: Could we perhaps make the linkages between the examples, and the relevant value metrics 
	that are improved? This would help an ontologist know which metrics to highlight, by finding similar 
	use cases to the one they are advocating.    (2RW4)
	SteveRay: Check out what is essentially an ontology related to Silicon Valley startups in today's 
	New York Times: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/dealbook/DEALBOOK_Money_Network.pdf    (2RW5)
	MichaelUschold: how about presenting the Communique as a FAQ    (2RW6)
	RexBrooks: I think a FAQ is BAD idea!    (2RW7)
	NicolaGuarino: I think a text is still essential, definitely    (2RW8)
	MatthewWest: I think it is not a good idea. Augment with FAQ    (2RW9)
	JohnBateman: FAQ only as supportive material definitely.    (2RWA)
	AliHashemi: ^^^ +1    (2RWB)
	PeterYim: as requested by MichAelUschold, a FAQ page is already available (awaiting anyone to 
	contribute to) - goto: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?MakingTheCaseForOntology_FAQ    (2RWC)
	NicolaGuarino: We already discussed this point. A text plus slides, faqs, links, whatever    (2RWD)
	RexBrooks: A wiki page is good as an adjunct. But a FAQ is associated with bad documentation.    (2RWE)
	LeoObrst: I think the OOR intends to have ontology metadata that can also include ontology use 
	cases, etc., and have that accessible via services, SPARQL, etc.    (2RWF)
	JohnBateman: @LeoObrst: this kind of links back with OMV, right? which we were also thinking of 
	referencing here in combination with the ODF but that is not in the doc at present: link: 
	http://omv2.sourceforge.net/description.html    (2RWG)
	LeoObrst: @JohnBateman: Yes, that is correct. We are using OMV, but will extend it if necessary. You 
	might also want to reference the OOR page: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository_Metadata    (2RWH)
	JohnBateman: @LeoObrst: yes, definitely, I believe and agree this should be an important OOR feature 
	and we should reference that...    (2RWI)
	LeoObrst: @JohnBateman: there is more at: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository, in the individual metadata sessions, 
	e.g., http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2011_03_18    (2RWJ)
	JohnBateman: @LeoObrst: got it!    (2RWK)
	ToddSchneider: Have to go. Good luck editors.    (2RWL)
	RexBrooks: What is the conclusion of the communique going to be?    (2RWM)
	MatthewWest: I'm going to have to leave now. I think the direction is all looking very promising. I 
	think we should let you (the lead editors) get on with it, but feel free to use crowd sourcing where 
	you need help    (2RWN)
	ToddSchneider: First task - finish an outline everyone can agree to.    (2RWO)
	RexBrooks: Are we going to say "Go Forth and Multiply Relevant Ontologies?"    (2RWP)
	MikeBennett: Go forth and integrate?    (2RWQ)
	RexBrooks: That too!    (2RWR)
	NicolaGuarino: @MikeBennett: +1    (2RWS)
	MikeBennett: Did I still need to try and go through the Case Study examples and link the high level 
	things we reported, to the individual case studies, or is this superseded by the cross referencing 
	being talked about now?    (2RWT)
	AliHashemi: I've gotta run. Thanks.    (2RWU)
	PeterYim: Thanks, Ali ... glad you could come    (2RWV)
	MikeBennett: I can trace name of the Case Study presentation title to the company    (2RWW)
	MikeBennett: Originally each case study had company and presentation name, Rex is citing case study 
	name, which has a 1:1 with the company / presenter so that's easy    (2RWX)
	NicolaGuarino: Ciao Ali    (2RWY)
	PeterYim: MichaelUschold confirms: I'll get a next draft out end-of-day next Wednesday (Apr-13)    (2RWZ)
	PeterYim: At our next Thursday session, we will carve out a ~30 min. slot for another status review 
	on the Communique    (2RX0)
	PeterYim: -- session ended: 10:43am PDT --    (2RX1)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (2RMO)

Audio Recording of this Session    (2RMU)

Additional Resources:    (2RN3)

For the record ...    (2RNI)

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

Note that we will start promptly; if you are new to this setting, please dial-in to the conference call 5~10 minutes before the scheduled start time!    (2RNK)

Conference Call Details    (2RF5)

Attendees:    (2RF7)