OntologySummit2007 Process/Draft1

OntologySummit2007: OntologySummit2007_Process proposal-1 (draft)    (U5D)

First proposed: PeterYim / 2007.02.14    (U5E)

A 4-Step Process    (U5H)

• 1. Convener Grouping: Summit participants ("conveners") are dispersed into 'teams' (constituencies[1]), each representing major communities within the broader ontology community space    (U5I)
  • we can use a survey[2] to help identify which team an individual participant is affiliated with    (U5J)
  • an analysis of the survey results can also provide clues as to whether we have balanced representation in different constituencies, and if not, remedial 'recruitment' actions may be taken    (U5K)
  • a participant can choose to be in more than one team    (U5L)
  • each team is encourage to elect a champion to help coordinate and track progress (this is optional, though)    (U5M)

• 2. Understanding the Community Vocabulary: Each constituency will:    (U5N)
  • identify the context (vantage point) from which their inputs are derived; there may be needs to create further subdivisions. (For example: if "Biomedical informatics practitioners" is one such constituency, and it turns out that that the "bio-informaticists" and the medical-informaticists" don't share the same vocabularies, then they may want to subdivide and collect inputs for each of these sub-teams.    (U5O)
  • (each team) or each sub-team will come up with the gloss for what do they mean when they use the term "ontology"    (U5P)
  • identify other ontology-related terms that is in their constituency's common vocabulary,    (U5Q)
    • and come up with the gloss for each of these terms    (U5R)
    • also assess the Likelihood that someone may refer to each of these terms as "ontology"    (U5S)
      • ( 0 = totally unlikely; 5 = some would; 9 = almost always )    (U5T)
  • identify conspicuous ontology (or ontology-like) artifacts[3] within their constituency    (U5U)
  • the above is discovered through dialog over the [ontology-summit] discussion forum, aided (where necessary) by the survey[2] and continuously summarized and synthesized and posted to the wiki to keep all participants in sync.    (U5V)
  • each constituency will complete and vet their glossary and list of ontology (or ontology-like) artifacts    (U60)

• 3. Constructing a categorization / typology framework[4]    (U5W)
  • this is done between all coneveners    (U61)
  • and done in parallel with the virtual discourse described in 2. above    (U62)

• 4. Categorize    (U63)
  • place terms and artifacts into the above categorization framework (by each constituency)    (U64)
  • reach shared understanding on typology    (U65)

• 5. Authoring the Communique    (U66)
  • draft    (U67)
  • review, modify, enhance    (U68)
  • adopt (with list of endorsers)    (U69)
  • release / publish    (U6A)

Resource & References    (U6B)

[1] different constituencies - see under here    (U6C)

[2] survey - sample of a completed survey that may augment the above process - see: [ sample survey]    (U6D)

[3] ontology (or ontology-like) artifacts for each constituency - see below    (U6E)

• CYC, SUMO, DOLCE, PSL, BFO, GUM, ISO-15926    (U6F)
• HL7-RIM, SNOMED CT, GO, BioPAX Level 2 Ontology, ...    (U6G)

•    (U6H)
  • we need both name and version (as different versions of the artifact with the same name may be placed differently in the categorization framework, and hence their typology may differ    (U6I)

[4] categorization / typology framework - see: OntologySummit2007_FrameworksForConsideration    (U6J)

(Draft) Sample of a completed survey form    (U6N)