ppy/OntologySummit2011_chat-transcript_edited_20110317b.txt Chat transcript from room: ontolog_20110317 2011-03-17 GMT-08:00 PeterYim: Welcome to the ... OntologySummit2011: Virtual Session-7 - "Perspectives from the European Commission" - Thu 2011_03_17 Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology Session Theme: Perspective from the European Commission Session Chair: Dr. NicolaGuarino (ISTC-CNR) Invited Speakers: Dr. Marta Nagy-Rothengass & Dr. Stefano Bertolo (INFSO-DG, European Commission) 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). 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 . anonymous morphed into MartinGladwell anonymous morphed into NicolaGuarino anonymous morphed into RhettMoeller anonymous morphed into ChristopherSpottiswoode anonymous morphed into SeanBarker anonymous morphed into DuaneNickull anonymous1 morphed into AndreasHarth anonymous morphed into DennyVrandecic SteveRay: Cheat sheet: *2 = mute; *3 = unmute SteveRay: Good idea, Matthew FrankOlken: Hi, this is FrankOlken. I have joined the call. I seem to be unable to edit the web page (attendee list). 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. PeterYim: @Frank - I have added you to the attendee list already (only one person should be editing the wiki anyway) ... thanks for joining 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. anonymous morphed into AldenDima LeoObrst: Just joined. anonymous morphed into PavithraKenjige MartaNagyRothengass presenting -> from slide#1 on 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. RexBrooks: As a SOA person in OASIS, I'm pleased to see "service' so prominent in this slide. 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. 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 RexBrooks: @Nicola: agreed! NicolaGuarino: Marta's point on ensuring interoperability even in absence of standards is very important from the ontology community point of view... SteveRay: Agreed. Ontologies will help with mapping among heterogeneous models of information. 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. 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. 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. RexBrooks: Very surprised to see 3D objects and models. Excellent! NicolaGuarino: @Rex: AIM@Shape was one of the most successful projects, in my opinion. Not much ontology there, but promising good stuff 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. 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 workin on EU-funded projects involving ontologies are suspicious towards an open interdisciplinary approach (especially if this philosophy-oriented research on formal ontology). StefanoBertolo presenting -> from slide#22 on PeterYim: @StefanoBertolo - your slide numbering seems to be 1 (count) less than the shared deck, PeterYim: ALL: please note, and try to add 1 to the slide number called out by StefanoBertolo DennyVrandecic: Yay to semantic wikis! SteveRay: Ah - good quote: "The need comes first, ontologies come later" RhettMoeller: I like that-- strong design element. RhettMoeller: Exposing what the user is *intending* to use is a huge thing. RhettMoeller: Why can't cable companies offer that? BrandNiemann: Sounds like cloud computing to me! SteveRay: I think his point is this is cloud "data" as an analog to cloud "computing" BrandNiemann: Every European Digital by their use of cloud computing tools! anonymous morphed into BobbinTeegarden PeterYim: slide#58 DennyVrandecic / RhettMoeller / NicolaGuarino / MartinGladwell / SeanBarker / EricChan / MichelVandenBossche: We lost stephano PeterYim: @Stefano - we lost you ... can you call in again! RhettMoeller: I need to go anyway-- thank you for the fascinating introduction. PeterYim: Nicola - is there some way to reach Marta or Stefano? NicolaGuarino: The problem is that Stefano is not on the chat board... AldenDima: @peter - Is audio down? AlanRector: The sound seems just to have dropped out PeterYim: @Alden and All - Yes ... the speakers' line seems to be off NicolaGuarino: I am trying to speak, but it doesn't work DennyVrandecic: i hear someone NicolaGuarino: looks like a different call! RexBrooks: Yes, it sounds like our telecon line got crossed with another. DennyVrandecic: i hear MartinGladwell: yes SteveRay: I dialed back in, and unmuted. That worked. We have still lost the speakers though. RexBrooks: The speakers don't have a vnc connection, I believe. RexBrooks: This has been a terrific presentation so far. Very informative. DennyVrandecic: tweeting to stefano RexBrooks: I lost him on slide 58. 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) 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. 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. 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? RexBrooks: the Good Relations ontology is just a start. Could be exciting to see eCommerce take off. 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... 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 PeterYim: @StefanoBertolo - ref. your slides #70 & #71 - well said! 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. RexBrooks: Excellent slides on Value Metrics, Models. 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. RexBrooks: Volume, Value, Integration stories will definitely aid us in making the case for ontology. SteveRay: Slide 78 speaks to our core question. NicolaGuarino: @Steve: yes, and it is more or less in agreement with the discussion we had so far. Matthew, do you agree? Matthew West: @Nicola: Yes I agree. RexBrooks: Excellent Presentation! PeterYim: @Marta & Stefano - bravo! Great Talk! ... simply awesome! NicolaGuarino: @ALL: If you want to ask questions, please raise your hand NicolaGuarino: The point on volume, value and integration is really new (as Rex underlined) Matthew West: I need to go. 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? StefanoBertolo: I would put my bet on "sensors" rather than "unstructured text data" as the really huge opportunity to be coming up (paraphrased = ppy) CoryCasanave: And by "sensors" include all the transactional data in the world developed by existing IT systems RexBrooks: @Cory: Agreed. ChristopherSpottiswoode: @ Bertolo: (My mike isn't getting thru...) Isn't there a quality problem with those quantities of LOD triples? And ontologies should be able to address it. RexBrooks: Ahh, good points! ChristopherSpottiswoode: Masses of well-defined LOD from different sources tends to miss the value-add from interrelationships in the T-box. SteveRay: Excellent session. Thanks very much. PeterYim: Yes ... great session! ChristopherSpottiswoode: Many thanks Bertolo for your most articulate presentation! PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:58 am PDT --