ppy/chat-transcript_unedited_20110331a.txt --------------- Chat transcript from room: ontolog_20110331 2011-03-31 GMT-08:00 PeterYim: Welcome to the ... OntologySummit2011: Panel Session-9 - All Hands: "Synthesis and Reports" - Thu 2011_03_31 Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology Session Title: All Hands: Synthesis and Reports Session Co-chairs: Dr. SteveRay & Dr. NicolaGuarino Panelists: Summit Co-chairs, Track Co-champions and Communique Co-Lead Editors (* = presenting today) * OntologySummit2011 General Co-chairs ... SteveRay* & NicolaGuarino * Track-1: Ontology Application Framework ... MichaelGruninger* & MichaelUschold & NicolaGuarino * Track-2: Applications and Case Studies ... MillsDavis & MikeBennett* * Track-3: Value Metrics, Value Models and the Value Proposition ... ToddSchneider* & RexBrooks * Track-4: Strategies for "making the case" ... MatthewWest* & PeterYim * Track-5: Grand Challenges ... RamSriram* & ErnieLucier & AldenDima * Communique Co-Lead Editors ... MichaelUschold*, JohnSowa, MillsDavis & JohnBateman Please refer to details on the session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_03_31 . [09:27] anonymous morphed into Brian Haugh [09:31] anonymous morphed into MatthewWest [09:33] RexBrooks: I'm getting i"incorrect conference id" using 4389979# [09:35] anonymous morphed into ChristopherSpottiswoode [09:37] SteveRay: Standard cheat sheet: *2 to mute, *3 to unmute [09:37] MikeBennett: OK i'm going to have to redial in [09:38] MatthewWest: Mine ends in 185 [09:41] RexBrooks: I'm stil getting "incorrect conference id" I use Vonage and this is the first time this has happened. [09:42] RexBrooks: I even rebooted the device. But no change. [09:42] MikeBennett: @Rex w some phones, have to hold down keys for 1 sec each. [09:42] JohnBateman: I got the incorrect conference id a couple of times, then it worked [09:44] RexBrooks: Finally got through! [09:44] PeterYim: @JohnBateman - the conference bridge is a bit tricky ... you almost has to space out the keystrokes evenly (especially the # sign at the end too) to have it work well [09:44] PeterYim: MichaelGruinger is on line now [09:45] MichaelGruninger: I'm online, but I cannot unmute [09:45] PeterYim: @MichaelGruinger - let me unmute you [09:46] PeterYim: @MichaelGruinger - please try when you have a chance [09:50] PeterYim: MichaelGruinger: additionally, will also incorporate the ontology classifications that OMV has provided [09:53] PeterYim: @Todd, please speak up (or use your handset) [09:54] Nicola Guarino: usual problem with skype, sorry [09:54] ToddSchneider: Peter, I did use the hand set. I'll try to remember to speak up. [09:54] Nicola Guarino: Anyway, I'll state my question on the chat: my problem is related to the very name "ontology application framework" [09:54] anonymous morphed into David Leal [09:56] ToddSchneider: Nicola, the OAF may be at too low a level for stakeholders/decision makers. [09:56] MichaelGruninger: Would "Taxonomy of Ontology Applications" be better [09:57] MikeBennett: Application has 2 meanings [09:57] JohnBateman: but taxonomy is bad! [09:57] Simon Spero: "What Can Ontologies Do For You?" [09:57] John Sowa: How about a very short title: Applications. [09:57] RexBrooks: I think that Ontology USE Framework captures it more succinctly. [09:57] ToddSchneider: Michael, the 'application' level may still be too low level, at least for an 'elevator' pitch. [09:57] Nicola Guarino: Ontology applications comparison framework? [09:57] MikeBennett: @Rex +1 [09:57] MichaelRiben: Is the group familiar with the caBIG's effort to develop a similar ontology app framework which they call the Ontology "representation": https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/display/VCDE/Ontology+Representation+WG [09:57] Tim Wilson: @Rex +2 [09:58] Simon Spero: Applications, or Problems? [09:58] AmandaVizedom: Using the language of the Wiki page: Ontology Applications Description Framework [09:59] Michael Uschold1: ON ambiguity of the term "ontology application framework" I agree that application is ambiguous here. How about ontology deployment framework? [09:59] ChristopherSpottiswoode: Ontology Application Typology? [09:59] PeterYim: above is in reference to a possible change of the Track-1 label to disambiguate the possibility that the audience may misinterpret us (as in the case of StefanoBertolo, who thought we were trying to find out if something like that would be a good candidate for research funding) [09:59] Simon Spero: "What kind of problems can ontologies solve?" [09:59] Nicola Guarino: @Michael Uschold: +1 [09:59] Tim Wilson: There appears to be little consideration for the use of ontology to augment search, particularly in the enterprise. [09:59] MikeBennett: Crux of the problem is "Application" as a kind of proram v Application has "how something is applied" [09:59] Simon Spero: MikeBennett+ [10:00] RexBrooks: Perhaps Ontology Usage Framework? [10:00] MikeBennett: Better [10:00] RexBrooks: We're capturing the kinds of uses to which ontology can be put. [10:01] AmandaVizedom: I think "taxonomy" makes certain commitments about the structure/relationship of the feature, and should be avoided [10:01] Nicola Guarino: I agree it is not a taxonomy [10:01] MatthewWest: Most of the ambiguity comes from missing prepositions. Framework for the Application of Ontologies would (for example) get over that. [10:01] AmandaVizedom: "Framework for Understanding Ontology Applications?" [10:01] MichaelRiben: is the purpose for "discovery" in order to know if the person can apply it to their use case? [10:02] Nicola Guarino: Let's delegate to the champions to choose the final title on the basis of the input received [10:02] PeterYim: I agree with Nicola ... let's defer to the Track-1 champions [10:02] RexBrooks: @Matthew: yes. [10:02] ToddSchneider: +1 for 'Guide' [10:03] John Sowa: Long titles require more explanation than they clarify. [10:03] AmandaVizedom: @Nicola: +1 ... and it's then most useful for the rest of us to comment/throw out idea in this chat for them to consider later. [10:03] ToddSchneider: John, simple is hard. [10:03] Michael Uschold1: never mind, skype problem. i will do off-line [10:03] Simon Spero: (past half hour. Now afraid) [10:03] John Sowa: The word 'ontology' can be deleted, because that's the overall title. [10:03] Michael Uschold1: I will use my cell phone later when I talk. [10:04] John Sowa: The word 'usage' can be deleted, because every application is used. [10:05] John Sowa: When you delete all the problematical words, the only one left is 'application'. [10:05] Tim Wilson: Is that a directive from the Department of Redundancy Department? ;-) [10:06] Simon Spero: [Changed Mikes - Now on track 2] [10:12] MichaelRiben: I think a good healthcare/public health example would be to look at Parsa Mirhaji's Sapphire system for the CDC that performs surveillance in the Houston area...see http://knowmed.com/Solutions.html [10:16] MichaelGruninger: Should we think of the Ontology Application Framework as really being "Ontology Use Case Metadata"? The idea is that all of the dimensions provide the terminology for describing a use case from a technical and (eventually) business perspective. [10:18] Michael Uschold1: In discussing benefits of an ontology application, it is critically important to link back to how the ontology makes that possible. Saying 'customer retention' gets ppls attention, but you need to explain how the ontology helped to do this. [10:19] AmandaVizedom: @MikeBennett: +1 for adding the dimension of What's Modeled. Not only do people differ on this, but a lack of understanding of that difference has caused noticeable confusion and disagreement on list during this summit. It's surely a dimension of difference that affects best practices and measures of quality! [10:19] SteveRay: I think using the word "metadata" is just going to confuse things. [10:20] Simon Spero: MikeB: were the metrics that you hadn't heard of internal to the use case presenter? [10:20] SteveRay: @Matthew: I want to ensure we are going to have pointers to as many actual cases as possible. Is that your intention? [10:23] MatthewWest: @Steve: Did you mean @MikeB? [10:23] SteveRay: Whoops. Yes [10:24] Tim Wilson: I was hoping to stay on the call for Matthew and Peter's presentation, however I must get back to work. I will be presenting to my superiors next week for the creation of a knowledge initiative using ontology. [10:24] Tim Wilson: This summit has been invaluable to me in that effort. [10:25] RexBrooks: It just dawned on me that one area where we haven't seen specific Use-Cases is internal corporate governance and management both IT Mgt and Business Intelligence Mgt. [10:26] MichaelRiben: need to go..sorry [10:26] PeterYim: @MichaelRiben - thanks for joining, and for the contribution [10:26] Simon Spero: MikeB: Do you have the data coded in a way that it could be fed into Multi Dimensional Scaling for graphing? [10:27] Nicola Guarino1: Excellent question, John a crucial one! [10:27] PeterYim: (Could someone repeat the question here please ... Nicola - to provide context to your ocmment) [10:28] PeterYim: (comment) [10:28] SteveRay: @John: Fascinating point about getting humans to be interoperable, a la common terminology. I am definitely running into that in the world of disaster management interoperability, where "interoperability" is commonly interpreted as "interchangeability of emergency personnel" [10:29] ToddSchneider: Steve, look at the NCOIC SCOPE model to get a better understanding of 'interoperability'. [10:29] RexBrooks: John noted the connection between people using terms in human interoperability and the improvements that come about due to that. [10:30] PeterYim: (Thanks, Steve and Rex) [10:30] ToddSchneider: One perspective of interoperability is crossing boundaries (that didn't need crossing in the past or haven't been considered explicitly in the past) [10:30] Simon Spero: [summary of discussion: labels/words are for people ; MikeB points out that business users are concerned about definitions] [10:32] AmandaVizedom: @JohnSowa: But even in a case that appears to be as you say, nailing down and tracking the relationship between the different concepts *independently of the local terminology* or *across local terminologies* is typically critical to the getting the benefit. That is, the advantage is in being able to keep *both* local-human-interpretable presentation/usability *and* machine usability. [10:32] Michael Uschold1: To John Sowa: there is a lot of ambiguity in natural language definitions, because we all use terms in different ways. There is also a lot of ambiguity in formal logic definitions because they miss so much of the intended meaning, which is more easily expressed in natural language. [10:33] Simon Spero: [My diss. topic is on interface between controlled vocabularies and ontologies. It's been misunderstood by people on both sides since before Aristotle was a gleam in his father's eye] [10:33] Simon Spero: [Now moving to track 3] [10:34] Nicola Guarino1: @JohnSowa: there is a (huge) benefit related to the terminology used, on related to the way the formalization of the intended meanind is done (independently from computional aspects), and finally one related to the computational use of the terminology (typically for taxonomic reasoning) [10:35] Nicola Guarino1: @JohnSowa (I repeat it because there was a typo): there is a (huge) benefit related to the terminology used, ONE related to the way the formalization of the intended meanind is done (independently from computional aspects), and finally one related to the computational use of the terminology (typically for taxonomic reasoning) [10:35] MikeBennett: @Simon yes, it was some CRM acronym [10:36] MikeBennett: @Amanda +1 [10:37] Michael Uschold1: On Value metrics: if a value model is a subset or subtype of another one, maybe a good ide is to show this in a venn diagram or tree structure. [10:38] BartGajderowicz: Regarding controlled vocabularies, there is a survey out about this. Perhaps beneficial to check back on the results: http://semanticweb.com/finding-out-whether-controlled-vocabularies-matter_b18740 [10:40] MikeBennett: @Michael @Steve yes, I need to take the assertions in these slides and link to the relevant case stdy. On the Wiki. [10:41] PeterYim: @MikeBennett - the Michaels are taking over ... please identify with last names (or initial of last names) please :-) [10:42] MikeBennett: @Simon re feeding graphing:no. not many numeric measures were asserted. [10:42] PeterYim: Johns too ... [10:43] Nicola Guarino1: @Michael Gruninger & Michael Uschold: maybe John Sowa's point on distinguishing between different uses of ontologies (terminological clarification vs. formal clarification vs. automated reasoning) can be made explicit in the "application framework"... [10:44] MikeBennett: @Peter point taken. Comment was to MichaelU [10:46] MikeBennett: So, what does AHT stand for? (in CRM / call ceter context)? [10:47] MichaelGruninger: @Nicola: Yes [10:48] MikeBennett: @Simon AHT was my unexplained metric from CRM case study, as now noted in Track 3. [10:49] PeterYim: Thanks MikeBennett and NicolaGuarino - I need that help because in the post-processing of the chat transcript, I will reshuffle the dialog so that Questions and Answers, and related discussion are placed adjacent to one another [10:49] RexBrooks: @Todd, I believe you were referring to the granularity matching between use case and metrics. [10:50] Michael Uschold1: Some of @ToddSchneider's material on value models and metrics could be integrated into the ontology application framework, rather than standing alone. [10:51] RexBrooks: Yes! [10:51] Simon Spero: @MikeBennett: Either Average Hold Time or Average Handling Time (http://www.kellen.net/crm_mf.pdf) [10:52] Simon Spero: [track change - track 4] [10:52] MikeBennett: @Simon, thanks. Not my guess, so worth defining (terminology!). [10:52] Michael Uschold1: Re: @Nicola's comment about incorporating @JohnSowa's distinction. Agree, this should be incorporated. To some extent it is there already. [10:53] Simon Spero: [weren't FFC's actors often drunk, on LSD, or both?] [10:55] AlanRector: The speaker keeps fading out [10:56] RexBrooks: Yes, we need Matthew to speak a little louder. [10:57] RexBrooks: The granularity issue applies to the strategy, too. If we narrow our focus to specific use-cases or the most generic use cases, we stand a better chance of scoring well. [10:57] RexBrooks: The notion of which values count most is a good consideration. [10:58] BartGajderowicz: Is there any benefit to talking about sub-ontologies, micro-theories (cyc term) or axioms in repositories (COLORE) vs. full ontologies? Full ontololgies may be overkill for most applications? [11:01] MikeBennett: @Bart one or 2 of the case studies showed benefit in reuse of existing, common ontology concepts [11:02] MatthewWest: My line dropped [11:02] RexBrooks: @Bart: Not sure I would use those kinds of arguments to any audience other than other ontologists or folks with an interest in ontology. For the end users I would focus on solving their problems and only bring up HOW if asked. [11:03] Simon Spero: It turns out that Data Quality has to have a case made for it too, alas. [ http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1534235 ] [11:03] JohnBateman: @BartGajderowisz: definitely, but only when the audience has been got out of the elevator, into the meeting room and then onto the details... so a question of granularity in what level of pitch when I'd guess. Part of the methodology for engineering things properly (so it is a selling point that there *is* a methodology). [11:03] MatthewWest: I'm back. [11:03] SteveRay: @Matthew: Let me know when you are back online. Default plan is you can finish up after Ram's summary. [11:04] Nicola Guarino1: @Matthew: speaking of the role of ontology on data quality, it occurs to me that in many cases just "ontology awareness" is enough to produce good data (e.g., choosing good, non-ambiguous names for the entities we talk of), without necessarily using ontologies as artefacts. This means that a certain ontology education is necessary for building the controlled vocabularies John Sowa mentions... [11:04] AmandaVizedom: @Bart - this touches another angle, of great interest to me, from which the framework can be used: the need to better understand ontology best practices and principles of good ontology design. There is very little work done that reflects or addresses the way good practices depend, in many ways, on the application context. Seeing how this framework might help us understand those dependencies is a direction of great promise, I think! [11:04] PeterYim: @Matthew - your sound level was low, and you tend to drop off as each sentence progresses ... please note [11:04] BartGajderowicz: @MikeBennett: Thanks, I saw the slides on reuse. I was referring more to the size of the ontologies. For example, FOAF and GoodRelations are relatively small but very specific in their scope, which (assuming) helped with their adoption. [11:06] MikeBennett: @Bart there is definitely a case to be made for a set of common, granular ontologies that people can refer to (time, geog, accounting, legal etc.). [11:06] BartGajderowicz: @RexBrooks: same answer. Smaller ontologies are specific to a particular problem, so more relatable to the ed user. [11:06] MatthewWest: @Nicola: Yes. You have relatively little chance of success without an ontological approach, even if that is not what it is called. [11:07] RexBrooks: @Bart: agreed. [11:07] MikeBennett: @Bart the audience to whom to make that case is the Linked Data folks I think [11:10] Michael Uschold1: On the Grand Challenge track. While it is useful and interesting overall, I do not see a clear connection to how to make a case for ontology. What has been learned in this track that can be distilled into a tip,hint or guideline that helps make a case for ontology? [11:12] SteveRay: @Mike U.: I think this track simply provides a pointer to future opportunity areas where one could apply the methods we are articulating. [11:13] BartGajderowicz: @MikeBennett: Agreed. But I view sub-ontologies as being used in analyzing data, not just linking it. When I look at the Dataset Publishing Language (DSPL) project, "Slices" look like different combinations of relationships between "Concepts". These "Slices" resemble sub-ontologies to me. http://code.google.com/apis/publicdata/docs/tutorial.html [11:13] JohnBateman: @MichaelU: I guess this is along the lines: these applications are fantastic, to do them ontologies are a must, therefore this is the case for ontology... But I wonder if we can find applications which really are completely irresistable. [11:15] MikeBennett: @BArt interesting. thanks for the pointer. One thing we have done in the EDM Council work is identify common terms and commit to trying to find the most appropriate standard for each (e.g. ISO 3166 for countries). [11:15] Nicola Guarino1: @Ram: Speaking of great challenges, I would like to point to http://www.futurict.ethz.ch/FuturICT. FuturICT is a proposal for a 10-years European "Flagship" project, which scored first in a recent call, aiming at world-wide simulation, data interpretation, crisis management, etc. Great opportunities for ontologies, especially for ontology of large scale socio-technical systems [11:16] Nicola Guarino1: John: +1 [11:16] BartGajderowicz: @AmandaVizedom: Yes. I've notices some work on analyzing adoption of SemWeb technologies, now that there is enough information. There's a few reports I ran across. I need to dig them up and can forward. [11:16] ToddSchneider: All, I have to go. [11:16] MatthewWest: @John: The things you are mentioning are research goals we need to identify. [11:17] RexBrooks: Bye Todd. [11:17] Michael Uschold1: I agree with @JohnSowa's voice comment that the grand challenge problems are more general AI problems than ontology problems per se. [11:17] RexBrooks: You gave a fine presentation, Todd. [11:18] JohnBateman: I doubt there is going to be a grand challenge for *ontology* that is of interest to outsiders; the only challenges will *have* to be specific problems where ontologies can be argued to provide an important part of the work: as in FuturICT. [11:18] BartGajderowicz: @JohnBateman: Yes. The granularity is much more relatable to end-users. You basically speak their language. The pitch woudl be something like " sub-ontology A is about geo, sub-ontology B is about time, etc. One of these may fit you domain. [11:20] Michael Uschold1: i'm getting on my cell, two sections [11:20] Michael Uschold1: two seconds [11:20] MikeBennett: Matthew's Slide 10 is a better list of the kinds of people we should make the case to, than what I had in the Case Studies similar slide. [11:20] Michael Uschold1: hang on, gettikn on my cell [11:20] PeterYim: @JohnSowa @MichaelUschold - as Matthew pointed out (slide#3) there is effective, NO CASE for Ontology (as was pointed out analogously during the Track-4 session, that there is no case for calculus) ... but the Grand Challenges will be able to focus our energy [11:20] RexBrooks: @JohnS: Agreed. A Grand Challenge would be to "Make the Cases for Ontology" highlighting the "Cases". [11:20] BartGajderowicz: @MikeBennett: Thanks. I wil take a look at this work. [11:23] MatthewWest: The thing about grand challenges is that they have some objective, you know when you have succeeded. I think an important prequel to grand challenges are research goals. What are the current gaps? A useful Grand Challenge would then depend on the achievement of some of those research goals. [11:24] MikeBennett: @MichaelU (re slide 4) but does "the Ontology community" have one understanding of what it means and what it's used for? [11:25] MatthewWest: @Mike: Inotice there is considerable crosstalk between the tracks. Ours in particular, since it is so general. You might want to pick up MDM as a case study too. [11:25] AldenDima: @JohnBateman I would also agree with you. We are asking potential "customers" for grand challenges and they don't per se care about ontologies. So I think we are running the risk of asking for challenges and then saying "Sorry not what we were looking for". But perhaps we should look for multidisciplinary challenges in which we can play a significant role and then partner with the other disciplines. [11:27] RexBrooks: @MichaelU: I think this is a terrific way to go and I look forward to the interim and final versions. [11:27] Simon Spero: Is there an elevator in the NIST building? [11:28] MikeBennett: @Matthew indeed. Master data management (as distinct from metadata management - had me going!) is a feature of some of our case studies e.g. industry standard terms across an industry gets deployed in a number of ways within firms including master data (golden source), metadata repositoryies and other application areas. [11:28] PeterYim: @MichaelUschold - just to make sure nothing falls through the crack, can you identify exactly who has promised you text by end-of-day Monday, please? [11:29] Ramdsriram: @John: The purpose of the track is to identify a few grand challenges computational problems and identify opportunities for ontologies. For example, can we achieve the "kind of things" that Eliot, Ramesh, and Nabil talked about without using any ontologies (or related technology). [11:29] AldenDima: @Simon - we do have elevators in our buildings. I believe that the room for the Summit is on the ground floor. [11:30] Simon Spero: AldenDima: I think that testing an elevator speech in an NIST elevator is pretty good metric [11:31] Michael Uschold1: i seem to have dropped off. Sigh... [11:31] SteveRay lowered your hand [11:31] Nicola Guarino1: Michael's scheme is GREAT, I am just a little bit concerned about its level of ambition... [11:31] MikeBennett: I promised text my end of monday [11:32] MatthewWest: I did [11:32] Ramdsriram: @Peter: We should have a rough draft (hopefully). [11:33] AldenDima: @Simon - we can start with the elevator in the tall admin building and work our way to the shorter ones... [11:33] RexBrooks: I'm pretty sure Todd has promised Track 3 by end of Monday. [11:33] TerryLongstreth: Put the email address on thechat [11:33] RexBrooks: If not I will speak with him. [11:35] PeterYim: @Steve - ref. the dinner, the way you did it last year (a email to the list with a link someone can click on to provide you the response, offline) that would be great! [11:36] PeterYim: great session ... very productive! [11:36] JoelBender: thank you! [11:37] Nicola Guarino1: I agree, very productive and promising! [11:37] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:36am PDT -- ---------------------