ppy/chat-transcript_unedited_20110418a.txt Chat transcript from room: ontology-summit-2011 2011-04-18 GMT-08:00 [05:51] anonymous1 morphed into PeterYim [05:51] PeterYim: Welcome to the = OntologySummit2011: April 18~19, 2011 Symposium = Theme: Ontology Summit 2011: Making the Case for Ontology 6th in the series of a 3-month annual event by and for the Ontology Community. This Summit is co-organized by Ontolog, NIST, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD Ontology Summit 2011: General Co-chairs: Dr. SteveRay & Dr. NicolaGuarino Ontology Summit 2011: Symposium Co-chairs: Dr. RamSriram & Dr. LeoObrst Please refer to agenda details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_Symposium Remote dial-in details are at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011/WorkshopRegistration#nid2PRY . == Proceedings: == . [06:01] anonymous morphed into GeorgeThomas [06:08] RexBrooks: +I think we should be on slide 6 now [06:17] anonymous morphed into Marcy Harris [06:23] anonymous morphed into MatthewHettinger [06:50] Frank Olken: I am participating remotely. Frank Olken [06:54] Frank Olken: I have worked at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and National Science Foundation. My background is in database research and am interested in ontologies for data integration and semantic search. I am particularly interested in measurement unit ontologies, and applications to bioinformatics, HVAC management (building information models) and smart power grids. [06:55] Frank Olken: I am also interested in ontologies for electronic health records and medical protocol representation. [06:57] Frank Olken: Peter, you should also encourage onsite attendees to participate in the chat room. [06:58] Frank Olken: It would be helpful if folks put their introductions onto the chat room. [07:00] Frank Olken: The current speaker is inaudible online. [07:06] anonymous1 morphed into BruceBray [07:06] RexBrooks: Thanks Frank. I'm Rex Brooks and I work in the Emergency Management Technical Committee in OASIS as well as in the Service Oriented Architecture Reference Model Technical Committee as well. [07:06] anonymous morphed into Sterling Powers [07:07] RexBrooks: I liaise between OASIS and NCOIC, the Net-Centric Operations Industry Consortium where I focus on the Services Work Group and the Net-enable Emergency Response Integrated project Team. [07:08] AmandaVizedom: Possibly, some in the room (like me) didn't remember that the chat would be up until it just got mentioned! FYI, some of also also tweeting comments, using #ontologysummit2011 hashtag. [07:08] RexBrooks: You can access the Synthesis page for Track 1 at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ApplicationFramework_Synthesis [07:10] Gary Berg-Cross: For information on a free June Vocamp in DC called GeoVoCampDC2011, a follow-up to GeoVoCampSouthampton2011, with a twin focus on near-term geographic vocabularies for Linked Data and geo-spatial issues to support the NSF SOCoP INTEROP project, see http://vocamp.org/wiki/GeoVoCampDC2011. [07:12] MikeBennett: That pause was so we adjusted the projector to show larger font for those in the room [07:13] Frank Olken: I am back, having briefly lost my cell phone connection. [07:13] LeoObrst: Folks on the phone: please mute to avoid background noise. Then unmute whenever you make a comment. [07:14] Frank Olken: I am now muted. [07:20] anonymous1 morphed into Ravi Sharma [07:25] RexBrooks: Just FYI, in Emergency Management we are deriving an ontology from our Emergency Data Exchange Language family of standards and using it in future new as well as new versions of existing standards, and it is embodied in a library within the Reference Information Model, in essence developing the RIM from the work rather than attempting to write a top-down ontology for the domain. [07:29] MatthewHettinger: I didn't get a chance to introduce myself on the phone but my company, Mathet Consulting, Inc. is interested in ontology from many different perspectives, but one of the more important is ontology interoperability and the use of ontology for semantic interoperability, particularly with(inter-) enterprise architecture for the purpose of integration / interoperability across any collection of systems of interest. We have built target (inter-) EA architectures that include ontologies and ontology tools for clients in the past and would like to discover what the thoughts are along these lines in this summit. In addition, I have a strong interest in using ontology systems as a basic subsystem in the treatment of enterprises (business and technology) as systems (application of systemics to the enterprise as a whole and any collection of parts [including ontology]). [07:34] RexBrooks: To get the Ontology Summit 2011 Case Study - Use-Case Matrix pdf that shows all the Case Studies and Use-Cases from this Summit and the community, minus a couple that were offered yesterday in email point your browser to http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/ValueMetrics/OntologySummit2011-CaseStudy--UseCaseMatrix.pdf [07:36] MichaelRiben: we can't hear this speaker [07:36] Ravi Sharma: same here [07:39] anonymous1 morphed into Joe Verscharen [08:01] RexBrooks: The sound quality turned staticky, like a different microphone is being used. [08:02] RexBrooks: It seemed to get better a little. [08:02] LeoObrst: Can you hear Mills Davis now? [08:02] RexBrooks: Yes. [08:04] Frank Olken: yes. [08:11] LeoObrst: Folks on the phone: please mute. [08:20] RexBrooks: The VNC is falling quite far behind the presentation. [08:21] AmandaVizedom: Currently on slide 7. [08:29] Ravi Sharma: VNC not working [08:45] anonymous morphed into PavithraKenjige [08:46] Gary Berg-Cross: I wonder how much work it would take to turn the value proposition discussion into a research proposal, which it sounds like we need to really gather data. [08:49] BruceBray: here is the URL: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ValueMetrics_Synthesis#nid2S8Q [08:52] Ravi Sharma: Rex & Todd: what factors related to environment affect integration and interoperation non linearly? [08:54] MatthewWest: It is the way that the number of interfaces increases non-linearly as the number of systems to integrate increases. [09:08] Frank Olken: For financial applications of ontologies (esp. mortgage finance) see Open Financial Data Group (an ongoing weekly teleconference) organized by Prof. Louiqa Raschid and Mark Flood of Univ. of Maryland. Dennis Shasha (NYU) is another organizer. The teleconference is held at 11 AM Eastern Time on Mondays and usually runs 1 hour. [09:09] MikeBennett: Data Trails (West): Could one add the "Audit trail" i.e. regulatory requirements for data in reporting etc. (sort of a special case of the integration trail). This is getting a lot of traction in financial reform. [09:12] LeoObrst: Phone folks: please mute. [09:13] Ravi Sharma: Mathew West: what would be the predicates / relationships of ontology with the Master data, terminology and process model? [09:17] RexBrooks: @Matthew: I take it from the previous slide that provenance is among the components of the Data Quality Standards? [09:18] Gary Berg-Cross: It would be nice to have some references to the material being presented in the Making the Case slides. [09:19] Ravi Sharma: Mthew West: AS MDM has Enterprise Data Dictionary, and Entities in aggregates of such attributes, how do terminologies, vocabularies and terms relate to MDM? [09:20] RexBrooks: I asked about provenance because I'm coming to believe that almost all data needs a date-time stamp and there needs to be a universal temporal ontology for what classes of data expire and when. [09:23] doug foxvog: @Matthew, Ravi: the number of interfaces need not increase non-linearly as the number of systems to integrate increases *IF* the integration is not direct, but via a set of core ontologies. Also, note that when merging two systems directly, only a portion of each system may overlap, e.g. "Person" and related contact information, while large parts of the two systems may be orthogonal to each other. [09:24] doug foxvog: @Rex: +1 [09:25] Ravi Sharma: Peter and Matthew: Steve Jobs is efficient in relating and predicting adoption of users to devices and applications, what level of understanding among decisionmakers would bring enough synergy for the ontology paradigm to succeed? [09:27] doug foxvog: I suggest that for provenance, much more than a date stamp & expiration date is necessary. Source of info, reliability, legal context, and other context information are necessary to know the actual meaning of the data. [09:27] Gary Berg-Cross: Chicken and egg issue. An ontology in the sense of a model of the world, cannot by itself be the scientific basis for triggering a paradigm shift. Kuhn suggested that a paradigm shift provoked a change in our model of the world. [09:31] RexBrooks: @doug: I take source, legality and a few others for granted, and I was just thinking that separately for use in provenance as well as in other contexts, the specific data temporality ontology would be helpful. [09:32] RexBrooks: I'm sure muchmore needs to be in that ontology than just data time-stamp. [09:32] MikeBennett: @rex there is work out there on temporal aspects of databases (record v valid date). Meanwhile, there's some work on provenance (of content) as well see e.g. McGuiness. Then provenance of meaning itself is another thing (who defines the meaning of the thing). [09:32] Ravi Sharma: I would second Amanda's comment on integration of ontologies as in NextGen AirSpace. [10:39] vnc2: Hi Ravi .... sorry we weren't able to get to your question in the last segment, there were 3 or 4 hands up here then, on-site, which we weren't able to get to either [10:40] vnc2: =ppy [10:43] MatthewWest: @MikeBennett: Yes, the audit trail is important too. [10:44] MatthewWest: @Ravi: The predicates are those of an ontology to a terminology (inherited, since Master Data is an ontology) so Master Data includes relations and rules about a terminology. [10:46] MatthewWest: @Rex: Yes, provenance is key to trust, and if you cannot trust information, you won't use it. Provenance is more than just a timestamp. It is also about where it came from (is it a reliable source, if you get conflicting info about the same thing from different sources, which do you trust?) [10:48] MatthewWest: @DougFoxvog: I was talking in the context where ontologies were not used, and just point to point interfaces were employed. The whole point of using ontologies in integration is to improve on that base case. [10:50] Guillaume Radde: Can you guys hear anything on the phone? [10:50] anonymous1 morphed into Mike Pool [10:51] RexBrooks: No hearing nothing on the phone until someone calls into the service from the meeting. [10:51] Guillaume Radde: Oh [10:52] RexBrooks: Is anyone in the meeting on the chat, and, if so, please notify the leaders-speaker that the phone is not connected. [10:52] MatthewWest: We are working on it. [10:53] RexBrooks: Thanks Matthew. [10:53] GeorgeThomas: still no tele-audio? [10:54] MichaelRiben1: anyone hear any thing? I have dead noise? [10:54] Guillaume Radde: I can't hear anything [10:54] GeorgeThomas: I'm hearing nothing [10:54] RexBrooks: Still nothing. [10:54] MichaelRiben1: this is a quiet session..hehehe [10:55] SteveRay: Hang on, I'm in the av control room. They are recalling in [10:55] RexBrooks: Thanks Steve. [10:55] SteveRay: Let me know when you hear anything [10:55] RexBrooks: Will do. [10:56] MichaelRiben1: nothing yet [10:57] MatthewWest: We are working on it but it is not fixed yet. Our apologies. [10:57] SteveRay: Peter, you need to unmute the NIST line [10:58] MichaelRiben1: should we try dialing back in? [10:58] SteveRay: No, stay on [10:58] Guillaume Radde: it's back [10:58] Guillaume Radde: \o/ [10:58] RexBrooks: We have sosund! [10:58] MichaelRiben1: I hear it! [10:58] SteveRay: Perfect [10:58] MatthewWest: Yes we think it is fixed now. [10:59] Guillaume Radde: Thank you! [10:59] RexBrooks: Thanks all. [10:59] MichaelRiben1: what slide is he on? [10:59] Guillaume Radde: 15 [10:59] Guillaume Radde: 16 [11:00] Guillaume Radde: 18 [11:11] RexBrooks: We shouldn't cast the Grand Challenge as getting semantics into all data, but to "Make Sense of All Data." The fact that we have to use semantics and ontology should not be the point. [11:12] RexBrooks: If we connect it all without dealing with selling the "O" word or "S" words, we win! [11:14] RexBrooks: BTW that all applies only to the "Grand Challene" which I think actually misses the point of "Making the Case for Onotlogy" which is specific to the "O" word and semantics, so these are two different by related things. [11:15] RexBrooks: "Grand Challenge" I meant--oops! [11:15] MikeBennett: Different people express themselves in words, in pictures, in dance even... so need to support different ways of expressing things, with ontology as a single thing that sits beneath that - Mills Davis (my precis, hope I got it right) [11:17] anonymous1 morphed into DeborahMacPherson [11:20] Simon Spero: BTW: Alice Etim's dissertation was on ICT diffusion at the bottom of the pyramid: http://gradworks.umi.com/34/08/3408791.html [11:21] DeborahMacPherson: Hi Rex - chatting? [11:21] RexBrooks: Yes, I opened a room for us. [11:21] DeborahMacPherson: I think I'm in there - [11:33] RexBrooks: Back now. [11:33] RexBrooks: Note to all: If you want to propose an issue or change, you should put it in this chat and try to gather two others to present it to the meeting live. [11:34] MichaelRiben1: hmm..can't hear to speakers..can the moderator summarize the question/comments [11:36] LeoObrst: Todd Schneider wanted to emphasize the common agreement that an ontology represents. [11:37] RexBrooks: We are having trouble hearing speakers who are not in front of a microphone. Do you have portable mic? [11:38] MatthewWest: The mike was turned off. Should be fixed now. [11:38] Simon Spero: Is it not possible to have useful ontological agreements for (e.g. Knowledge Organization) that do not use complex reasoners? [11:38] MatthewWest: Yes [11:38] NicolaGuarino: Question: we should be carefule with the idea of complexity.... we should remove the statement about reducing complexity, since complexity is there anyway... [11:38] LeoObrst: Reduce unnecessary complexity? [11:39] NicolaGuarino: (this was a question from audience - the point was that reducing complexity is impossible...) [11:39] Simon Spero: As simple as possible.... but no simpler [11:39] RexBrooks: I will also support adding the word "unnecessary" to complexity there. [11:41] ToddSchneider: Suggestion: Modify the focus to provide more emphasis on the "... reaching agreements on what things mean ..." as it relates to commonality and interoperability among humans (and maybe chipmunks). As a by product the common meaning can be made machine usable. [11:41] RexBrooks: Anyone who's built an ontology usually understands that the exercise of attempting to be as accurate and consistent as possible usually results in reducing unnecessary complexity. [11:41] SteveRay: Looking for a second and a third to make a change to Table 1., Row 2: Approach. Suggest changing "To get the work funded" (which is not an approach, but an objective), to "Demonstrating an improvement to the bottom line through cost reduction" [11:42] RexBrooks: I'll back that up, Steve. [11:42] MatthewWest: Viable Systems (Stafford Beer) has something to say about managing complexity. [11:44] DeborahMacPherson: How about "Demonstrating an improvement through cost reduction" [11:44] NicolaGuarino: Suggestion: we should invest a little bit more on grand challenges... this is the weakest area in my opinion [11:44] MikeBennett: Following on from @Todd, we have a sort of chain, from ontology being endemic to systems, to ontology as a common domain model (for people or machines), to ontologies for integration (machines, data sources), to the whizz-bang ontology applications with reasoners, knowledge extraction, AI/NLP type of things - each step in this chain adds something. In so doing, it adds something to what we mean by ontology AND introduces a further business benefit, that is a case we can make. [11:45] AmandaVizedom: I agree with Todd's point, but also think that the capture of ontology in a machine-readable format can be the part that (a) ensures that the critical points of agreement are captured explicitly, rather than shared implicit assumptions (or assumptions assumed to be shared), and (b)enables the *maintenance* of shared understanding over time and change/extension of users. [11:46] NicolaGuarino: For the record: my proposal to discuss more about grand challenges is seconded by more than 3 people (it passes Fabian's rule) [11:46] MikeBennett: @Amanda true, this also adds a level of quality contorl, e.g. the EDM Council ontology, when we output this to OWL we are able to discuver modeling errors and fix them. That would be the case even if (which is not the case) the audience were only people. [11:47] NicolaGuarino: Issue: types, strengh and importance of relationships should be emphasized [11:48] LeoObrst: Suggestion from Ravi/Jim on relationships, that Nicola mentioned. [11:48] MatthewWest: I also back Steve. [11:48] NicolaGuarino: (this was an issue from the floor. The author is invited to make it clear in the form of an amendment proposal to the communique [11:49] NicolaGuarino: Doug Skuce is asking how the grand challenges have been chosen [11:49] NicolaGuarino: He also has a particular challenge to propose [11:50] DeborahMacPherson: Regarding domains - agree to have more - can healthcare and at least one domain in the humanities be included? [11:50] SteveRay: Thanks Rex and Matthew. [11:51] RexBrooks: I make a third with Deborah MacPherson and Steve to use Deborah's words added to Steve's suggestion to change to Table 1., Row 2: Approach. Suggest changing "To get the work funded" (which is not an approach, but an objective), to "Demonstrating an improvement through cost reduction." If and only if Steve agrees. [11:51] SteveRay: SUGGEST: Mike Uschold: Please consider making the change made one screen up on this chat. [11:53] SteveRay: Ah, just saw this. I'm fine with the modification. [11:53] NicolaGuarino: Mills Davis: I will not use this document with my clients? Answer is no... [11:54] NicolaGuarino: Michael Uschold: indeed, the Communiqu? was intended for ontology evangelists, not for ontology clients.... [11:54] RexBrooks: The speaker needs to respect the three-month process that went into this. Attempting to subvert Fabian's Rule is not going to make sense with our limitations. I guess we're going to have this happen every year. [11:55] SteveRay: @Rex: Agreed [11:56] RexBrooks: Steve, please bring this up to the speaker so we can have an example of how to operate within Fabian's Rule, please? [11:56] NicolaGuarino: Issue from the floor (Cory): the scope of ontology solutions should be clarified (issue supported by three people) [11:57] NicolaGuarino: Clarifying previous issue: better definition of ontology-based solutions or better definition of ontology?.... [11:58] Simon Spero: I would *really* like to see more space given to the use cases, *using* the framework [11:59] RexBrooks: Steve, you need to break into this to get Michael's attention because he's stuck. [11:59] Simon Spero: There's a lot of unattributed quotes, which don't seem to tighten the focus; then there's the RDF talk, which is not relevant to the target audience [12:00] RexBrooks: This audience member has been allowed to dominate the floor entirely too long! [12:01] RexBrooks: We need to find a way to avoid this kind of thing every year. [12:02] anonymous1: As a point of comparison the X-prize emphasizes some achievable challenges where a market failure exists and where the normal approaches have not solvde the problem. They also stress some measurement for goal success. Addressing these might be important for our message. [12:02] Simon Spero: @RexBrooks: some sort of rule? [12:02] RexBrooks: Just don'[t name it after me, ;) [12:03] anonymous1 morphed into TimWilson [12:04] NicolaGuarino: STeve: we can't reopen the discussion about what an ontology is [12:06] TimWilson: The first rule is "know your audience". We know what ontology is. This communique is for us, and those that do similar work. Let's be done with it. [12:06] RexBrooks: We still have two valid changes that have been agreed to by three attendees that should be dealt with now, before we dive down any more (add your own word here). [12:07] SteveRay: @Rex: I urge you to raise your hand [12:08] MikeBennett: No-one is suggesting that we reopen the question of what an ontology is, but we did a lot of work in this Summit on what different applications and use cases exist for what we mean by ontology, and this is valuable work. I wonder if this is well reflected in the summary text. It seems to me it should be possible to do more justice to the work that's gone in to this. [12:08] DeborahMacPherson: SUGGESTION: Agree with Mills Davis - need shorter sentences. Nothing longer than 25 words where possible. [12:10] TimWilson: Do we need a controlled vocabulary for ontology? [12:10] DeborahMacPherson: SUGGESTION: Yes Wikipedia definition could be used but please also refer to this white paper from Tom Gruber http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-definition-2007.htm [12:13] Gary Berg-Cross: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_DefinitionsOfOntology has the prior summit's definitions from Leo Obrst, wikipedia and Michael Uschold [12:13] AmandaVizedom: SUGGEST: Addition to Communique: "Understand what kind of problem your audience has, with respect to the evolving Ontology Usage Framework. Understand and highlight how the specific ontology-based solution you propose addresses this sort of problem. [12:13] NicolaGuarino: Peter (quoting George Strawn): life scientists don't know what life means... [12:14] NicolaGuarino: Issue from Doug Skuce: we should give more importance to good tools... [12:15] NicolaGuarino: Answer from Mike Uschold: tools as ways to "instill confidence"... [12:15] MikeBennett: The Case Studies described a numbe of tools and applications. We mentioned and drew out the major tools and notations that we found in use. Do we need to do something more on this in the Track 2 summary material? [12:15] MikeBennett: @Amanda +1 [12:18] Simon Spero: @Amanda++ [12:18] RexBrooks: @Steve, I leave it to you. I can't be heard on the phone. [12:18] Simon Spero: (#$PlusFn #$Amanda 1) [12:19] PavithraKenjige: Technology readiness and maturity of the available tools [12:19] PavithraKenjige: needs to included [12:21] MatthewWest: Suggestion: There is a problem with people who have tried to use ontologies but failed previously. What can we say about why they failed, and why they would not fail now? [12:23] NicolaGuarino: Issue from the audience: the process ontological analysis has a value per se, independently of the quality of final result [12:23] anonymous1 morphed into doug foxvog [12:23] MikeBennett: Why do I feel that some achievable simplicity is somehow slipping away from us... [12:24] RexBrooks: I haven't agreed with many of the additions because they are not aligned with the theme of this year's Summit, or didn't come from working on it for 3 months. Tools were a part of Track 2 and Track 3 to some extent since all solutions either used or can be seen as tools in themselves, so I don't object to adding it in, but I think we should apply another rule: changes must improve communication of this year's theme "Making the Case..." [12:27] Simon Spero: SUGGEST: Use the framework within the communique - it's a good, um, framework to build the document around, and many of the individual tracks used it as their basis [12:30] MikeBennett: Something simple (this was on a mail thread some time ago): (1) ontology is everywhere anyway; (2) there is business benefit in making this explicit, for example in integration, model driven development etc. (as a business conceptual model); (3) having done that, did you know there's a world of interesting and exciting new things you can do with that explicit domain knowledge - from dynamic product design, semantic search, querying / mashups, pattern/threat detection and so on. So there is a chain of benefits, which the framework and use cases we have developed in this Summit should help you (the ontologist) find and articulate. [12:30] MikeBennett: @Simon +1 [12:34] AmandaVizedom: SUGGESTION on behalf of Ravi Sharma, seconded by Amanda Vizedom, Todd Schneider and Jim Disbrow: Rewrite/addition at (2SHX) or else(2SGR): "Fundamentally, ontology is about reaching common agreements about what things mean. This meaning includes identification of the entities and relationships in a domain, including relationships beyond categorical. Developing a good ontology requires human logic, reasoning, and clarity. A good ontology then enables automated application of logic and reasoning to reduce complexity and/or improve efficiency of solutions. [12:39] Cory Casanave: SUGGESTION: Ontologies in this context capture the terms and concepts of a domain to assist in clarifying meaning between people and the software which helps manage and exploit information. More information on what entails an ontology can be found in the results of the prior workshop on the topic, here <>. {Do we have a good link to point to a summary of the results of what an ontology is}? [12:42] MikeBennett: @Amanda that captures the sense of what I was thinking. This alongside Cory's idea of simply stating what ontology is and providing a link to prior work, means that the very detailed work that has gone into this document and into the tracks, can be distilled to something simple up front that people can use. [12:44] TimWilson: @AmandaVisedom +1 [12:45] TimWilson: @MikeBennett also +1 [12:47] RexBrooks: Everyone: I think wholesale rewite suggestions are unlikely and I doubt they can be achieved within the limitations we have such as finishing today so we can spend tomorrow presenting the communique to the world. [12:48] Sent transcript to: peter.yim@cim3.com [12:48] ToddSchneider: + 1 for Amanda's text [12:49] Cory Casanave: SUGGESTION: I like Amanda's phrase as well and suggest this provides more detail to the general statement I made. So I would put these together. [12:49] TimWilson: Please understand that I don't advocate a complete rewrite, just the short clarification that Amanda raised. If Cory can parse the long sentences into shorter ones by the cutoff, such that the symposium can review and agree to it, then I can endorse. [12:50] anonymous3 morphed into NIST-venue [12:50] RexBrooks: Let's just be mindful of our limitations. [12:51] anonymous2 morphed into RichardBeatch [12:51] Gary Berg-Cross: Suggestion for next year we need an addendum to the Fabian Neuhaus rule to handle great new ideas that come up at 3 pm of the first day. [12:52] NicolaGuarino: suggestion: instead of "getting everyone on the same page" --> understanding each other (including understanding reaons of disagreement) [12:53] RexBrooks: Just remember one person's great new idea can be another's cliche. SUGGESTION: get on board early in the 3-month event and be heard well and truly. [12:54] MikeBennett: I think the Fabian rule is a good one as long as the existence of a good idea with two backers is not seen as a problem or a criticism but as an integral part of the process IMHO. [12:54] RexBrooks: STEVE's SUGGESTION change to Table 1., Row 2: Approach. Suggest changing "To get the work funded" (which is not an approach, but an objective), to "Demonstrating an improvement to the bottom line through cost reduction" [12:59] Simon Spero: Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops, Time Available [12:59] RexBrooks: How about: "Obtain Funding by demonstration of financial benefit through cost reduction." [13:00] RexBrooks: I approve the current change. [13:02] DeborahMacPherson: SUGGESTION: in the stakeholder and goal chart - get "convince" and "Convincing" to agree [13:02] Simon Spero: Center For Ontological Lessons Learned [13:02] doug foxvog: @Cory: Ontologies are not about terms, but about the concepts which the terms refer to. "Ontologies in this context capture the concepts ..." Multiple terms may refer to the same concept. [13:04] MikeBennett: @Doug Some people use the word "Term" to refer to words, some use them to refer to concepts as distinct from words. I agree that removing it adds clarity. [13:06] AmandaVizedom: +1 for Nicola's suggestion, replacing "same page" expression with "understanding..." [13:06] RexBrooks: The Grand Challenge exists to germinate new thinking and pull the whole field along with it. We don't capture that. [13:06] RexBrooks: Of course the new thinking needs to have major benefits. [13:08] Simon Spero: SUGGEST: If the Grand Challenge track doesn't fit with the rest of the communique, maybe it could be left out of this years communique and fit it elsewhere in the ontolog space [13:08] RexBrooks: Do we have the time for people to go off and cogitate? [13:08] RexBrooks: +1 Simon!!! [13:08] Simon Spero: (CONCRETE SUGGEST:) Motion to strike [13:08] ToddSchneider1: Rex, I don't think so. Leo wants to stick to the schedule [13:08] RexBrooks: I reall don't think the Grand Challenge helps Make the Case. [13:09] RexBrooks: Can we get one more person to support dropping [13:09] RexBrooks: grand challenge? [13:09] RichardBeatch: +1Simon [13:10] RexBrooks: We need someone present in the room to make the proposal to the Symposium. [13:10] RichardBeatch: Simon just did [13:11] RexBrooks: If the Grand Challenge had already produced a result, it could be used, but as a concept, we don't have anything to show for it. [13:11] Brian Haugh: Second the motion to strike the Grand Challenge from the Communique. Having a grand challenge does not make the case for ontology. Existing use cases can do this, not challenges [13:13] Simon Spero: Not questioning the importance of the Grand Challenges - they're too important to give short shrift to. [13:15] MikeBennett: Case studies halp make the case for something (in this case ontology). Grand challenges are the inverse of this, in that they are things we would like to be able to do. However, people will want to know what's the best that's been done, the grand challenges section might be confusing to someone ciming to the doc for the 1st time as they look like case studies too. Watson could be a case study since it won! [13:17] RexBrooks: @Mike: In that context I could support it. As Grand Challenges as a way to make the case at some point in the future, no. [13:17] Cory Casanave: Revised SUGGESTION (Cory, Amanda, MikeBennett, Ravi): Insert as last paragrph of summary: Ontologies, in this context, capture agreements about concepts of a domain to assist in clarifying meaning between people and the software which helps manage and exploit information to improve agility and flexibility while reducing costs. Capturing these concepts includes identification of the entities and relationships in a domain, including relationships beyond categorization. Developing a good ontology requires human logic, reasoning, and clarity. A good ontology then enables automated application of logic and reasoning to reduce complexity and/or improve efficiency of solutions. More information on what what entails an ontology can be found in the results of the prior workshop on the toplc, here <>. [13:18] TimWilson: Philosophical question - are the Grand Challenges helpful to the cause of making the case by identifying where we need to go, and are we ignoring the elephant in the room by deleting it? [13:21] TimWilson: I believe that the answer is yes. [13:24] NicolaGuarino: Examples of grand challenges (to me): 1) modelling failures and crisis situations in complex socio-technical systems; 2) using ontologies for complex systems control, establishing a link between simulation models (based on mathematical equations) and ontological models [13:24] RexBrooks: Amanda can you copy and paste here in the chat. I'm trying to find it and not finding it. [13:25] RexBrooks: Disregard, I see them in the communique. [13:25] RexBrooks: I agree. [13:27] RexBrooks: AMatthew: contorted logic, but we could say it: show where previous attempts at using ontology would now succeed. [13:28] RexBrooks: Could also be "Lessons Learned." [13:29] MikeBennett: We did not have any Use Cases in the Use Case track that demonstrated things going wrong. [13:29] TimWilson: @Rex ...or "Best Practices". [13:30] Simon Spero: Noose Cases [13:30] TimWilson: I think that the original discussion wrt case studies was to include positive outcomes, not failures. The topic is Making The Case FOR Ontology, not against. [13:32] TimWilson: For every problem there is a solution (usually commercial) that is quick, easy and wrong. [13:35] RexBrooks: @Tim: We want to avoid seeming like Pollyannas. [13:37] RexBrooks: Where is this in the communique? [13:38] MikeBennett: @Tim oddly enough no-one came forward to present to us on something they did that went wrong. [13:39] TimWilson: The Grand Challenges are facing the challenges ahead - they are not easy, but they are worth it. Dwelling on failure -unless we offer lessons learned to prevent it- are counterproductive, IMHO. [13:45] RexBrooks: Those of us on the phone can't see where in the communique you are considering changes unless it is one of our own specific suggestions. So if you could let us know the nearest heading or subheading, we can find it. [13:48] SteveRay: I'll try to give you all some landmarks on the chat. Then you can scroll to that while viewing the Google Doc, right? [13:48] TimWilson: @Rex, go to Settings and enable timestamp, then refresh your browser. [13:48] AmandaVizedom1: For those not in room - we just changed chat room display here to show timestamps, so that we can refer to chat messages by time. [13:49] AmandaVizedom1: To do this in your own chat view, go to settings, select "show timestamps," click okay, then refresh your browser. [13:50] SteveRay: We're headed to the last paragraph of the Summary [13:50] anonymous1 morphed into Eric Hanson [13:50] Gary Berg-Cross: One rational for mentioning past failures is the idea that we understand the reason for them and that the field has matured to move on. [13:51] PavithraKenjige: For Usage framework, I suggest to include context related information to provide clarity [13:54] ToddSchneider1: Tim, I agree. If you convinced the stakeholders to use this approach you can then use these 'future' possibilities to reassure them that they've made the correct decision. [13:54] SteveRay: We're now at the section heading "Summary", near the top [13:57] MatthewWest: @Rex: My experience of failures is not that people did something badly, but that there was something critical that they failed to do at all. [13:58] NicolaGuarino: @Cory: I think this is fine: I would simplify it as follows: Ontologies, in this context, capture agreements about concepts and terms of a domain to assist in clarifying their meaning . Capturing these concepts includes identification of the entities and relationships in a domain, including relationships beyond categorisation. Developing a good ontology requires human logic, reasoning, and clarity. More information on what what entails an ontology can be found in the results of the prior workshop on the toplc, here <> [note that I put terms in again, as they are inavoidably part of computational ontologies] [13:58] Gary Berg-Cross: There are 2 "what's" in the sentence "More information on what what entails..." [13:59] TimWilson: The second "what" should be "that"? [14:00] SteveRay: Explanation: Amanda just fell out of her chair. [14:01] AmandaVizedom1: Clarification: Actually, my chair fell out from under me. ;-) [14:02] MikeBennett: Falls off chair laughing... [14:02] RichardBeatch: Sure, blame the inanimate object... [14:02] RexBrooks: Ontology formalizes agreements about concepts in a domain. You may have disagreements with it, but it is a set of assertions. [14:02] Simon Spero: I believe we have a motion from the floor? [14:02] MikeBennett: @Rex Precisely [14:03] anonymous1 morphed into YuriyMilov [14:04] Cory Casanave: @NicolaGuarino - I am fine with the simplification. [14:05] YuriyMilov: My suggestion is to change "redice complexity" to "move complexity to different context" [14:05] PavithraKenjige: ( in response to Amanda's comment) Meaning of the data - The terminology within the Ontology should include descriptions that should explain the meaning of the terminology and the data.. Including context with the description would help! [14:06] RexBrooks: Ontology formalizes assertions... is fine with me. [14:06] SteveRay: We're still at the top - 2 paragraphs after "Summary" [14:06] Simon Spero: Three anglo-saxon monosyllables : What the heck? [14:07] RexBrooks: Understood, I found it and I'm watching. [14:07] Cory Casanave: "Assertions" is somewhat techi [14:10] MikeBennett: +1 what that person just said. [14:10] RexBrooks: Regardless, with minor changes to Nicola's reworking of Cory's text, I'm fine with it. [14:11] MikeBennett: discussion on start of para 2 "Ontology" The art of ontology; the field of study that is ontology; An ontology; Ontologies... [14:12] doug foxvog: "... clarifying meaning between people and the software" sounds strange to me. Meaning is clarified among people. [14:13] RexBrooks: I'm good with that, Mike, I just want to have Nicola's revised text, not Cory's original. [14:13] PavithraKenjige: The issue about relationships is : People assume that classification provides relationships. It just provides some indication of parent child relationship. But there are other kind of high level relationships .. In a nutshell classification alone does not cover all the relationships [14:13] RexBrooks: That's better, I guess I can live with facilitate. [14:15] RexBrooks: That first sentenc eis still contorted. [14:16] SteveRay: Now viewing about halfway down the doc, at the bullets beginning with "Reduced unnecessary... [14:17] TimWilson: @Matthew +1 on managing complexity. [14:21] NicolaGuarino: SUGGESTION for challenges (new text from Ram): The above three focus areas address the here and now, what can be done in the near and medium term. A fourth focus area was on exploring longer term ideas that may require further research, but which are feasible nevertheless. These were identified as Grand Challenges. For this effort, experts in particular domains were asked to identify a grand challenge problem, summarize the state of the art, determine gaps that hinder real-world ontology applications, and to suggest actions for overcoming these gaps. It is hoped that one or more grand challenge problems would emerge that could benefit from the use of ontologies, in a similar manner to those provided in the Making the Case track. Three domains were explored, and other domains were suggested in the summit workshop. Representative grand challenge problems identified were: 1. Extend IBM-Watsons DeepQA to help both the medical student and the doctor in a multitude of tasks, such as case history analysis, expert diagnosis, scenario analysis, and to be able to learn from experience. 2. Facilitate effective recognition and reaction in a network-centric situation awareness environment, which consists of a symbiotic network of people and mobile communication and computing devices. 3. Help people to understand and assess the consequences of multiple interacting complex disruptions to critical infrastructure and key resources [14:21] RexBrooks: If we end up keeping grand challenges, can we cite Watson as a success and say that it shows how future grand challenges in fields x, y and z would be made easier with ontology. [14:24] RexBrooks: Actually I wrote my comment before Nicola posted the above and he actually does what I was asking for. [14:24] NicolaGuarino: Sorry the last sentence was missing from the suggestion on challenges: The next step would be to select one grand challenge problem and propose a prize, analogous to the X Prize Foundations Ansari Prize. [14:25] doug foxvog: @Rex: Watson is not an example success of ontologies, since no ontologies were used. It had some taxonomies, though. [14:25] RexBrooks: The problem with the quotes is lack of attribution. [14:25] RexBrooks: No, watson was a success of the Grand Challenges concept. [14:26] TimWilson: WRT Watson annexing Toronto as an American city, the Buffalo Bills fans wish that that were so. [14:31] YuriyMilov: -- Day-1 program ended: 5:30pm EDT -- [14:35] Michael Uschold: I talked to someone on the Watson project and learned that Watson was not doing something as stupid as it seems. The name of the category (US Cities) in Jeapordy is the topic for the question, it is not a set from which an answer must be chosen. So having an ontology would not have helped. ANyway, it had extremely low confidence in its answer, it would never have offered it, but that particular point in the game required an answer. [14:37] PeterYim: bye folks ... talk to you all tomorrow!