ppy/chat-transcript_edited_20110407b.txt = OntologySummit2011: Panel Session-10 - "Communique draft review session" - Thu 2011_04_07 = Chat transcript from room: ontolog_20110407 2011-04-07 GMT-08:00 --------------- PeterYim: PeterYim: Welcome to the 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) please refer to details on the session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_04_07 anonymous morphed into KurtConrad anonymous morphed into FabianNeuhaus ToddSchneider: Here's a revision to Ali's suggestion. 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. 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. 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. 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. anonymous morphed into NicolaGuarino NicolaGuarino: implicit ontology -> conceptualization anonymous morphed into AliHashemi ToddSchneider: Nicola, I agree. AliHashemi: +1 to Nicola's suggestion AliHashemi: I think we can also emphasize the paragraph on "Growing complexity" further as well. AliHashemi: it is a natural extension of the increased dependencies on so many people and organizations on networked and federated communication and work. MikeBennett: I think Nicola has clarified what I meant about systems having an [implicit] ontology. ToddSchneider: Ali, that notion is sometimes referred to as 'net-centricity'. ToddSchneider: There are many types of networks, not all technological. AliHashemi: Todd, thanks for the clarification. Given that then - does it make sense to add and elaborate on that angle in that paragraph anonymous morphed into PavithraKenjige 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. ToddSchneider: Ali, not sure. There are volumes on net-centricity, but I usually am involved only with interoperability issues. ToddSchneider: Ali, for more on net-centricity and interoperability see the materials at https://www.ncoic.org/technology/deliverables/scope/ 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 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). 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). ToddSchneider: Rex, could you send me the latest version of the "Use Case Matrix" compilation? Or just post it in the chat? RexBrooks: Okay [subsequently added] - the latest version of it is at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/ValueMetrics/OntologySummit2011-CaseStudy--UseCaseMatrix.pdf RexBrooks: @Todd: I will send a snapshot of it as an attachment to the [ontology-summit] list too. anonymous morphed into JamesDavenport 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 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. 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. RexBrooks: How about "de facto" ontologies, where they more or less "accidentally" happen to be in force save lives? 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. 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. ToddSchneider: @MichaelUschold, MikeDean and BBN has such an example. It was presented at SemTech a couple of years ago. 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 AliHashemi: It could be useful to situate ontology within the context of an ecosystem of solutions ToddSchneider: Ali, are you suggesting an ontology of information systems? 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. 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. AliHashemi: It really makes the most sense as something that ameliorates existing solution approaches. AliHashemi: (from selling a business solution - tying it to things that are known) 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. 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" 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 MikeBennett: @Alden good paper, but what the author means by a "model" is a "Logical Data Model" (except near the end). 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. 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. JohnBateman: Maybe we *should* write a book! JohnBateman: @RexBrooks: there should be several examples, and the ODF should indicate how to select among examples I guess. 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." RexBrooks: @JohnBateman: Yes, definitely. I'm working on compiling the Case Studies and Use Cases now. 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. 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 MichaelUschold: ref. === presenting the Communique as a FAQ RexBrooks: I think a FAQ is BAD idea! NicolaGuarino: I think a text is still essential, definitely MatthewWest: I think it is not a good idea. Augment with FAQ JohnBateman: FAQ only as supportive material definitely. AliHashemi: ^^^ +1 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 NicolaGuarino: We already discussed this point. A text plus slides, faqs, links, whatever RexBrooks: A wiki page is good as an adjunct. But a FAQ is associated with bad documentation. 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. 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 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 JohnBateman: @LeoObrst: yes, definitely, I believe and agree this should be an important OOR feature and we should reference that... 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 JohnBateman: @LeoObrst: got it! ToddSchneider: Have to go. Good luck editors. RexBrooks: What is the conclusion of the communique going to be? 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 ToddSchneider: First task - finish an outline everyone can agree to. RexBrooks: Are we going to say "Go Forth and Multiply Relevant Ontologies?" MikeBennett: Go forth and integrate? RexBrooks: That too! NicolaGuarino: @MikeBennett: +1 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? AliHashemi: I've gotta run. Thanks. PeterYim: Thanks, Ali ... glad you could come MikeBennett: I can trace name of the Case Study presentation title to the company 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 NicolaGuarino: Ciao Ali PeterYim: MichaelUschold confirms: I'll get a next draft out end-of-day next Wednesday (Apr-13) PeterYim: At our next Thursday session, we will carve out a ~30 min. slot for another status review on the Communique PeterYim: -- session ended: 10:43am PDT --