ppy/chat-transcript_unedited_20111208b.txt



Chat transcript from room: summit_20111208
2011-12-08 GMT-08:00

----------

[09:32] PeterYim: Welcome to the 

= OntologySummit2012 (Pre-launch) Community Input and Planning Session - Thu 2011-12-08 =

Topic: Refining the ideas around the theme and program for OntologySummit2012

Co-chair: SteveRay & PeterYim 

Session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_12_08

Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute

Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"

.


== Proceedings: ==

.

[09:06] anonymous morphed into TimWilson

[09:26] anonymous morphed into ChristopherSpottiswoode

[09:28] anonymous morphed into PatCassidy

[09:29] AliHashemi: Is there someone in charge of the Skype "joinconference" id? It appears offline for me.

[09:29] SteveRay: Did you type in the PIN? 141184#

[09:30] AliHashemi: I'm restarting Skype, but i didn't have an option of connecting to joinconference because the contact appeared offline.

[09:31] anonymous morphed into AmandaVizedom

[09:32] AliHashemi: Contact appeared online after restart :P

[09:32] SteveRay: Good news. Hope to hear your voice.

[09:33] anonymous morphed into ElisaKendall

[09:35] anonymous morphed into Bo Newman

[09:36] MikeBennett: By the way on the joiconference Skype, at least in one version of Skype it does not display a numeric keypad, thereby making it impossible to type in the conference ID!

[09:36] anonymous1 morphed into Martin Serrano - DERI

[09:36] anonymous morphed into KenAllgood

[09:38] anonymous morphed into MichaelRiben

[09:39] anonymous morphed into Nikolay Borgest

[09:40] AliHashemi: 2) Click on "Show Dial Pad" 3) Enter the pin

[09:40] AliHashemi: oops.

[09:40] MikeBennett: Yes, I also failed to read Peter's instructions above.

[09:40] AliHashemi: Ah

[09:45] Joanne Luciano: Should I be looking/downloading some slides - or is that later. Please post the link here:

[09:45] AliHashemi: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/2011-12-08_OntologySummit2012-pre-launch/OntologySummit2012-pre-launch-brainstorm--SteveRay-PeterYim_20111208.pdf

[09:45] Joanne Luciano: thanks!

[09:46] anonymous morphed into MichaelRiben

[09:47] PeterYim: when in doubt, check the session page - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_12_08 - brief instructions are at the very top now

[09:47] Jack Ring: Six facets of ontology - system engineering.

[09:52] Joanne Luciano: So, how can you know if ontology is helping if there are no metrics in place to evaluate that?

[09:54] Joanne Luciano: by "you" I mean "we" :-)

[09:54] MikeBennett: @Joanne we looked at that for last year's Summit.

[09:54] Joanne Luciano: @Mike -- and? (BTW, I do like addressing Big Data)

[09:55] Jack Ring: 10X Better, Faster Systems Engineering.

[09:55] AliHashemi: @Joanne - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ValueMetrics_CommunityInput

[09:56] TimWilson: I have to leave the call soon, but I am very interested in the System Engineering aspects of Ontology as well as Ontology Acquisition, including text analytics.

[09:56] Jack Ring: Ontology --- Relief from complexity

[09:56] MatthewWest: Sorry I'm late. Struggled to get Skype working.

[09:57] AmandaVizedom: Can someone address how the proposed "Big Data" theme relates to other items on the suggestions page? E.g., is it approximate to Cory's suggestion?

[09:57] Bo Newman: as part of either topic I would like to see something that focuses on working with multi-perspective semantics

[09:58] PatCassidy: Ontology in complex systems fits in with my interest in the ability ofontology to support interoperability. Perhaps we may somehow mention the "cloud" as being a place where complex systems may reside or interact?

[09:58] AmandaVizedom: Yup

[09:58] AliHashemi: I think Amanda means this: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions ?

[09:58] Joanne Luciano: @Ali -- thanks for the link!

[09:58] AmandaVizedom: I'm trying to get a better sense of what is meant by this theme.

[09:59] Jack Ring: A joint Working Group of the International Council on Systems Engineering and International Society for Systems Sciences is pursuing the development of a Unified Ontology for Systems Engineering. This effort is mostly practitioners getting ready for interaction with ontologists.

[10:00] ChristopherSpottiswoode: @Steve: I would like to congratulate you on both the themes chosen. Each is good, the combination excellent.

[10:01] anonymous morphed into Hasan Sayani

[10:01] AmandaVizedom: +1 for Bo Newman's suggestion. Addressing multiple perspectives is essential for large-scale federation, applications with localization, and anything that involves sharing information across user communities, over time, etc.

[10:01] SteveRay: @Christopher: Thank you.

[10:01] PatCassidy: Jack - are the online references to these efforts towd a "unified ontology"

[10:03] MikeBennett: +1 here also for multiple perspective semantics. We've been looking at some of this within our efforts but would like to see a broader effort and consensus. Defines archetypal of "simplest possible" concepts which by definition are not local to most of our individual industries. Lots of good ontologies to leverage for such an effort, just show consensus way of using these together e.g. in linked data.

[10:04] KenAllgood: Agree with Bo's topic. The work I'm doing right now in the electronic health record arena is directly dependent upon multiple perspective harmonization within big data federation.

[10:04] AmandaVizedom: What Bo is talking about is critical to federation and to web-like environments - you need to capture rich contextual elements and provenance info also, to be able to preserve meaning of data when crossing context lines.

[10:05] Eric Chan: I suggest to reach out to "The Society for Design and process Science" http://www.sdpsnet.org/sdps/ as a "partnering community" for the theme on "application of ontology" ... "in transdisplinary system engineering."

[10:05] Bo Newman: Unifying topic - pros and cons of multi-perspective semantics

[10:05] MichaelGruninger: do we want to distinguish "systems engineering" from "software engineering"?

[10:05] KenAllgood: How Ontology can address big data issues in federation, harmonization, etc??

[10:05] SteveRay lowered your hand

[10:05] AmandaVizedom: I'm still not sure what the two main themes are supposed to be; they are so open to multiple interpretations. ;-)

[10:06] Bo Newman: Or simply multi-perspective semantics

[10:06] AliHashemi: +1 Amanda

[10:06] Bo Newman: will do

[10:08] PatCassidy: The ability to have a common unifying ontology and multiple perspecties are not mutually exclusive. My conclusions from the past 15 years of ontology discussions is that a common basic ontology can be used to **translate** among all the diverse terminologies, perspectives, belief systems, and applications. The basic ontology should be able to be small enough to be mastered by at least one data developer in each group, who can then serve as the bilingual translator between the local system and the broader group.

[10:09] SteveRay: If we went with "systems engineering", we could break it down into the major components, to include design, validation, testing... and how ontology plays a role in each.

[10:09] AmandaVizedom: Depending on how the themes are defined, I can easily see both "semantics from, and across multiple perspectives" and "ontology quality in context" (which we mean specifically to indicate metrics and methods for evaluating fitness for purpose) as tracks under either of the two major themes. But again, each still feels too underspecified for shared understanding and intention, here.

[10:09] SteveRay lowered your hand

[10:10] Jack Ring: Ontology, the missing link in systems engineering.

[10:11] MatthewWest: Systems Engineering and big data meet in big engineering systems. Think of the quantity and complexity of data for e.g. an offshore oilrig, or an aircraft carrier.

[10:11] LeoObrst: Per Jack's note: see http://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/projects/unified-ontology-of-science-systems.

[10:11] AliHashemi: I concur with Amanda. A lot of the "content" items we're discussing could easily fit into both of the themes. Big data _requires_ systems engineering, and the major focus of many system engineering projects these days will be Big Data. The latter will have great cachet with a broader audience though.

[10:11] AliHashemi: greater*

[10:12] KenAllgood: @Pat, excellent point, and one which is often missed in discussions around "big, scary, ontologies" in actual system design and engineering.

[10:12] MatthewWest: @Ali. I'm assuming Systems Engineering means hardware systems, or systems with embedded software. What do you mean?

[10:12] ElisaKendall: At the OMG, there have been a number of discussions and some work in the past year for aligning ontology with SysML, which is a UML profile for systems engineering modeling support in UML. JPL, for example, has developed an ontology that allows transformation of SysML models such that they can be reasoned over to identify problems in those models. Given that JPL gets "one shot" at sending systems into space, any capability that can assist in eliminating problems in systems models is incredibly important. If we are talking about ontological support for systems engineering, rather than the engineering of systems supported by ontologies, this is one area we could piggyback on and we could reach out to that community to get their input.

[10:12] PatCassidy: I'm somwhat reluctant to match "systems engineering" with "ontology". Either term may be mysterious to a lot of peole, and the combination of specialized terms in a title might well convince all but a few hard-core ontolog participants that it is not relevant to their purposes.

[10:13] ChristopherSpottiswoode: @Jack: yes, that's it!

[10:14] AliHashemi: @Matthew, that's one source of confusion for me. Is it restricted to hardware systems, or the more general systems which would encompass applications that will rely on Big Data (say sensor fields), or epidemic tracking etc... It's unclear to me from the theme names.

[10:14] PeterYim: @MatthewWest - I trust we are *not* equating Systems Engineering with hardware systems or embedded system, bit rather taking the broader "Systems" definition ... which should include man-machine systems, systems-of-systems, etc.

[10:14] Bo Newman: Background on multi-perspective semantics: Dealing with differences in meaning (semantics) based on individual perspectives can be addressed by either moving to a single shared perspective (ontology) or my expanding the collective ontology to encompass the full richness of the concept. Each has challenges: Developing a shared ontology needs to avoid the pitfalls of reductionism. Expanded or collective ontologies face the challenge of incorporating implicit/tacit aspects that define the individual perspectives.

[10:15] Jack Ring: Ontology enables big data + big function = big valuable societal benefits.

[10:15] AliHashemi: +1 to PeterYim's point. On its own, the use of the term Big Data entails greater relevance to the broader technology conversation.

[10:16] ChristopherSpottiswoode: @Jack: Yes, keep it up!

[10:17] KenAllgood: Big Data opportunities are dependent upon the contextual clarity ontologies provide.

[10:18] ToddSchneider: I concur with Peter's approach - Systems Engineering first, then use this to understand how to work with big data.

[10:18] SteveRay: My own personal concerns and opinions: Big Data is a bit more focused, and thus possibly amenable to yield some concrete contribution. One other potential pitfall is that systems engineering as a field of study might come across as an overly academic discussion (although, of course, many industries use systems engineering regularly).

[10:19] Jack Ring: Ontologies unify general systems thinking and general semantics thereby bridging a long-standing, deep divide in human endeavors.

[10:19] MatthewWest: @Ali My understanding is that those who consider themselves systems engineers in the broadest sense are concerned with the integration of multiple components where those components may include but are not restricted to hardware, software, and people. The main restriction in Systems Engineering is that it is man made. There is an even broader view of systems that would include e.g. ecosystems, but these are not engineered, but are naturally occurring.

[10:19] AliHashemi: One vote for the broader Systems Engineering -- I think a lot of people don't quite wholly understand how ontologies fit into the bigger picture of the actual applications that people are developing. It would be tremendously useful to demonstrate what roles ontologies can play in bigger systems.

[10:21] MatthewWest: We could go for big data with Systems Engineering as a thread, since there is often big data involved in big systems.

[10:21] Bo Newman: Multi-perspective semantics track application: (1) Big Data, especially when working with aggregates of, and usability across multiple domains is logically subject to the issues associated with multi-perspective semantics. (2) System engineering, especially when dealing a broad spectrum of customers, developers, and stakeholders each with their own perspective, has also experienced problems that could be directly related to issues generated by misaligned multi-perspective semantics.

[10:22] AmandaVizedom: Following @MatthewWest's comment: Given that understanding of systems engineering, I'm more comfortable that we actually have a focused topic. I also think the inclusion of human components (and therefore factors) is worth emphasizing.

[10:22] ChristopherSpottiswoode: @Leo: But the basis of managing and exploiting Big Data has to reside in system and data architecture, organization and management - all Systems Engineering!

[10:22] ToddSchneider: Fabian, Have you ever had to try to develop a 'big' system? There many problems.

[10:23] Jack Ring: We need a track, if not a theme, on the impact of forthcoming massively parallel hardware on the design of ontologies. The era of full duplex semantic data management is here.

[10:23] ToddSchneider: Fabian, your argument would suggest that there's a bigger payoff for addressing systems engineering.

[10:23] ChristopherSpottiswoode: @Leo: ... and Systems Engineering has to cater for Big Data.

[10:24] AmandaVizedom: @ToddSchneider -- I think we need more along that line; it wasn't clear to me until Steve's earlier comment that Systems Engineering was being positioned as a problem space here.

[10:25] FabianNeuhaus: @Todd. Hmmm? I tried to argue that a problem driven Summit is more interesting than a discussion about technology

[10:26] Jack Ring: How about just Big, Evolving Systems

[10:26] SteveRay lowered your hand

[10:26] ToddSchneider: Fabian, how about the problem of requirements elicitation?

[10:27] Eric Chan: One caveat: "systems engineering" may not be inclusive enough for scientific disciplines which are not engineering the system but understanding natural phenomenon

[10:27] MatthewWest: There is also the role of ontologies in the engineering of systems.

[10:27] Jack Ring: The problem of requirements elicitation is the presumption of requirements elicitation.

[10:28] KenAllgood: @Peter.. Agree.. That's exactly the direction we might wish to consider to increase the recognition and perceived benefit of an ontology-driven solution

[10:28] Bo Newman: I agree with Peter: Ontology as a component of a solution is a much more extendable position than ontology as the solution.

[10:28] FabianNeuhaus: @Todd. Do you suggest "The problem of requirements elicitation" as a subject for the Summit?

[10:28] PeterYim: personally, I am in favor of using this summit to team ontologists up with system engineers, so "together" this team will be in a much better position to address "big data" problems

[10:29] ToddSchneider: Fabian, it could be. It's part of systems engineering.

[10:30] AmandaVizedom: Following @FabianNeuhaus's comment: I can see "Systems Engineering" as either tool kit or problem space, in contrast to Fabian's view of it as a tool. But I think that the theme isn't focused enough, and is confusing, unless we get very clear on whether we mean SE as tool kit, SE as problem space, or SE as both, possibly paired with ontology as both in a variety of mutually supportive relationships. I think the latter is what Peter is suggesting. But can we scope and focus that well enough?

[10:30] PeterYim: JackRing: let's do "Big Systems" or "Big Intelligent Systems"

[10:30] AliHashemi: @Jack 00 do we have the wherewithal to push this term? I agree with the ambiguity around Systems Engineering... It seems like these novel phrases would suffer from the same problem, especially since this summit doesn't exactly have the highest profiel.

[10:31] ToddSchneider: +1 for 'Big Systems' (it has a good spin:)

[10:31] Eric Chan: +1 Big Data Systems

[10:32] PeterYim: +1 for "Big Intelligent Systems" ... (and we do BOTH, under that umbrella

[10:32] Bo Newman: One of the strengths of the ontology domain is that its meaning has not been diluted by an array of alternate terms. The way we name our themes and topics needs to re-enforce who we are rather than dilute the concept

[10:32] FabianNeuhaus: @ Todd. The majority of the organizing committee likes bigger themes. But I personally would have liked a problem on that scale.

[10:32] AmandaVizedom: Same point about Big data, though -- we would need to focus in more than that. Big data usability? Big data management? It's Big!

[10:33] BarrySmith: Barry Smith: Ontology is already making serious contributions to Big Data on many fronts -- above all genomics, intelligence analysis, ...

[10:33] BarrySmith: Barry Smith: Suggested titles: Ontology and Big Data; Ontology and Big Data Systems; Ontology and Big Intelligent Systems

[10:34] AmandaVizedom: Please give the choices before asking for votes on each.

[10:34] AliHashemi: +1 - Ontology and Big Data Systems

[10:34] FabianNeuhaus: @ AmandaVizedom: I agree that scoping would help a lot

[10:34] Bo Newman: Suggest those with their "hand up" clear that first before the vote (click on the hand button)

[10:34] SteveRay: Choice #1: Systems engineering, or complex systems...

[10:35] SteveRay: Choice #2: Big Data, Big systems.....

[10:35] Jack Ring: Intelllgent, scalable systems vs. Big Data vs. Systems Engineering

[10:36] SteveRay: #1 Systems engineering #2 Big systems #3 Big data

[10:37] AmandaVizedom: @SteveRay: are these all "Ontology &...?"

[10:37] Martin Serrano - DERI: what about as theme Proposal --> Applied Ontologies: Towards bridging the gap between Big Data Services and Systems Engineering

[10:37] SteveRay: @Amanda: Yes

[10:38] ToddSchneider: Current thinking would suggest that solutions to 'big data' requires intelligent systems. Intelligent systems need to be develop in an intelligent fashion.

[10:39] AliHashemi: it show teh number beside the Queeu

[10:39] AmandaVizedom: I still am not sure what it means!

[10:39] AmandaVizedom: I might have voted for it, otherwise.

[10:40] MichaelRiben: @amanda +1

[10:40] AliHashemi: can we vote twice?

[10:40] MikeBennett: I'm sort of assuming that the stuff we talked about re semantics sharing comes under Big Data but not sure.

[10:41] AmandaVizedom: But again, my choice between 2 and 3 might flip if I understood them better.

[10:41] Martin Serrano - DERI: I can't see a big difference between 2 and 3

[10:41] AmandaVizedom: +1 MikeBennett

[10:41] PeterYim: straw votes received: #1 Systems engineering - 3 ... #2 Big systems - 12 ... #3 Big data - 8

[10:41] FabianNeuhaus: @ amanda +1

[10:41] AliHashemi: +1 Amanda

[10:42] Jack Ring: Please do not use complex. Intelligent or autonomous will attract more attention.

[10:42] Martin Serrano - DERI: I support the idea of Open Linked Data (Big Data) however Does Big systems come up as a bridging gap ?

[10:42] AliHashemi: That was my understanding for #2... (Big Data Systems)

[10:43] Jack Ring: Society needs big decisions not just more data

[10:43] SteveRay lowered your hand

[10:43] MatthewWest: Big Systems is supposed to be something more than just software.

[10:43] Martin Serrano - DERI: I understood sam, I hope thatis the common and general agreement :)

[10:43] AliHashemi: +1 to Barry's suggestion.

[10:44] MichaelRiben: I like Barry's Suggestion +1

[10:44] AmandaVizedom: Some of the ambiguity, in either case, will probably turn into tracks addressing the variant interpretations. But that increases the risk of being to big/unfocused.

[10:44] Bo Newman: good

[10:45] Jack Ring: Are you selecting themes for what needs to be said or what youall want to say?

[10:45] AmandaVizedom: Big Data -> Big Information

[10:45] AmandaVizedom: Semantically-enabled Big Data Systems

[10:45] anonymous: Yes, "intelligent" is easily misconstrued.

[10:46] PeterYim: who is "anonymous"?

[10:46] FabianNeuhaus: We are now just juggling words. This is not helping to get a focused topic.

[10:46] MatthewWest: In big systems a major use of ontology is in data quality. That is not particularly "smart".

[10:46] AmandaVizedom: A little bird is telling me that "exascale" is the buzzword for "big" now. :-)

[10:47] AmandaVizedom: Semantically-Enabled Exascale Data Systems --> SEEDS

[10:47] Martin Serrano - DERI: yeah in +1 in that comment

[10:47] ToddSchneider: There are (too) many examples of 'big' systems that failed to be realized (i.e., that were canceled after too much waste and intermediate failures) due to the complexity involved. The use of ontological practices and ontologies may have helped avoid some of these failures.

[10:47] MatthewWest: Just stick with Ontology for Big Systems

[10:47] SteveRay: #1 Ontology for big...systems

[10:48] SteveRay: #2 No, to the above

[10:48] Martin Serrano - DERI: Ontologies more make sense

[10:48] AmandaVizedom: too undefined for me to vote for either.

[10:49] Jack Ring: @Todd, quite so. And what made them complex, therefore not viable, was the use of taxonomies, schema and data modeling.

[10:49] AmandaVizedom: @Peter: sure, but what's in the "..."?

[10:50] PeterYim: straw votes received: #1 Ontology for big...systems - 17 ... #2 No, to the above - 0 (no serious objections)

[10:50] Bo Newman: Good discussion .... need to drop off for another call ... thanks.

[10:50] Jack Ring: Big Responsive Systems

[10:51] PeterYim: bye, Bo

[10:51] Jack Ring: Can we address the point of forthcoming, massively parallel hardware?

[10:51] ToddSchneider: Amanda, how about a simple ontology for the possible tracks discussed today? That would then suggest what should be addressed.

[10:52] SteveRay lowered your hand

[10:52] SteveRay: #1: Ontology for Big Systems; #2 Not that

[10:53] AmandaVizedom: Sounds like a job for Survey Monkey or a Doodle Poll with rapid iterations.

[10:53] anonymous morphed into ChristopherSpottiswoode

[10:53] AliHashemi: Not that == Ontology for Big .... Systems

[10:54] Jack Ring: The Vote button above does that.

[10:54] Jack Ring: There will be a track for each 'dot"

[10:54] PeterYim: straw votes received: #1 Ontology for big systems - 10 ... #2 Ontology for Big ..(something).. Systems - 5 -

[10:55] MikeBennett: Hard to get an idea of what goes in among the dots though.

[10:55] PeterYim: We have a Theme for OntologySummit2012 - "Ontology for Big Systems"

[10:55] Jack Ring: Let the tracks nominate the dots

[10:55] MatthewWest: Please suggest something for the dots if you think we should go that way.

[10:55] AliHashemi: "Ontology for Big Data Systems"

[10:56] AmandaVizedom: Ooh, vote button does multiple or order votes. Could do quick paste of all suggestions and vote.

[10:56] MichaelRiben: Ali +1

[10:56] PeterYim: == Please violunteer: name and facet under the theme that you want to help tackle ==

[10:56] MichaelRiben: didnt mean to have my hand up

[10:56] Jack Ring: Track: Implications of forthcoming massively parallel hardware.

[10:56] PeterYim: ^volunteer

[10:57] MatthewWest: @ali, well that could easily be a thread anyway.

[10:57] AmandaVizedom: I will volunteer for a Quality in Context Track (fitness for purpose, evaluation, metrics and metrics) under whichever theme.

[10:57] AliHashemi: :)

[10:57] AliHashemi: @Steve -- at the end of the last summit, there was a consideration to alongside a Communique, explicitly commit to creating a website for the summit?

[10:58] Jack Ring: @Amanda, are you including the quality of an ontology?

[10:58] KenAllgood: I will volunteer for Ontology in electronic health record/bioinformatics

[10:58] MichaelRiben: idea for track- NoSQL infrastructure and Ontology for Big DAta and Cloud systems

[10:58] MatthewWest: If there is interest in a thread on ontology of big engineering systems, I'm happy to contribute.

[10:58] PatCassidy: I would be willing to champion a track on exploring the use of a common foundation ontooogy as a translation mechanism (interlingua) among multiple databases or multiple systems - large or small. But if there are no others to make a "track" out of this, I can just present a paper with my views.

[10:58] MikeBennett: I'd like to suggest ontology sharing etc. but don't have the bandwidth to head this up.

[10:58] PeterYim: == please suggest track titles and make any other pertinent suggestions ==

[10:59] ToddSchneider: How about 'Ontological Analysis in Systems Engineering'?

[11:00] MatthewWest: @Todd That sounds close to what I was suggesting. Happy to merge.

[11:00] Jack Ring: I was volunteering to organize a track on the hardware implications.

[11:00] Eric Chan: + for aligning dots to tracks, I have Data, Process, Engineered, Multi-displinary,

[11:00] PeterYim: == please suggest: what do we want to see as an outcome of this Summit ... (in particular, what can we say on the Communique)? ==

[11:00] MichaelRiben: tract title: Enhancing Big Data Analytics with Ontologies

[11:00] KenAllgood: I'd recommend "information interoperability across federated data"

[11:01] ToddSchneider: Matthew, sound good to merge.

[11:01] AmandaVizedom: Yes, that's what I mean, thanks for asking. The track I'm suggesting is the theme-focused variant of the topic Joanne and I suggested here:http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions#nid30E4. A better title might be "Ontology Quality in Big System applications" or something like that. Or, "Evaluating Ontologies for Use in Big [X] Systems Applications"

[11:01] Jack Ring: @Peter, I hope the outcome will be an ontology!!

[11:02] ToddSchneider: Jack, Excellent thought, but an ontology of what?

[11:03] KenAllgood: "Ontology-driven user experience in big data"

[11:03] Jack Ring: @Todd, An ontology of benefits of ontology-based systems and decisions.

[11:04] SteveRay lowered your hand

[11:04] AliHashemi: I can volunteer, but I definitely won't be able to do it aloe.

[11:04] AliHashemi: alone*

[11:04] MatthewWest: @Todd and ontology of systems (broad sense) might be a possibility.

[11:04] AmandaVizedom: I'd like to see a track refining "Big Systems," either focusing down or presenting some branches/subtopics.

[11:05] KenAllgood: I could assist Ali in the website

[11:05] ToddSchneider: Jack, Brilliant!

[11:05] Jack Ring: Ralph Hodgson produced an ontology-based user interface for Semantic Technology Conference in 2008 or thereabouts.

[11:05] PeterYim: @JackRing ... good point! -- the "tradition" so far is to have a Communique ... therefore additional outcomes need, first and foremost, leadership and volunteered resources

[11:05] ToddSchneider: Have to go. Cheers.

[11:05] KenAllgood: @Jack.. we could certainly leverage Ralph's work.

[11:06] Jack Ring: FWIW, I am greatly encouraged by all this. Thank you all for your ideas and energy. Gotta go.

[11:06] Tim Darr: I have to go as well ...

[11:07] MikeBennett: I'm also working with the OMG though not as much of an expert as Elisa. Happy to make connections.

[11:07] AmandaVizedom: Track proposal: Use cases / examples? "Use Cases for Ontologies in Big Systems"

[11:08] Jack Ring: @Ken, suggest you contact him at www.topquadrant.com

[11:08] KenAllgood: Peter & Steve.. Thanks for bringing this together.

[11:08] MatthewWest: There is a well known international institute of Systems Engineering INCOSE

[11:09] PeterYim: I am in favor of adding "a website" or "an ontology" as the deliverable ... please step up to the plate - we need leadership and volunteers!

[11:09] KenAllgood: @Jack.. Already on it. Might also catch him at the next DC Semantic meetup

[11:09] PeterYim: @Matthew or anyone - can you help engage INCOSE?

[11:09] AmandaVizedom: For that use cases suggestion, I'd imagine that as a track under which we bring in some folks in various domains and/or projects to describe particular cases where ontologies are being brought in to support big systems.

[11:10] AliHashemi: Thanks all.

[11:10] PeterYim: great session ... thanks everyone!

[11:10] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:10am PST --

[11:10] AmandaVizedom: Thanks, Peter and Steve!

[11:11] SteveRay: I could approach some of the NIST folks for an INCOSE connection - no guarantees.

[11:11] SteveRay: Take care all, and happy holidays.

-----------------