ppy/chat-transcript_unedited_20120329a.txt -------- Chat transcript from room: summit_20120329 2012-03-29 GMT-08:00 -------- [09:29] PeterYim: Welcome to the = OntologySummit2012: Session-12 - Thu 2012-03-29 = Summit Theme: OntologySummit2012: "Ontology for Big Systems" Session Topic: Organizing the 'Big' Communique OntologySummit2012_Communique co-Lead Editors & Session co-Chairs: Dr. ToddSchneider & Mr. AliHashemi Panelists - Track Champions and Co-editors of the Communique: * Track-1&2: Ontology for Big Systems and Systems Engineering - MatthewWest & HensonGraves * Track-3: Challenge: Ontology and Big Data - ErnieLucier & MaryBrady * Track-4: Large-Scale Domain Applications - SteveRay & TrishWhetzel * Cross-Track-A1: Ontology Quality and Large-Scale Systems - AmandaVizedom & MikeBennett * Cross-Track-A2: Ontology for Federation and Integration of Systems - CoryCasanave & AnatolyLevenchuk * OntologySummit2012_Symposium Co-chairs: RamSriram and MichaelGruninger (3892) * OntologySummit2012 General Co-chairs: LeoObrst and NicolaGuarino Session page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_03_29 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: == . [09:25] anonymous morphed into ElizabethFlorescu [09:29] anonymous morphed into ErnieLucier [09:31] ToddSchneider: Good afternoon/morning everyone. [09:31] ToddSchneider: Will be with you shortly. [09:31] anonymous morphed into TomTinsley [09:32] MikeBennett: I have to jump off just before 2 Eastern / 11 Pacific. [09:35] anonymous morphed into DougFoxvog [09:42] MatthewWest: I've had my head down in our own track, so do not have a broad view of this summit. [09:43] MikeBennett: One possible theme is the different applications of ontologies, as a technical artifact in its own right, and as a means to capture common semantics across some large engineering system. I don't know if that fits with what you are looking for here though. [09:44] AliHashemi: SteveRay points out that many systems: software, enterprises are based around "Model Driven Systems" [09:44] MatthewWest: Model driven is closely associated with semantics of course. [09:46] NicolaGuarino: Modelling is much more general than ontological modelling [09:47] MikeBennett: @Nicola agreed. And ontology has broader applications than model driven engineering (indeed, the latter has been a minority case in the SemWeb world but has been shown to be important in the big systems context) [09:47] TerryLongstreth: Lemma: Ontological methods can be applied to engineering models to improve depth and breadth of modeling semantics [09:48] BobbinTeegarden: @Steve Are you implying, perhaps, that the (ontology)Model IS the System (as in MDA)? [09:48] NicolaGuarino: @Mike agreed [09:48] SteveRay: @Bobbin: Yes I am. [09:49] HensonGraves: agree that we are in a model driven age. Also our modeling language are not as good as we need. Ontology is the value proposition to make the models work. [09:49] SteveRay: I suppose my point is that ontological modeling is a better, more rigorous way of modeling in general. [09:49] TerryLongstreth: @Henson: +1 [09:50] MatthewWest: Engineering models are more often mathematical than logical, but there are none the less ontological elements. [09:50] NicolaGuarino: @Terry: I agree very much. Ontological analysis and actual engineered ontologies just complement (in a very useful way) model driven engineering (for instance model driven engineering based on systems of differential equations) [09:50] MatthewWest: @Steve: does that mean you propose replacing mathematics with logic? [09:51] Jim Kirby: Where are the slides? [09:52] MikeBennett: @Jim on the hopper http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/ [09:52] AnatolyLevenchuk: We may at least tell that ontology is about meta-modeling part of modeling. There are many levels of meta-models and models, therefore we have difficulties in differentiating ontologizing and modeling (and programming too). Model transformations, complilation and mapping is about the same activity. [09:52] SteveRay: @Matthew: Not really. Logic is just a part of mathematics, right? Where it makes sense, use logic. Where a differential equation makes sense, by all means use that. [09:53] anonymous morphed into MaryBrady [09:53] Rex Brooks: While I haven't come to any overarching conclusion, I am now using UML Modeling in Enterprise Architect and Owl Ontology/Ontologies in Protege, and they are quite useful when working back and forth from one to the other for specific classes, terms, systems-programs, etc. Of course having a coordinated set of ontologies and models as the end products is very handy as resources and references for getting specific kinds of information about these things as needed. [09:54] ErnieLucier: @ Jim if youi do not have access to hopper http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/OntologySummit2012_Communique/2012-03-29_draft-review/OntologySummit2012_communique-drafting-I--ToddSchneider-AliHashemi_20120329.pdf [09:54] Rex Brooks: I haven't gotten to the point where using these with inferencing engines or open data sources with SPARQL but I expect that to become even more useful. [09:54] Jim Kirby: @Ernie Thanks! [09:54] MatthewWest: @Steve: Yes, but most people see ontology as being limited to expression in logic, and not to include broader mathematical models. [09:57] MikeBennett: @Rex have you considered using the Ontology Definition Metamodel so as to have your ontologies and logical UML models in the same tool? Mail me off list if you need to know details. [09:57] SteveRay: @Matthew: Fair enough. For inherently numerical problems, I would agree that mathematics as traditionally understood is best (such as a control system for example). But for symbolic problems, ontology models are best. [09:59] AliHashemi: ErnieLucier suggests that the distinction between Current Problems and Uses is unclear. [09:59] SteveRay: @Matthew: So, both are models, and in fact I would submit that an ontological model provides the contextual framework in which a mathematical model operates. [09:59] AliHashemi: NicolaGuarino suggests that section headings convey more meaning. [09:59] AliHashemi: should* [09:59] MatthewWest: @Steve: Agreed. [10:00] ErnieLucier: I have to leave now. [10:01] BobbinTeegarden: @Rex Enterprise Architect is just coming out with an OWL Plugin, very formative stage; and Elisa Kendall's VOM Plugin is more mature (and does follow ODM, ref by Bennett). [10:01] MaryBrady: @Ernie: I can stay for just a bit longer...about 1:15 [10:02] BobbinTeegarden: @Rex VOM Plugin is in MagicDraw, just fyi. [10:02] MikeBennett: @Bobbin agreed. Also lets one generate OWL for use in Protege tools. [10:04] anonymous morphed into GiancarloGuizzardi [10:05] Rex Brooks: @Bobbin-Mary-Matthew: Thanks very much. Wish I could afford MagicDraw, but I'm glad to hear that there is a plugin on the way for EA. However, I will probably continue to use them as springboards back and forth, creating a kind of synergy I haven't had before. [10:06] PeterYim: +1 on what MatthewWest is suggesting - the lead editors should make their calls and come up with a first draft based on the champions inputs [10:06] AliHashemi: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OG_iNRROkfh2T76Ri0SrNzwLwVKGKo4kQOWwBKxHjy8/edit [10:07] AliHashemi: Please note - anyone with this link can edit the document. Please do not distribute. [10:08] PeterYim: @Henson, @Matthew - your figures are in - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012_BigSystemsEngineering_Synthesis [10:10] TrishWhetzel: Regrets, I need to leave the call now. [10:11] NicolaGuarino: Ontological analysis as enabler of good modeling. I endorse this very much. Very crisp statement. [10:11] Rex Brooks: @Mike: I had your email on another machine that failed recently. I would like to contact you about the ODM. I was aware of it, but not this capability. My email is rexb[at]starbourne.com [10:11] NicolaGuarino: (who said that?) [10:12] MaryBrady1: Regrets...I too have to leave. [10:16] GiancarloGuizzardi: @Nicola: Fully agree. [10:19] MikeBennett: Cross Track X1 (Ontology Quality), the Google Doc seems to incorporate our community input page and not our track champions' synthesis page. [10:19] CoryCasanave: I don't think we should make "ontological analysis" and "good modeling" different, they such analysis is the emerging best practice of good modeling [10:19] SteveRay: +1 on Nicola's statement [10:20] SteveRay: @Cory, could you repeat? I can't parse your sentence. [10:23] CoryCasanave: sorry, bad typing! [10:23] CoryCasanave: We should not differentiate modeling and ontological analysis, ontological analysis should be positioned as part of modeling and one that is emerging as best practice. The precise modeling encompassing ontological analysis is a key enabler to the model driven approach Steve identified. [10:23] PeterYim: I just want to emphasize that some statements (or recommendations) made (say, by panelists or even in the syntheses) are context sensitive. If we don't have the luxury (say, limited by document length constraints) in the synthesis write-ups and/or the communique to provide those context, we should avoid citing them out of context. [10:32] HensonGraves: @amanda, there are well developed methods for validating models, e.g., but test. Presumably these methods could be used to test ontologies. also you could build on Nicola's notion of ontology correctness [10:33] BobbinTeegarden: Something about quality and requirements sometimes missed: if the goal is to tune the current system, quality/requirements are important; but if the goal is to use modeling to do 'possibility' thinking, integrate newness, or get out of the box and design a future system or enhancement, it's more a creative sketching activity and 'quality' is more of an inhibitor, requirements are highly conceptual... Is this worth saying? [10:36] AmandaVizedom: @henson, yes, and there are even techniques for unit testing, and various researchers have been developing more quantitative measures of other ontology characteristics that may or may not be applicable to particular cases... and there are many techniques for in-use testing and domain expert validation that are not well documented. That's one step; finding more ways to streamline and/or automate is another. [10:37] HensonGraves: @anatoly, I agree with you [10:38] CoryCasanave: don't know why myh call dropped! [10:38] SteveRay: Agree with Nicola. Metamodelling would refer to M2. Modeling would be M1. [10:39] MikeBennett: Nicola is making a very point here: metamodels and ontologies are not in any way the same thing. [10:39] DougFoxvog: @Amanda: Could you provide a link to methods/tools for validating ontology quality that you were referring to? Are you referring to tools such as OntolClean? [10:39] SteveRay: Nicola is not talking about presentation versus representation. [10:39] HensonGraves: @nicolo, the conceptualizations and patterns can be represented within metamodel. the model of a system is an instance of the metamodel of a system as a pattern [10:40] AmandaVizedom: @Bobbin- Conceptual requirements are still requirements! But more generally, I'd say that this is part of the way that requirements vary with usage. And as a reminder, by "quality" here we are limiting ourselves to the engineering sense: the quality of something is the degree to which it meets requirements. So, if some characteristic (computational properties, reusability, consistency with X,....) isn't a requirement of the usage, it shoudn't be part of the quality measurement for this usage. What we need is better, explicit, and well-grounded understanding of what requirements go with what usages! [10:41] AliHashemi: @Doug - this probably isn't the same as what Amanda suggests, but this is also relevant: http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3602 [10:41] KathyEllis1 morphed into KathyEllis [10:41] HensonGraves: @steve, an auto is M0, the model is M1, and the metamodel for autos can be at M2 [10:41] MatthewWest: Ontology is useful at each (meta) level, and in distinguishing between the levels. [10:41] NicolaGuarino: At every modeling level there is a corresponding (often implicit) ontology. Ontology does not just belong to the meta level [10:42] SteveRay: @Henson: Agreed [10:42] AliHashemi: +1 to Nicola's point [10:43] SteveRay: @Nicola: Also agreed. I don't think ontology is better suited for one metal level or another. It is orthogonal to the metal level. It's just a better way to model. [10:43] AmandaVizedom: @Doug, I was mostly talking about the need to document approaches to evualation, so naturally I cannot provide links. But the reference library has a good start for discovery of some of what is documented. [10:44] MatthewWest: @Ali and Todd: Please do not do that. We have provided input that was roughly in the order of the outline, just take it offline. [10:44] CoryCasanave: @Stave +1 [10:45] CoryCasanave: Ok, still can't type todat - @Steve +1 - semantic modeling at all levels!! [10:47] MatthewWest: It looks like you already have out stuff in there. [10:48] PeterYim: +1 on Steve's remark about clarifying "Current State" as being "Current state of the practice" vs. "state of the art" [10:50] SteveRay: Absolutely agree with what Henson is saying [10:51] PeterYim: @Henson - well said - can you document that on the chat, please [10:51] AliHashemi: Shift towards explicit semantics from informal modeling to modeling in formal languages to underpin modeling languages w/ explicit semantics to understand the underlying ontology of the elements of the languages [10:52] SteveRay: Eh? [10:52] AliHashemi: ? [10:52] SteveRay: Well defined semantics without knowing what the context is? [10:53] NicolaGuarino: ... and there is also a shift from just using *ontologies* (as useful engineering artefacts) toward using *ontological analysis* (as a methodology which helps understanding and disentangling the complexity of big systems) [10:53] MatthewWest: @Nicola: +1 [10:54] GiancarloGuizzardi: @HensonGraves: Yes. I agree with that point. Formal characterization should reflect ontological distinctions. Formal semantics cannot guarantee quality per se. Logics (or any piece of mathematics for that matter) does not care what we do with it and, thus, cannot itself fully constrain the possible interpretations of a model (and a metamodel) to the intended ones [10:55] GiancarloGuizzardi: @Nicola: Fully agree with that. [10:55] AnatolyLevenchuk: @Nicola not ontological analysis but ontology engineering (like requirement engineering and systems architecture engineering along with requirement analisys ect. as small part of engineering thing) [10:55] PeterYim: "inferencing" helps make sense of "big data" [10:56] PeterYim: ontological engineering helps augment humans in dealing with "big data" by off-loading a lot of the work to machines [10:57] MikeBennett: Apologies, I have to drop off now. [10:57] TerryLongstreth: Ontological analysis requires a canonical methodology, which may equate to ontological engineering, but I think should be broader [10:58] MatthewWest: @Peter: Yes, seeing how ontology can help to automate mundane but necessary activity. [10:59] CoryCasanave: How wide or narrow do we consider "inferencing", production of derivitive information from models is done a lot, inference is more identified with FOL [10:59] AnatolyLevenchuk: @peter better ontology engineering (not ontological). We then have ontology as explicit engineering artifact with life cycle, practices (like analysis, management etc.). [11:01] NicolaGuarino: Thank for you efforts, Todd & Ali! [11:03] anonymous morphed into NikolayBorgest [11:04] AliHashemi: https://www.zotero.org/groups/ontologysummit2012/items/collectionKey/I4QX3RT7 [11:06] AmandaVizedom: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012_RecommendedReading [11:06] PeterYim: @Cory - not necessarily, even simple inferences (say, applying modus ponens) can prove to be useful [11:07] CoryCasanave: @Peter - I agree but that may not be the interpretation of readers [11:11] PeterYim: @Cory - guess we (the lead editors) will just have to word it properly to make sure that we are looking at a spectrum of possibilities [11:14] CoryCasanave: @Peter - good, but not easy! [11:16] GiancarloGuizzardi: Folks. I have to drop off now. thanks for all the effort. bye [11:16] PeterYim: Bye, Giancarlo ... thanks for joining us today! [11:17] NicolaGuarino: I have to go as well. Bye bye folks, good session! [11:24] PeterYim: great session ... lots discussed and done! [11:24] PeterYim: Ali: will be publishing a draft of the communique the day before our session next Thursday [11:24] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:23am PDT -- --------