ppy/OntologySummit2013_Symposium_chat-transcript_unedited_20130502b.txt ------ Chat transcript from room: summit_20130502 2013-05-02 GMT-08:00 [PDT] ------ [05:54] anonymous morphed into Sylvia Spengler [05:56] Symposium: Welcome everyone. [06:03] PeterYim: Welcome to the = OntologySummit2013 Symposium (Day-1) 2-May-2013 = Session detials: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Symposium Dial-in details: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013/WorkshopRegistration#nid3P38 Agenda: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Symposium#nid3P64 . == Proceedings: == . [06:09] Sylvia Spengler: can people hear on the phone? [06:09] TillMossakowski: not very well [06:10] Symposium: I will go check with the A/V folks. [06:11] TillMossakowski: I have to put my local volume at maximum, and then I still the outcome is so low-volume that it is hard to understand everything. [06:11] Sylvia Spengler: I thought it was my phone but nothing works. [06:12] anonymous morphed into dougFoxvog [06:13] PeterYim: more slides uploaded ... please refresh your agenda page to see their active links [06:15] Symposium: OK, sound should be good now. Is it OK? [06:16] Symposium: Also, could the call-in folks please mute your phones when you aren't speaking? We had some microphone rustling sounds earlier. [06:16] TillMossakowski: yes, better now [06:17] Sylvia Spengler: much better now [06:19] TillMossakowski: currently, I cannot understand a word... [06:20] TillMossakowski: better again [06:20] Symposium: OK, let us know if there are problems during the day. [06:25] anonymous morphed into FrankOlken [06:25] FrankOlken: Sylvia, Can you hear now?? [06:26] Sylvia Spengler: yes, but some speak much more quietly.... [06:27] anonymous morphed into Chuck Ward [06:27] TillMossakowski: is there a vnc screen, or do we have to download each slide set individually? [06:27] FrankOlken: Peter Yim & George Strawn announced that next year's Ontology Summit will be held at NSF/NITRD near Ballston Metro station in Arlington, VA. [06:29] PeterYim: ^"Ontology Summit Symposium" (instead of "Ontology Summit") [06:30] PeterYim: next year's Ontology Summit Symposium will be hosted by NCO/NITRD ... [06:30] Symposium: Regarding VNC, yes, it is the same VNC as our normal Thursday calls. [06:31] anonymous morphed into ElizabethFlorescu [06:40] anonymous morphed into JimJacobs [06:44] Sylvia Spengler: can the speaker please speak up? [06:50] Symposium: Is that better? They turned up the gain on his mic. [06:51] Symposium: Question on the ralationship with DARPA's manufacturing program [06:52] dougFoxvog: Remote users should turn off their microphones. We're getting some clicks and noises over the loudspeakers at NIST. [07:07] TerryLongstreth: Q: J. Warren - did the conference/MGI itself deal with Intellectual property, patents and copyright ? [07:08] Sylvia Spengler: Can presenters please repeat the questions!! [07:09] dougFoxvog: The question was what Terry put on the chat. [07:09] Symposium: This last question was Terry's question above [07:09] Symposium: Terry is raising the issue that, for example, seismic data is hard to get from oil companies? [07:10] BobSchloss: There is a multi-national initiative starting, called the Research Data Alliance, http://rd-alliance.org that is in the organizing stage. Some of the technical conventions about metadata etc they are addressing would also be relevant to MGI. Also, the World Wide Web consortium is planning to increase their work on representations of web-accessible data collections (I was at their "Open Data" meeting in London last week), and could help on some of this work. [07:27] PeterYim: == AldenDima giving a brief on CALPHAD, a project in the Material Genome area where ontologies are coming into play [07:27] PeterYim: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Symposium#nid3RSZ ... slides will be uploaded later [07:36] anonymous morphed into Marc Halpern [07:40] Symposium: Break until 11am Eastern time. [07:44] PeterYim: Slides from AldenDima is now online ... please refresh the agenda page (url above) to see it. His last slide will lead up to the panel that follows after the break [08:09] PeterYim: == session resuming - Panel - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Symposium#nid3Q0N [08:28] anonymous morphed into TorstenHahmann [08:31] anonymous morphed into MatthewKaufman [08:41] Symposium: Track A session about to begin. [08:45] dougFoxvog: The panel discussion brought up the question as to what the requirements are for an ontology being developed. Often it turns out that ontology development is part of requirements analysis or modeling. So one requirement for developing the ontology is to develop a subset of the requirements for the system and to develop a model of an area. [08:51] Symposium: Remote participants please mute your microphones. Lots of rustling sounds. Thanks [08:52] dougFoxvog: Leo discusses OntoClean methodology. OntoClean says a role, e.g., Employee, should not be a subclass of Person because the role is dynamic, but Person is static. This is valid in a 4D theory, but in a 3D+1 system, is not a necessary restriction. This suggests that at least some of the rules should depend upon the broader model, e.g., 4D vs. 3D+1 the ontology is based on. [08:53] MikeBennett: @Doug interesting point. In FIBO we use the "Relative Thing" partition which has a similar effect - so it's not only a 4D thing - but it reinforces your opintthat some of these considerations are to do with the theories in the upper ontology partitions,. [08:54] anonymous morphed into mpavel [08:54] anonymous morphed into Fouad Ramia [08:54] anonymous1 morphed into AdrianBaranyuk [08:55] JimJacobs: What evaluation methods speak to the strength of the property or relation side of an ontology (as opposed to class taxonomy issues)? The relative "flatness or bushy-ness" of the property set greatly affects reasoning power. [08:56] MikeBennett: @Jim the OQuaRE toolset has measures for that and similar things. [08:58] AstridDuqueRamos: @Jim. In OQuaRE, the subcharacteristic "Formal relations support". and the metric RROnto is related with that. [09:00] SteveRay: Regarding question #2, one piece of evidence leading toward a larger ROI is if you answer "yes" to question 1. In that case, the "I" (investment) part of ROI is small, thus the chances of the ROI will be large increases. [09:00] dougFoxvog: @Mike: This brings up the point that "upper-level" decisions are not always necessary to be made in an ontology. One could identify from an ontology whether the ontology intrinsically includes such a decision -- in which case it should be identified, perhaps by #including an "upper-level" ontology with that model. It might be useful to create an agnostic relation that would map to different relations in (in this case) 4D and 3D+1 ontologies. [09:00] TerryLongstreth: IMO flatness or bushyness affects the utility of the ontology, in much the same way as abstraction does. If the ontology detail is elided, then it's utility is equivalently reduced. If the requirement exists for the greater utility, then the ontology fails. [09:02] MikeBennett: @Doug yes, it occurs to me that there is a connection between upper ontology use, and semantic conformance criteria. Some folks have suggested that we should not use the Independent / Relative / Mediating partitions because it's easy for modelers to get it wrong. Conversely, something which is easy for a modeler to get wrong, is one where you have a means to test when the meaning has been consistently understood and applied. [09:02] dougFoxvog: FWIW, the question numbers that are referred to above are to Leo's questions on his Slide 5. [09:03] Sylvia Spengler: thanks...hard to tell on some things.... [09:04] JimJacobs: With respect to Q3, there seems to be a distinction between intrinsic quality and utility for any particular purpose. In both cases it seems critical to have meta information regarding the intended context for use. I believe specificity of context to the "next big thing" in this area. [09:05] Sylvia Spengler: Very nice point. [09:07] dougFoxvog: @Jim: I suggest that the intended context of an ontology should be reified. I.e., statements in the ontology language should be made providing information about the intended context. Thus a knowledge base about the ontology! [09:09] dougFoxvog: We could create standards for what sort and breadth of statements should be included for best practice ontologizing. [09:11] MikeBennett: Indeed. Then extending that, whether the ontology merits the use of upper ontology partitions (e.g. reference ontology Yes, application ontology No), and then quality measures follow from the due application of these. [09:12] Symposium: Beginning Track B [09:12] BobSchloss: I would like to see any ideas about evaluation of ontologies that takes place over time -- watches the dynamics of requests for modifications, and whether those modifications are the kind the require more-expensive changes to producing or consuming software or information repositories (databases). [09:17] MatthewKaufman: It sounds to me like Operational Aspects are Merging Much with Development Aspects in many domains; such as Ontology Versus Real-Life Use as in: Dev-Ops is Merging with Software Pragmatics/Development -- http://itrevolution.com/the-convergence-of-devops/ [09:18] MatthewKaufman: Software Engineering + Dev-Ops = Future (Now; i.e., the Cloud)? It is merging. [09:28] MatthewKaufman: Requirements for Ontology: 1) Business Requirements (Opportunity Discovery, Due Dilligence, or Regulatory/Compliance Checks) -- 2) Regulatory / Legal: Sarbanes Oxeley is a wonderful example of how operational can fit in to the abstracted design of the ontology -- 3) The last phase IMO: Is the User Scenerio / Use Cases of the software itself that the ontology is created for [09:30] JimJacobs: @Todd wrt "intended interpretation" almost suggests a requirement for a "SKOS-type" descriptive document to go along with the actual detailed ontology ("OWL-level"). Having a recommended set of metadata descriptions to go with ontologies intended for re-use ... this would be a valuable thing. [09:30] AmandaVizedom: RE Regression Testing for ontologies - this does exist in some places, but needs to be adopted much more broadly. RE: current practices: see 3/7 presentation by MariaCopeland, 2/14 by GavinMatthews. [09:31] SteveRay: I don't see why much of what comprises requirements engineering cannot also apply to ontology development (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requirements_engineering) [09:32] MatthewKaufman: @JimJacobs: "Having a recommended set of metadata descriptions to go with ontologies intended for re-use" ---- I was just going to say this: ***I BELIEVE BEFORE THE REQUIREMENTS; IT IS REQUIRED AND ESSENTIAL TO FIRST GATHER AND DEFINE AND *KNOW* WHAT THE "DEFINITIONS" ARE OF YOUR DOMAIN*** [09:32] MatthewKaufman: http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/soa2002.pdf [09:32] MatthewKaufman: Sec. 2. Definitions. Sec. 3. Commission rules and enforcement [09:33] MatthewKaufman: I.e., the Ontology is built on: "Commission rules and enforcement"; but first Definitions are required to know the domains and scopes?. [09:34] MatthewKaufman: (c) DEFINITIONS.In this section (1) the term securities analyst means any associated person of a registered broker or dealer that is principally responsible for, and any associated person who reports directly or indirectly to a securities analyst in connection with, the preparation of the substance of a research report, whether or not any such person has the job title of securities analyst; and (2) the term research report means a written or electronic communication that includes an analysis of equity securities of individual (..) [09:35] SteveRay: @MatthewKaufman: Would you agree that one of the main uses of ontology is to provide the definitions? [09:37] SteveRay: @MatthewKaufman: It is looking like you are getting circular: You want definitions before composing the requirements for an ontology, whose purpose is to provide the definitions. [09:38] AmandaVizedom: @MatthewKaufman - many of us view that as and essential part of the requirements development process, not something which is separate and before it. [09:38] MatthewKaufman: @AmandaVizedom: Okay, point taken. Correct. I'd agree and encourage that. [09:40] MatthewKaufman: @SteveRay: I see what you are saying; but I think the definitions are in the "context" itself; i.e., I see an ontology in being a "LINKER" between 2 "Definitions" or "sources" or "frames". I see an ontology as providing the *links* and or relational connections between 1 or sources and or concepts/entities/things. [09:41] JimJacobs: This reminds me of why some folks have suggested that in system architecture frameworks like DODAF or MODAF an "AV-2" document should be quite ontological in its list of defining terms for system designers and developers to use during system development. [09:42] MatthewKaufman: I am not familiar with DODAF or MODAF. AV-2 sounds familiar; but still unknown. I think GNUStep is the closest thing I have seen to an ontological type concept in systems. [10:19] AliHashemi: are people breaking atm? [10:35] AstridDuqueRamos: are the conference started?. [10:40] Sylvia Spengler: 2pm is what I have on my agenda copy [10:45] AstridDuqueRamos: Thanks. [10:52] anonymous morphed into CarmenChui [10:55] AmandaVizedom: People are re-gathering. We should be starting shortly. [11:01] anonymous morphed into Barry Smith [11:05] MikeBennett: We are standing in little clumps chatting, but nearly everyone is here. [11:06] anonymous1 morphed into Symposium [11:07] anonymous morphed into LAPritchard [11:07] Symposium: ... almost ready [11:07] TerryLongstreth: @MKaufmann: For an overview of MODAF workproducts see https://www.gov.uk/mod-architecture-framework#viewpoints-and-views [11:09] TerryLongstreth: sorry - Kaufman [11:10] Symposium: We are now on slide 3 [11:11] Symposium: David Newman giving the keynote-2 [11:15] Symposium: We can hear keyboard activity. Please try to mute when not speaking. [11:21] Gary Berg-Cross: DODAFia a DoD Architectural Framework...and Enterprise Architecure. [11:22] anonymous morphed into ChristianHempelmann [11:28] anonymous morphed into BenBovee [11:31] List of members: AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom, AstridDuqueRamos, Barry Smith, BenBovee, BobbinTeegarden, BobSchloss, CarmenChui, ChristianHempelmann, dougFoxvog, Fouad Ramia, Gary Berg-Cross, JimJacobs, LAPritchard, MatthewKaufman, MatthewWest, MikeBennett, MikeDean, mpavel, mpavel1, mpavel2, PeterYim, SimonSpero, SteveRay, Sylvia Spengler, Symposium, TerryLongstreth, TorstenHahmann, vnc2 [11:32] PeterYim: vnc service is back [11:32] LAPritchard: slides are not being advanced [11:33] LAPritchard: thank you [11:39] MatthewKaufman1: Thanks Terry [11:40] TerryLongstreth: ;}) [11:47] Gary Berg-Cross: How would you describe the method by which you arrive at community agreed upon standard definitions of business terms? And what were the challenges along the way? [11:47] anonymous morphed into PavithraKenjige [11:48] dougFoxvog: Mention of use of other standards. Are there mappings to EDI terms? ... either X12, EDIFACT, SWIFT, ...? [11:56] anonymous morphed into Gary Gannon [12:02] MikeBennett: @Gary for the most part, we took definitions in the corresponding data standards e.g. ISO20022, adapted so they describe the thing rather than the data about the thing, and then present this for review and validation. The main challenge is that people prefer to tell you about new terms than to formally validate the existing ones. [12:04] MikeBennett: @Doug in the FIBO "Foundations" specification we have defined abstractions which are necessarily outside of the financial industry, and tried to find standard ontologies which cover the same ground (only a few so far). For the industry content, most terms originate as a reverse engineering of logical (ISO 20022) or physical (e.g.FpML) model standard, refactored to describe the actual thing. We hope to map to more standard ontologies in the future as these emerge. [12:04] anonymous morphed into FabianNeuhaus [12:06] MikeBennett: For example when we model loans, we want to align with the MISMO standard for loans, but that only deals with phyical and logical data model components, so with their blessing we aim to create the corresponding ontology - but where MISMO deals with terms about real estate, we would expect to use formal ontologies developed in abnf by the real estate community of practice. [12:08] MikeBennett: For definitions, if there isn't a pre-existing industry data model standard, we tend to use a wikipedia or Investopedia definition, as long as the subject matter experts agree on the use of a given definition and source. [12:10] Gary Berg-Cross: @Mike B did you run into situations where there was a conflict of ontology quality, say a real taxonomy, vs. domain definitions that seemed to want it another way? Did you ever have to resolve conflicts between 2 or more conflicting taxonomies from the various domains? [12:12] dougFoxvog: @Mike: SWIFT has been sending financial messages with formally defined terms for over 40 years. X12 & EDIFACT have had such messages since the 1980s. These messages have transferred 10s (100s? more?) of trillions of US dollars over the years. They are certainly used in the financial industry [12:14] Gary Gannon: yes I am speaking [12:14] MikeBennett: Not as such, but we have had to work out what treatments to take on external ontologies e.g. when to use a snapshot or when to referto the ontology direct. Quality, andknowledge of maintenance of other ontologies, is quite variable. In reality, we have only so far make such reference to a small number of ontologies, and this sort of material is outside the scope of the OMG submission, which is retricted to what is our own, stable set of terms and definitions. So this is an aspect of the ontology that we can expect to develop furthrr as time goes on. [12:14] Sylvia Spengler: you seem muted, Gary [12:14] AliHashemi: Gary you're likely still muted. [12:14] AliHashemi: Try *7 [12:15] MikeBennett: @Doug indeed. We made refernce to the ISO 20022 FIBIM model component (the remaining aspects of SWIFT are more in the transaction space, which we haven't modeled yet. At the end of May, SWIFT (in their capacitty as RA of ISO 20022) are releasing a new interface and more semantic terms for their material - worth a look. [12:15] AliHashemi: @Mike, any work towards using controlled english for the natural language definitions? [12:16] SimonSpero: Ali: there was a quick look at ACE in the hackathon [12:17] MikeBennett: Not at this point, but we are considering in a future iteration, having a layer of SBVR terminology, which is a sort of CNL. I'd like to look at more formal use of something like ACE as well. THis wouild be a different set of definitions to the industry ones, which are deliberately intended to be the ones which business folks themselves are comfortable with. [12:19] AliHashemi: Do you think there'll always be a divide b/w these languages? (in this context at least [12:19] AliHashemi: )// always --> for a long time* [12:20] SimonSpero: Engineers, physicists, architects, and mathematicians demonstrate that all odd numbers greater than 1 are prime: [12:20] Symposium: All remote attendees: The audio bridge only lasts for 4 hours, so please hang up your audio connection and dial back in at 3:30pm Eastern. Thanks! [12:20] SimonSpero: Mathematician: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, and 7 is prime. By induction, all the odd integers are prime. [12:20] SimonSpero: Physicist: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is experimental error, 11 is prime, 13 is prime, 15 is experimental error, 17 is prime, 19 is prime. The empirical evidence is overwhelming [12:21] SimonSpero: Engineer: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is a good approximation, 11 is prime [12:21] SimonSpero: Architect: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, the engineers will figure out how to make 9 prime, 11 is prime, ... [12:29] BobbinTeegarden: Thank you, Simon. ;0) [12:31] AliHashemi: if people are speaking, the audio is not working properly [12:33] AliHashemi: wait, [12:33] Symposium: people ... please re-dial into the conf call again, the bridge is up now [12:33] AliHashemi: I could only hear Steve. If others are speaking, still only faint audio. [12:34] AliHashemi: (ah nm) [12:36] AliHashemi: no it's fine! [12:37] BruceBray: thats better [12:38] Symposium: == Track-C report starting, Mike Bennet presenting [12:41] Private1367523732733632224|AliHashemi [12:46] Gary Berg-Cross: @ Mike B Concepts can, and should, also be grounded in data. So if we are talking about a contract, what data do we have on a contract. [12:51] SimonSpero: Gary Berg-Cross: see http://www.iva.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/literary_warrant.htm [12:51] Gary Berg-Cross: @MikeB @DavidN another part of development would be the in the integrating of ontology modules/ODPs from the Base as mentioned earlier. [12:54] Gary Berg-Cross: @Sinon This provides great intensive defs, but less of the type of instance data that I was thinking of... [12:55] SimonSpero: Scientific Warrant is close [12:55] PeterYim: == Matthew: why have an ontology development methodology? [12:56] dougFoxvog: Why have an ontology development methodology? To ensure that the ontology is consistent with itself, included ontologies, and to ensure the lack of large gaps. [12:56] Symposium: Easier to teach people to develop ontologies [12:56] PeterYim: to develop a repeatable pattern [12:56] ChristianHempelmann: If you don't know on what basis you're making choices, you can't correct them in an informed manner. [12:56] BobbinTeegarden: Reuseability [12:57] JimJacobs: Answer to Q1: "You need an ontology development methodology to "raise the quality floor" of ontology work yielding a well-framed artifact." [12:57] TerryLongstreth: re: MWest question 1 - requires first answering the question 'Why have an ontology', the answer to that will guide the selection of (a) methodogly [12:57] BobSchloss: Why have an ontology development methodology? - To not miss anything critical and have visibility of where you are toward "Completion - Ready for Use" (so the methodology implies a repeatable process in my mind) [12:57] PeterYim: making out current implicit methodology explicit, and therefore repeatable and reusable [12:57] Symposium: Makes collaboration between people much easier to develop the ontology [12:58] SimonSpero: If you don't know have a methodology, you have no idea what you're going to do, or if you've done it [12:58] SteveRay: For consistency in quality and design [12:58] JimJacobs: 2nd answer to Q1: to embody and clarify development assumptions. [12:58] AliHashemi: Q1 Answer: A development methodology is instrumental in providing insight into whether the resulting ontology is appropriate, and how to best manage the ontology as a resource / asset. Helps make ontologies more measurable, comparable and understandable. [12:58] Symposium: Provides a framework for completeness and learning [12:58] PeterYim: ^PeterYim and Symposium (SteveRay) capturing the responses at the venue [12:58] AmandaVizedom: Sometimes to make onto dev effective quality-wise. Sometimes to make team dev possible. [12:59] Symposium: ==What should an ontology methodology cover? [12:59] Gary Berg-Cross: To help diverse people produce ontologies with similar, good qualities...Ontologies become more reproducible. [12:59] JimJacobs: Q2: The frame of analysis, the epistemology used, the intended purpose. [13:00] TorstenHahmann: second question: it should include milestones and activities [13:00] Symposium: ==What should an ontology methodology cover? ==What should an ontology development methodology cover? [13:00] SimonSpero: What should methodology cover: do you need an ontology, [13:00] Gary Berg-Cross: A dev method would cover the class of tools and standards that should help. [13:00] AliHashemi: Q2 Answer - Should offer a set of optional (but normative) best practices, aggregating the collective wisdom of practitioners and lessons learned. Suggestions for different methodologies depending on the intended usage. [13:00] Sylvia Spengler: How about giving the online folks a chance to sound off? This feels like sheep and goats.. [13:01] TorstenHahmann: should offer criteria to track the progress of the development [13:01] dougFoxvog: An ontology development methodology should cover a technique for covering a topic, what kinds of assertions are required for each class, individual, and relation defined in the ontology, including documentation. It should include (how to select) which higher ontologies to include. [13:01] Gary Berg-Cross: Dev Method should include how phases of work are related. [13:01] AmandaVizedom: Methodology should cover & guide development-time decisions, including how to choose between logically equivalent solutions to a modeling problem (for consistency & collaboration) [13:01] AliHashemi: Q2A addendum - ability to gauge and measure the ontology as it is being developed.8 [13:01] AmandaVizedom: How to scope (what to include and when to stop) [13:02] Gary Berg-Cross: Dev method should include guidance on how quality is gauged during each phase. [13:02] AmandaVizedom: A methodology should include specification of its own applicability conditions. [13:03] dougFoxvog: @Amanda: +1 [13:04] AmandaVizedom: Where, when, & how to test your work [13:04] Symposium: Should use a process language to specify the kinds of tasks needed in a development methodology [13:05] PeterYim: an improvement methodology to fix things when things don't work [13:05] SimonSpero: StandUp for SCRUM [13:05] AmandaVizedom: should be specified clearly enough to track - whether automatically or manually [13:05] dougFoxvog: An ontology development methodology should include a technique for analyzing that no logically inconsistent assertions are made. Including inconsistency between assertions made by different members of the development team. [13:05] Symposium: Need to distinguish between the tool-set and the methodology. Might have a good methodology and bad tools. [13:06] Gary Berg-Cross: How to engineering an ontology from an existing vocabulary and/or data model. [13:06] dougFoxvog: I mean *automatic* analysis of assertions as made. [13:06] Symposium: Separately evaluate the tools against the methodology that is separately defined. [13:06] PeterYim: == 3. How do you know if an ontology development methodology is delivering? [13:07] AliHashemi: Q3A: The intended uses and functionality of the ontology are satisfied with "minimal" amount of (re)work. [13:07] PeterYim: if people are using your ontology [13:07] Symposium: If it reduces the number of errors in an ontology [13:07] AmandaVizedom: should include acknowledgement of possible need to handle situations the methodology doesn't cover, and enough rationale and principles to help figure out how to do so. (still q2) [13:07] JimJacobs: Q3: if it encourages ontology reuse, and endurance [13:07] Symposium: Continuity - allows others to step in and pick up if one person leaves a team. [13:07] Gary Berg-Cross: If you are asked to present at the Ontology summit [13:07] PeterYim: manageability, scalability, efficiency, repeatability, [13:07] Symposium: Consistently good and useful ontologies on multiple projects. [13:08] AmandaVizedom: q3: do the developers find that it guides their decision? do the results of those decisions meet ontology requirements? [13:08] SimonSpero: If the mission is achieved on time and within budget [13:08] Symposium: Consistency the first time through [13:09] Gary Berg-Cross: If it subsumes, integrates and rationalizes other methods. If IT or Domain people can work with it with modest help. [13:09] PeterYim: Ram: go through the design literature ... can probably pick up a lot there [13:09] Gary Berg-Cross: If people start to build tools to support the method. [13:09] SimonSpero: Ram: Fred Brooks (2010). The Design Of Design. [13:09] dougFoxvog: ============= Track D talk starting. [13:17] Gary Berg-Cross: There is some possible overlap in the tools responded...CALORE for example and OOR of which it is a part. [13:18] anonymous morphed into MBarnett [13:20] Gary Berg-Cross: Barrier for tools...lack of easy and effective training on the tool which takes people thru the ontology lifecycle. [13:20] SteveRay: To answer the first question (slide 7) on Track D: We need tools where the UI is designed for non-ontologists to use. [13:21] PeterYim: ==== again capturing the answers [13:21] MatthewKaufman: @SteveRay can you describe some of the UI examples that you mean by 'non-ontologists'? What are some good application models or UI methodologies or IA (information architectures) to model after? [13:22] Gary Berg-Cross: Embed ontology tools and integrate them with traditional SW dev tools/environments. [13:22] PeterYim: ==== Q: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2013_SurveySummary [13:22] MatthewKaufman: there is a lot of cross work between the W3C and the DOM in the structure that looks to be pointing towards entity and ontological relations more so. I have not had time to look completely but I like to model my frontends in XPath similarly to the ontological (I believe imo) structure itself . [13:22] Gary Berg-Cross: Lots of hands up out there!!! [13:23] PeterYim: ... have processes on incorporation of ontology built into their IDE or tools [13:24] PeterYim: ... better and more friendly user interfaces to the tools [13:24] SteveRay: @MatthewKaufman: The UI would allow a user to pull down a pick-list for constraining, say, the range of an association, which might be labelled "Values for this association MUST be of type:" (rather than a user declaring a restriction class in the "subClassOf" attribute of a class definition [13:26] PeterYim: ... LeoObrst: training, formal training ... [13:28] Gary Berg-Cross: @Leo Put more training online... [13:29] PeterYim: ... DennisWisnosky: tools like BPMN, DoD's DM2 ... tools are out there [13:29] JimJacobs: Q2: strong need for clear examples of real-world threads of people using sound ontology methodology. [13:30] PeterYim: ==== Q2: (2) what features need to be improved/added to software tools and IDE's to take down the above barriers [13:30] Symposium: Interesting that CS graduates are expected to know the formal mathematics behind their programs, but are not trained on the formal semantics of data [13:30] PeterYim: ... Matthew: documenting change [13:31] JimJacobs: Q2: would be good to have tool support for the distinction between ontology as the "worldview philosophy" of the system under development and the actual implementation level knowledge representation ontology. [13:31] PeterYim: traceabiity and provenance of ontology requirements [13:31] PeterYim: ^from MichaelGreuninger [13:31] Gary Berg-Cross: MOOCs are Massive Open Online Courses. There are MOOCs for Computing for Data Analysis (Coursera) Data Analysis (Coursera) Network Analysis in Systems Biology (Coursera) Information Visualization (IU) [13:32] PeterYim: ... MikeBennet: drag and drop UI, two views - UML-model and Conceptual-model [13:35] Gary Berg-Cross: Dr. Harald Sack ran a MOOC on Semantic Web Technologies is now in archive mode. 5,692 learners were registered Duration: 6 weeks Course language: English https://openhpi.de/course/semanticweb [13:38] AmandaVizedom: The open world assumption just says that unknown/unprovable assertions should not be assumed to be false. That's quite compatible with saying that modeling what you know, you should aim for consistency and pay attention to what *is* entailed (according to your chosen language & associated reasoning) by what you assert. [13:39] Gary Berg-Cross: The tools should allow leveraging existing ontologies an their parts in a manageable way. [13:42] Gary Berg-Cross: For people's information there will be a "Semantics For Big Data" session at AAAI Fall Symposium, Arlington, VA, November 15-17, 2013 Details: http://stko.geog.ucsb.edu/s4bd2013/ [13:44] SteveRay: @Amanda: Of course I agree, otherwise what would be the use of tools to check for "errors". I suppose what I should have said is that the tool should not PREVENT you from doing bad things, but should let you know that you are doing bad things. Or perhaps there could be a novice setting that does in fact constrain what could be valid but not-encouraged OWL statements/patterns. [13:46] PeterYim: == website team presentation is on [13:46] PeterYim: ^AliHashemi presenting [13:48] SimonSpero: Tools should not let you produce syntactically invalid OWL. like a certain Library on Capitol Hill does [13:50] PavithraKenjige1 morphed into PavithraKenjige [13:50] AmandaVizedom: @Steve, I guess what I meant is that distinguishing between unknown things and things known to be false (which is what OWA does) does not mean that there aren't any inferrably false things, or that inconsistencies won't lead to contradictions. It just rules out one particular line of inference. [13:52] SteveRay: @Ali: Very nice presentation. Where do I go to find out more about applying a SPARQL query against the wiki? [13:53] Symposium: == AmandaVizedom now presenting on the Community Library [13:54] AliHashemi: Hi Steve, there are a number of different extensions. The SMW contains a lot of pages and information about the different extensions, their development status and so on. A good place ot start would be: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SparqlExtension [13:55] AliHashemi: Am I the only remote person who lost audio? [13:56] PeterYim: probably [13:56] PeterYim: I am monitoring here, and I seem to be doing ok [13:56] PeterYim: anyone else having audio problems? [13:57] BruceBray: audio is fine now [13:57] AliHashemi: i had to dial back in. ok now. [13:58] SteveRay: Hello to all the Bobbins. [14:01] JimJacobs: Many thanks to all the support folk that enabled the remote participation. Cheers! [14:02] BobbinTeegarden13 morphed into BobbinTeegarden [14:03] Symposium: == the day-1 program is adjorned ... see you all tomorrow at 9:00am [14:03] List of current members in the chat-room: AliHashemi, Barry Smith, BenBovee, BobbinTeegarden, BruceBray, CarmenChui, ChristianHempelmann, dougFoxvog, Gary Gannon, JimJacobs, Marc Halpern, Marc Halpern1, MatthewKaufman, MatthewKaufman1, MikeDean, mpavel, OliverKutz, PavithraKenjige, PeterYim, SimonSpero, SteveRay, Sylvia Spengler, Symposium, vnc2 [14:03] List of attendees: AdrianBaranyuk, AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom, AstridDuqueRamos, Barry Smith, BenBovee, BobSchloss, BobbinTeegarden, BobbinTeegarden1, BobbinTeegarden10, BobbinTeegarden11, BobbinTeegarden12, BobbinTeegarden13, BobbinTeegarden2, BobbinTeegarden3, BobbinTeegarden4, BobbinTeegarden5, BobbinTeegarden6, BobbinTeegarden7, BobbinTeegarden8, BobbinTeegarden9, BruceBray, CarmenChui, ChristianHempelmann, Chuck Ward, ElizabethFlorescu, FabianNeuhaus, Fouad Ramia, FrankOlken, Gary Berg-Cross, Gary Gannon, JimJacobs, LAPritchard, MBarnett, Marc Halpern, Marc Halpern1, MatthewKaufman, MatthewKaufman1, MatthewWest, MikeBennett, MikeDean, OliverKutz, PavithraKenjige, PavithraKenjige1, PeterYim, PeterYim1, SimonSpero, SimonSpero1, SteveRay, Sylvia Spengler, Symposium, TerryLongstreth, TerryLongstreth1, TillMossakowski, TorstenHahmann, anonymous, anonymous1, dougFoxvog, mpavel, mpavel1, mpavel2, vnc2 2013-05-03 (next morning) [05:26] anonymous morphed into BruceBray [06:01] Sylvia Spengler74: Must better sound today...thank you [06:02] SteveRay: Please move over to the May 3rd chat room. Just change the URL to end in 0503 instead of 0502. The rest of us are over there. [06:04] Sylvia Spengler74: sorry wasn't paying attention...thanks Steve [06:04] SteveRay: See you on the other side! [06:12] PeterYim: ^^one more response to MatthewWest's track-C Q2 [06:15] PeterYim: ^^... from HansPolzer: methodology should include techniques for how upper ontologies can be used to analyse a domain to support development of a consistent domain ontology ------