ppy/OntologySummit2014-s06_chat-transcript_unedited_20140220a.txt ------ Chat transcript from room: summit_20140220 2014-02-20 GMT-08:00 [PST] ------ [9:11] PeterYim: Welcome to the = OntologySummit2014 session-06: Synthesis-I & Communique Discussion-I - Thu 2014-02-20 = Summit Theme: OntologySummit2014: "Big Data and Semantic Web Meet Applied Ontology" Session Topic: OntologySummit2014 Synthesis-I & Communique Outline Discussion Session Co-chairs: Dr. LeoObrst and Dr. ToddSchneider PROGRAM: * Dr. LeoObrst, Professor MichaelGruninger (in absentia) & Dr. ToddSchneider - "Opening, General Assessment & Fine-tuning of OntologySummit2014 Direction & Approach" * Ms. AndreaWesterinen, Dr. GaryBergCross, Mr. MikeBennett - Track A: Common Reusable Semantic Content - Synthesis-I * Professor AlanRector, Dr. ChristophLange - Track B: Making use of Ontologies: Tools, Services, and Techniques - Synthesis-I * Dr. MatthewWest, Professor PascalHitzler, Professor KrzysztofJanowicz - Track C: Overcoming Ontology Engineering Bottlenecks - Synthesis-I * Professor KenBaclawski, Professor AnneThessen (in absentia) - Track D: Tackling the Variety Problem in Big Data - Synthesis-I ** followed by an Open Discussion on what are the key take home messages, and positions we want to assume, as the Summit community (ALL) * Dr. LeoObrst & Professor MichaelGruninger (in absentia) - Approach to the OntologySummit2014 Communique and Proposed Draft Outline ** followed by an Open Discussion towards finalizing the 2014 Communique Outline (ALL) Logistics: * Refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_02_20 * (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName; also please enable "Show timestamps" while there. * Mute control (phone keypad): *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute * Attn: Skype users ... see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_02_20#nid45MI ** you may connect to (the skypeID) "joinconference" whether or not it indicates that it is online (i.e. even if it says it is "offline," you should still be able to connect to it.) ** if you are using skype and the connection to "joinconference" is not holding up, try using (your favorite POTS or VoIP line, etc.) either your phone, skype-out or google-voice and call the US dial-in number: +1 (206) 402-0100 ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184# ** Can't find Skype Dial pad? *** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad" *** for Linux Skype users: if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it * when posting in this Chat-room, kindly observe the following ... ** whenever a name is used, please use the full WikiWord name format (every time you don't, some volunteer will have to make an edit afterwards) ** always provide context (like: "[ref. JaneDoe's slide#12], I think the point about context is great" ... rather than "that's great!" as the latter would mean very little in the archives.) ** when responding to a specific individual's earlier remarks, please cite his/her full WikiWord names *and* the timestamp (in PST) of his/her post that you are responding to (e.g. "@JaneDoe [11:09] - I agree, but, ...") ** use fully qualified url's (include http:// ) without symbols (like punctuations or parentheses, etc.) right before of after that URL . == Proceedings == . [9:29] anonymous morphed into Alan Rector [9:31] ChristineKapp morphed into ChristiKapp [9:33] anonymous morphed into EarlGlynn [9:33] anonymous morphed into Les Morgan [9:34] anonymous1 morphed into ElieAbiLahoud [9:35] anonymous morphed into LamarHenderson [9:36] PeterYim: == LeoObrst starts the session on behalf of the Summit General Co-chairs and the Session Co-chairs - see slides under: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_02_20#nid46PQ [9:36] anonymous morphed into ElisaKendall [9:36] List of members: Alan Rector, AleksandraSojic, AmandaVizedom, AndreaWesterinen, BartGajderowicz, CarolBean, ChristiKapp, ChristophLange, EarlGlynn, EdBernot, ElieAbiLahoud, ElisaKendall, Gary Berg-Cross, HaroldBoley, HensonGraves, JacoDuPreez, KenBaclawski, LamarHenderson, LeoObrst, Les Morgan, LianaKiff, MarcelaVegetti, MatthewWest, MikeBennett, MikeDean, OliverKutz1, PeterYim, Sunday Ojo, ToddSchneider, Uri Shani, VictorAgroskin [9:38] anonymous morphed into BobbinTeegarden [9:43] PeterYim: == AndreaWesterinen presenting Track-A Synthesis-I ... [9:53] LeoObrst: @AndreaWesterinen: good point about "governance". We should add this to our list of important issues for the Communique. [9:54] anonymous morphed into jontutcher [9:54] LeoObrst: Vocabularies vs. ontologies: need both. [9:55] TerryLongstreth: @Andrea slide 4, item 7 "Can the data and its quality be trusted"- I think this is one of the most important unexplored questions across all disciplines mentioned, and it's not just pertinent to reuse, but to ANY use. [9:56] ChristophLange: @TerryLongstreth: our group is doing research on assessing the quality of LOD, currently implementing this: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj556.pdf [9:56] PeterYim: == ChristophLange & AlanRector presenting Track-B Synthesis-I ... [9:58] ToddSchneider: TrackA: Could you explain more about the following item that was on slide 10: "Each module and its concepts, properties, axioms, ... well-documented via well-established labels and predicates SKOS, etc. A search for primitives " [9:59] PeterYim: ... now on slide#4 [10:01] ToddSchneider: Tools? Many people would like better, or perhaps some, visualization capabilities. [10:02] AmandaVizedom: @AlanRector - re slide#4 -- Rather than asking about a dichotomy [ontology in narrow sense|all of knowledge representation], what about looking at a spectrum of things that are more or less ontological? It seems that much progress has been allowed in recent years by allowing for variety among things that are properly considered ontologies, without equating that with all of KR. Specifying all dimensions of such variety is hard and unsettled, but even with this vagueness it has allowed for progress. [10:05] AndreaWesterinen: @ToddSchneider, 12:58pm Slide 10's reference to well-documented and established labels and predicates meant to highlight the need for deciding on a set of labels and primitive predicates that can be used in tooling. For example, SKOS defines a wide set of labels that convey different kinds of information/documentation, and also defines simple primitives about broader/more specific (superclassing/subclassing) concepts. The problem is usually not a disagreement about the semantics but a disagreement about the name of it. We need to get the primitives right, and then maybe define how different existing ontologies and schemas implement them. [10:05] MikeBennett: @Todd [12:58] one thing that we found with people's practical experience of ontologies, was how it helps if the concepts in the ontology are well documented. for example FIBO has an extended set of SKOS annotations for definitions, scope notes and the like, and this was found to be helpful to someone re-using the ontology. [10:05] BobbinTeegarden: @ToddSchneider Tool with real visualization capabilities, plus CRUD capabilities to enable a wider group of modelers/developers to create their own ontologies. [10:06] MatthewWest: What are the tools that are being used for Big Data? [10:06] AndreaWesterinen: @BobbinTeegarden, 13:05pm +1 for CRUD [10:09] AmandaVizedom: @MatthewWest [13:06] - I think you've just nailed a question we could do better with: we've sampled some tools, but we don't have a good sense of the range of what's out there. Even just focusing on tools used to bring elements of Big Data, Sem Web, and Ontology together, I think we don't yet have an overall sense of what is in use. [10:09] ToddSchneider: MikeBennet, Most assuredly the documentation of ontology and provenance of sources use in the development is critical (and very tedious). Use of SKOS or similar capabilities for annotations, to the extent they are relevant, would be useful. [10:09] BobbinTeegarden: @Todd @Andrea It would be even greater to make CRUD into CRUDE -- the E for Execute, the ability to trigger a 'uri' such as ...url.fooJavaCode.exe to actually execute, surrounded by properties and data it needs in the ontology. Too far out? [10:09] PeterYim: == MatthewWest presenting Track-C Synthesis-I ... [10:10] ToddSchneider: Andrea, I still not clear as to what you have in mind. What did you have in mind regarding 'Primitives'? How should this be interpreted? [10:11] Gary Berg-Cross: Alan There was discussion on the Ontolog Forum of grounding UML [10:11] ToddSchneider: Bobbin, many people create 'ontologies' now. The quality is another issue. Visualization by itself probably won't help with the quality issue. [10:12] Gary Berg-Cross: Sowa and William Frank had an exchange on UML See http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2014-02/msg00227.html [10:13] ToddSchneider: Bobbin, the ability to integrate an ontology into an operational system to allow the scenario you suggest is still an open problem. [10:13] ChristophLange: @BobbinTeegarden [13:05] "real visualization capabilities" may be hard to achieve. E.g. in our research group we are working with Linked Data obtained from diverse sources such as relational DB, XML, CSV, etc., which are turned into LOD to facilitate integration and reuse. Fine, but when you then apply LOD visualization tools (which exist!) to such data, we are at this point not sure whether they will be helpful, as representing RDB, XML, CSV, etc. in RDF graphs create artifacts that hinder visualization. OTOH how _would_ you visualize "big" knowledge from these diverse sources in a coherent, integrated fashion? [10:13] PeterYim: ... now on slide#7 (labeled "8") [10:14] AmandaVizedom: @BobbinTeegarden [13:09] -- Not too far out, depending on what you mean by "Execute." IMHO, ontology development and evaluation (including for potential use), work best when the tool environment enables testing out the behavior of some executable application using the ontology. Some environment do provide the ability to trigger indexing, reasoning, or q&a types of tests manually or automatically on ontology revision. In principle, many other types of application could be hooked in. Unfortunately the environments that do this are mostly proprietary / in-house. But it can be done, and it isn't too soon. [10:16] PeterYim: ... now on slide#8 (labeled "7") [10:16] jontutcher: visualisation tools may well be difficult, but they would be extremely handy in demonstrating ontologies - and would dramatically help the 'buy-in' issue from industry in my case... [10:17] MikeBennett: @Todd [13:10] In terms of "Primitives" one thing that came up was the comparison of the idea of discoverable ontology design patterns versus framing of semantically primitive concepts as ODPs. Partly 2 ways of saying the same thing, partly something to unpack further in terms of what to look for in re-usable high level concepts that can be extended or re-applied in people's own ontologies. [10:17] PeterYim: == KenBaclawski presenting the Track-D Synthesis-I ... [10:18] ToddSchneider: MikeBennet, could you expand on what you mean by, or the intended interpretation(s) of, "semantically primitive concepts"? [10:19] BobbinTeegarden: @Christoph Would love URLs to visualization tools. The one's I've seen present 'isA' trees, which don't really show the rich ontology around them. In the presence of the plethora or Big Ontologies, it would be great to see a target item plus a few 'rings' out from that focal point, with the ability to refocus on other things presented. [10:20] Gary Berg-Cross: @ToddSchneider, 12:58pm's question on Slide 10 for track A - the idea of primitives was raised in the [ontology-summit chat] Are there primitive concepts? [10:20] MikeBennett: @Todd My own take on this would be concepts which are the "Simplest kind of thing" for a particular definition of a kind of thing. Example: Event. The simplest thing which is an even is something with a time and a place. The simplest thing that is a contract is something which, if you remove any one property, it's no longer that which is a contract (perhaps it is a deed or a covenant). [10:23] BobbinTeegarden: @Amanda thanks, and true. But is there were a development tool that lets you model 'executable' things (via URIs) into your ontology, then add an E capability even to the Sparqle CRUD, you can almost get to a new generation of 'executable' ontologies. And I agree, there are a few tools that almost get there; maybe it's emergent? [10:23] ToddSchneider: Gary, MikeBennet, Got it. Thank you. I agree there should be some notions that for many (most?) uses don't require further decomposition. [10:24] Gary Berg-Cross: @Todd on this topic of primitives Werner Kuhn's talk also raised this idea of image schema basics. [10:25] Krzysztof Janowicz: (I have to leave now) [10:26] LamarHenderson: Paper on visualization tools: Simon Suigen Guo and Christine W. Chan A Comparison and Analysis of Some Ontology Visualization Tools [10:28] PeterYim: == Open Discussion on what are the key take home messages, and positions we want to assume, as the Summit community ... [10:28] MikeBennett: Re @GaryBergCross [13@24} Werner Kuhn's talk is at http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/2014-02-06_OntologySummit2014_Overcoming-Ontology-Engineering-Bottlenecks-1/OntologySummit2014_abstracting-behavior-in-ontology-engineering--WernerKuhn_20140206.pdf [10:31] ChristophLange: @BobbinTeegarden [13:19] But doesn't the thing that you wish for sound like the "touch graph" visualization that has been around for RDF for quite a while? [10:31] AndreaWesterinen: @ToddSchneider, MikeBennett and GaryBergCross "Primitives" (IMHO) are not just concepts but predicates and properties too. So, you get the generalization/inheritance concepts in OWL, ISO 15926, SKOS, ..., labels and concepts like events. They are the semantics that are not broken down further. [10:32] MikeBennett: @Andrea good way of putting it. [10:32] Gary Berg-Cross: One observation which reflects what Ken said - the 4 tracks have interesting overlaps. Tools are needed for reuse and to handle variety and bottlenecks. [10:32] BobbinTeegarden: @Christoph Tool(s)? [10:33] Gary Berg-Cross: We in Track A have made an effort in our 2nd session to have speakers address LOD and Big Data issues more directly. [10:35] AmandaVizedom: @Bobbin [13:23] - Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, that's a bit different. There are tools that recognize some kinds of documents and will open them with appropriate software if clicked on. That suggests execution hooks that may (depending on tool architecture) be readily extensible, but I don't know. Some environments have an architecture that allows for the representation of tests and execution from within the KB browser / ontology environment (Cyc has this). Some have the ability to do a two-layer thing, in which you represent an executable thing and what it does (especially what it knows about, if it is an information source), and then a code plug-in is needed to provide translations to-from the objects input language, enabling integrated querying. Otherwise, I think that the kind of thing you're talking about is present in many specific integrated Semantic Information Systems, but not general tools for building new ones. [10:35] ChristophLange: @BobbinTeegarden [13:32] not sure what you mean by "Tool(s)"? If you are referring to "thing" in my question, yes, this word should have been "tool(s)" [10:35] Gary Berg-Cross: Michel Dumontier Associate Professor of Medicine at Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research Stanford University will speak at the Track A session. He has worked in Drug Discovery area and serves as a co-chair for the World Wide Web Consortium Semantic Web for Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group (W3C HCLSIG) and is the Scientific Director for Bio2RDF, a widely recognized open-source project to create and provide linked data for life sciences. [10:38] TerryLongstreth: @Christoph [12l56&13:13] The work you describe is useful for particular contexts, but I'm more concerned with trust and trustworthiness. We continue to receive lessons from day-to-day life about how little control there is in simple things like protecting personal data (credit card numbers for example). Not all breaches of trust are intentional or malicious, but any breach can create problems for processes relying on the affected intensional or extensional data. If you establish that certain LOD instances properly represent the intension or extension to be used in some circumstance, what measures are in place to prevent changes to those instances (or to communicate necessary changes). Also the source of the information has its own quality/trustworthiness questions. When the OOR, or github or CYC or NIH goes out of business, what guarantees can dependent processes have that the information in question won't be breached. Admittedely that's a little far-fetched, but I'm sure this forum can bring forward other, more subtle, examples as for example, changes in medical knowledge that may not have been properly included in some central data source. [10:38] AndreaWesterinen: It is important to get "concrete" and not just discuss the problems in general, but specific examples and solutions. [10:40] BobbinTeegarden: @Christoph I was looking for a URL to tools such as TouchGraph, found lots for TouchGraph, thanks. [10:41] Gary Berg-Cross: One small caution on "concrete" and "specific." One may cite work that is both but it may not be clear how to reuse or build on these. I like when a speaker bridges from specific work to show how it might be a building block or lever for other efforts. [10:42] TerryLongstreth: For an example of evaluating trustworthiness, see AUDIT AND CERTIFICATION OF TRUSTWORTHY DIGITAL REPOSITORIES, ISO 16363, available from CCSDS as CCSDS 652.0-M-1 [10:42] Dennis Wisnosky: I believe that spending at least as much time on success stories such as the Encyclopedia of People talk and the where is the snow talks that we heard last week, and mining them for incremental progress as we spend on identifying problems and making wishes would well serve the community. [10:43] PeterYim: == LeoObrst presenting the proposed OntologySummit2014 Communique draft outline on behalf of the co-lead editors ... [10:44] ChristophLange: @TerryLongstreth [13:38] Trust (but rather trust_ability_ of datasets, not really the "preventing change"/"dependent processes" aspects _you've_ just mentioned) is named as one dimension of "data quality" in http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj556.pdf section 4.3. However I can't say much more as I'm not personally a trust expert. [10:45] ChristophLange: @BobbinTeegarden [13:40] actually I haven't _used_ a touch graph browser for a while. If you found anything particularly useful, you might want to post the link [10:45] ToddSchneider: Dennis, many of the success stories are hidden behind corporate policy. [10:45] TerryLongstreth: add to my 13:42 http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/652x0m1.pdf [10:49] ToddSchneider: Andrea, [13:31] AndreaWesterinen: @ToddSchneider, MikeBennett and GaryBergCross "Primitives" (IMHO) are not just concepts but predicates and properties too." My interpretation of 'concept' is not constrained to types/classes/categories. I usually use the term 'notion' to avoid mis-interpretation. [10:50] MikeBennett: @Todd sure;y there a concept and there are ways in which you represent that concept. [10:50] KenBaclawski: @Todd [13:45] One cannot expect to get open source software from corporations (although sometimes they do release software this way), but they frequently seem to be very willing to say quite a lot about their projects, as we have seen from IBM and Oracle. [10:51] TerryLongstreth: Thanks Christoph. [10:52] ToddSchneider: Ken, my experience suggests that IBM, Oracle, Wells Fargo may be in the minority w.r.t. their willingness to provide public information about their projects. [10:55] ToddSchneider: MikeBennet, The notion of 'concept' is itself 'fuzzy' and open to multiple interpretations. [10:56] AndreaWesterinen: @Leo, slide #5 Track A and B certainly align on the need for tooling and ontologies assisting in Big Data annotation or understanding/aligning the data. [10:57] AndreaWesterinen: @ToddSchneider [13:55] Agree that the word "concept" is overloaded. Is your use of "notion" = the more general concepts, predicates, etc.? [10:58] ChristophLange: @AndreaWesterinen: not yet sure how we'll resolve this in the final document -- maybe by the Track A champions and the Track B champions each writing up on their view on tools, and then moving text between the sections and/or cross-referencing as appropriate? [10:58] ToddSchneider: Andrea, Yes. I try to avoid specificity as long as possible. [10:58] ElieAbiLahoud: Thank you Leo and all for this session, I have to drop off now. [10:59] AndreaWesterinen: @ChristophLange [13:58] Or, we outline and split up the work - making the discussions relevant/tuned to the different foci? [10:59] ToddSchneider: A major challenge to this year's communique will be an ability to integrate the large range of material. [11:00] AndreaWesterinen: @ChristophLange [13:58] I see your discussion as more general and Track A as more focused on reuse. [11:03] AndreaWesterinen: @Leo, slide #7 Again, there is lots of overlap but Track D seems more tuned to specific, concrete uses and expanding on the Big Data issues, while Track A is again more about reuse. [11:04] PeterYim: @Leo and Track Champions - ref. the Communique Outline slides#4~6 - I think that captures the track synthesis (so far) quite well, but also shows signs of incoherence, given the fact that the original track syntheses were developed separately (each being complete and self-consistent by itself). Granted that each track is addressing a totally different aspect of the overall theme, it might still be useful if we can develop a generalize sub-section outline, that consistently address each track's goals, issues, challenges, solutions, success stories, best practices, etc. [11:05] PeterYim: ... on slide#9 now [11:05] AndreaWesterinen: Slide #9 - It might be better to talk about governance in #4 AND curation. [11:06] PeterYim: == Open Discussion towards finalizing the 2014 Communique Outline ... [11:06] TerryLongstreth: @Leo - slide 9, item 4 - Crowdsourcing curation has major implications for content quality and trustworthness of the content and the source/supplier. [11:09] MatthewWest: A common framework would be helpful for us too. [11:09] Gary Berg-Cross: Expanding on my comment of [13:32] I would expect that Track A would broach the topic of Tools and Tooling but do this in coordination with Track B and help introduce what they might elaborate on. [11:10] MatthewWest: I agree with Todd that the shear breadth of this years summit is daunting. [11:11] MatthewWest: I think Amanda may have a point in merging input from the tracks. However, it is probably better to do that as a second step after producing track based output. [11:12] TerryLongstreth: Experiences with the Delphi technique might inform our crowdsourcing discussion. Assuming that the goal of crowdsourcing is consensus, it certainly is vulnerable to the same pitfalls as Delphi. [11:13] AndreaWesterinen: Can we update the Communique outline to introduce the common themes (reuse, tooling, intersection with big data, ...) and then move into the particular foci of the tracks. These will both support the common themes and then get more specific, or expand on the themes where they are unique to the foci. [11:13] KenBaclawski: @Terry [14:06] Maintaining provenance information is especially important for crowdsourcing so that one can develop and apply tools that can help determine quality and trustworthiness. The results of such analyses are themselves subject to testing for quality and trustworthiness. [11:14] AmandaVizedom: I agree with need to pare down what the communique covers. Fabian & I faced a similar issue last year, and concluded that there was no way to cover everything with any effectiveness. The consequence was that we focused the communique tightly, including setting aside discussion of the track structure. We focused on one set of issues and pulled them together regardless of how they were distributed across tracks. I think the approach worked, and the alternatives wouldn't have. [11:14] TerryLongstreth: @Amanda +1 [11:14] AmandaVizedom: @MatthewWest [14:09] That was AndreaWesternen, actually. [11:15] MatthewWest: @Amanda. Yes. We need to remember we are not trying to produce a "This is what we did" type document. [11:17] TerryLongstreth: @KenBaclawski [14:13] Good. Would the communique perhaps discuss approaches to recording and managing provenance information? [11:18] MatthewWest: Common themes include re-use, patterns, processing issues, change management... [11:18] AndreaWesterinen: @TerryLongstreth [14:17] Provenance is one of our (Track A) key points for reuse. [11:18] AndreaWesterinen: Tooling is a key message. [11:19] MatthewWest: On bottlenecks we tend to take a view on some of these things overlapping with other tracks, rather than doing something entirely distinct. [11:19] TerryLongstreth: @Andrea - good, but it's not just for reuse. It's also important for conflict resolution, change management, ... [11:20] Gary Berg-Cross: Our theme is where ontoogies meet Big Data and LOD so we start with a vision of this and then proceed to discuss how we can overcome bottlenecks using tools and reusing knowledge for various type of domains. [11:20] AndreaWesterinen: And, building on my [14:18] note ... Tooling brings in key notions (for definition and searching), provenance and curation, etc. [11:21] Gary Berg-Cross: Have to leave.... [11:21] MatthewWest: Agree we need to keep the number of themes limited. Otherwise by talking about some we effectively detract from others. We should be happy to prioritize ruthlessly. The sooner the better too. [11:21] AndreaWesterinen: @TerryLongstreth [14:19] +1. That is why I said that there are different foci, and why it is important to present the big picture and then specifics. [11:22] KenBaclawski: @TerryLongstreth [14:17] Provenance cross-cuts many of the tracks. It is a good candidate for a theme of the communique. [11:22] AndreaWesterinen: @MatthewWest [14:21] +1 on priorities and "the sooner the better". [11:24] MatthewWest: I think pairing things down is the editors job. We will reserve the right to discuss and disagree. [11:24] TerryLongstreth: @KenBaclawski 14:22 - Provenance is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for evaluating and maintaining qualith [11:24] TerryLongstreth: quality [11:30] ToddSchneider: I have to go. Thank you all. Cheers. [11:31] AndreaWesterinen: Thanks Leo, Todd, and all. [11:31] AnatolyLevenchuk: Please, remember about Hackathon! [11:32] ChristophLange: thanks to the chairs and all others! [11:32] BobbinTeegarden: Enterprise/system architects and business modelers designing implementable systems are yearning to incorporate ontologies. Right now the tools are holding them back; but if you open that logjam, we will see many trials and errors -- i.e. not great quality ontologies in our terms; and in this scenario, maybe quality is not the primary criteria for (eventual) wide ontology usage. [11:33] PeterYim: ref. narrowing down the scope of the Communique ... I'd suggest we focus on the "outreach" aspect, and try to use the Communique to convince practitioners in "Big Data and Semantic Web" information systems (designers and developers) that the use of ontologies is viable and will contribute to their solution approach [11:34] AndreaWesterinen: @PeterYim [14:33] I disagree, a bit ... We also need to focus on ontology/schema developers and get them to develop and document reusable content. [11:33] PeterYim: Please mark you calendars and reserve this time, every Thursday, for the OntologySummit2014 virtual panel session series. In particular ... Session-07 will be up next Thursday - Thu 2014.02.27 (same time) - OntologySummit2014: "Track E: Hackathon - Launch" - see developing details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_02_27 and http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014_Hackathon [11:34] PeterYim: great session! [11:34] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:30 am PST -- [11:34] List of attendees: Alan Rector, AleksandraSojic, AmandaVizedom, AnatolyLevenchuk, AndreaWesterinen, BartGajderowicz, BobbinTeegarden, BruceBray, CarolBean, ChristiKapp, ChristineKapp, ChristophLange, Dennis Wisnosky, EarlGlynn, EdBernot, ElieAbiLahoud, ElisaKendall, EricChan, Frank Olken, Gary Berg-Cross, HaroldBoley, HensonGraves, JacoDuPreez, JacoDuPreez1, KenBaclawski, Krzysztof Janowicz, LamarHenderson, LeoObrst, Les Morgan, LianaKiff, MarcelaVegetti, MatthewWest, MikeBennett, MikeDean, OliverKutz, OliverKutz1, PeterYim, Sunday Ojo, Sunday Ojo1, TerryLongstreth, ToddSchneider, Uri Shani, Uri Shani1, VictorAgroskin, anonymous, anonymous1, jontutcher ------