ppy/OntologySummit2014-s13_chat-transcript_unedited_20140410a.txt ------ Chat transcript from room: summit_20140410 2014-04-10 GMT-08:00 [PDT] ------ [9:20] PeterYim: Welcome to the = OntologySummit2014 session-13: Communique Draft Review - Thu 2014-04-10 = Summit Theme: OntologySummit2014: "Big Data and Semantic Web Meet Applied Ontology" Session Topic: Session Topic: OntologySummit2014_Communique: Draft Review and Discussion Session Co-chairs & Communique Co-Lead Editors: Professor MichaelGruninger and Dr. LeoObrst Agenda: * 1. Opening (MichaelGruninger, LeoObrst) ... see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n_28fM0GpEkp9Y_y1dUmHbCY0phjiF-1S8wrz32EtfQ/edit?usp=sharing * 2. Presentation of first draft of the communique (co-lead editors: MichaelGruninger, LeoObrst) ** snapshot of working draft before this Communique Draft Review session - http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/OntologySummit2014_Communique/wip/OntologySummit2014CommuniqueDraft_20140410-0845.pdf * 3. Review by section and open discussion ** Review and discussion will be at a higher level to ensure we have capture all of the material. In particular. *** The section related to Barriers and Bottlenecks has been particularly challenging due to the wide range of topics that have arisen from the Track C discussions. One of the objectives will be to develop a clearer picture of the ideas that we want to cover in this section. *** also, the section on Recommendations still needs to be written, and this will be a major point for discussion. *** ... * 5. Summary/wrap-up/announcements Logistics: * Refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_04_10 ** Prepared Material - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_04_10#nid4C1E ** References - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_04_10#nid4C0V * (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_04_03#nid4B66 ** 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 == . [9:28] AlexShkotin: Hi All! [9:29] MichaelGruninger: Agenda: 1. Overview of Communique rough draft 2. Discuss Bottlenecks and Barriers section 3. Identify any missing material or ideas that need to be empahsized 4. Discuss recommendations 5. Action Items [9:31] AmandaVizedom1 morphed into AmandaVizedom [9:33] anonymous morphed into LamarHendersonanonymous [9:34] EdBernot: Please note the typo "reasoner on a small ontologies" in section 1. [9:36] PeterYim: == MichaelGruninger starts session on behalf of the co-chairs ... see prepared material under: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_04_10#nid4C1E [9:36] anonymous morphed into LamarHenderson [9:37] List of members: AlexShkotin, AmandaVizedom, AndreaWesterinen, ChristophLange, EdBernot, MatthewWest, MichaelGruninger, MikeBennett, MikeDean, PeterYim, Ram D. Sriram, SteveRay, Todd Pehle, ToddSchneider, vnc2 [9:40] anonymous morphed into Les Morgan [9:40] anonymous morphed into MeganKatsumi [9:43] AnneThessen: Sorry I'm late [9:45] AmandaVizedom: If you want leave a comment on the Google Doc, it is helpful if you can make it non-anonymous so that editors can come back to you for clarification. To become non-anonymous: At top right of page, to left of "Comments" button, there is a little chat icon. Click that (it will say something like "join chat" on hover-over). It will pop open a chat window, which you can minimize. The main consequences will be that any comment you leave now will be attributed to you, and also that other participants will see your name & icon (instead of anonymous) in the pull-down list of viewers. [9:45] ToddSchneider: Some description of 'reuse' needs to be included. [9:45] AndreaWesterinen: Track A tried to define what reuse is... Should that discussion be included? [9:45] AndreaWesterinen: @ToddSchneider [9:45] Yes, that is my question as well. [9:46] ToddSchneider: Well, at least the different ways ontologies could be reused. [9:47] ToddSchneider: As example, an ontology may not be able to be reused 'directly', but the fact the certain notions are represented or the way they're represented. [9:48] SteveRay: I think Section 2.1.2 should include the notion of "acceptance by the community". That is, "I found this random ontology on the web - how does it rate in the eyes of the ontology community?" [9:49] anonymous morphed into BobbinTeegarden [9:49] AndreaWesterinen: Also, a lot of time was spent on defining the conditions for reuse and best practices. The current best practices is a bit behind the synthesis page. I think that MikeBennett updated recently (Wednesday?). [9:50] HensonGraves: On the face of it, it seems that section 3 (use) should precede section 2 (reuse) [9:52] PeterYim: @ALL contributors - re. @AndreaWesterinen [9:49] ... it would be great if you have made a major update to the wiki, to draw people's attention to it on the [ontology-summit] list to notify everyone (especially the editors) [9:53] PeterYim: == Q & A and Open Discussion ... [9:53] anonymous morphed into LamarHenderson [9:54] AmandaVizedom: IMHO, one of the barriers to reuse is the state of tools (lack of mature (or any) tools to facilitate use of the ontology features and processes that create reusability and/or support evaluation for reuse. [9:54] SteveRay: @Henson: It is true that when Michael introduced the sections, he started with "What ontologies are out there" (Section 3), and then "How to use them" (Section 2). I can see either ordering working. [9:55] PeterYim: Further to the PeterYim [9:52] comment ... @ALL contributors, the best place to get the editors attention would probably be making a comment on the google-doc working draft of the Communique ... please do that [9:55] List of members: AlexShkotin, AmandaVizedom, AndreaWesterinen, AnneThessen, BartGajderowicz, BobbinTeegarden, CarolBean, ChristophLange, EdBernot, HensonGraves, Les Morgan, MatthewWest, MeganKatsumi, MichaelGruninger, MikeBennett, MikeDean, PeterYim, Ram D. Sriram, RexBrooks, SteveRay, TerryLongstreth, Todd Pehle, ToddSchneider, Uri Shani, vnc2 [9:56] HensonGraves: I like the "what are out there, how to use them,and potential places where they could be used to come before the more detailed resuse, tools, etc [9:57] ChristophLange: Re @PeterYim [9:55] one can also send force comments to be sent as emails to some people by including +email@addre.ss in the comment [9:57] ChristophLange: sorry I meant "one can also force comments to be sent ..." [9:58] SteveRay: @Peter, @Amanda: A logistics question. I tried to add a comment, but the pop-up says I don't have permission to add comments. Any ideas how to change that? [9:59] AmandaVizedom: @Steve: Michael said he'd changed it to "Anyone with the link can comment," so I don't know why it would do that. [10:00] MikeBennett: I'm having connection issues, but just to say that re-use has been considered more broadly than just getting an ontology and using it. We need to review and make sure that's clear, as it certianly was to us [10:00] MatthewWest: I found I did not have permission to add comments, so just to say that when you do decide to create yet another ontology, that you are adding to the list of ontologies others may need to integrate with, adding to the work of those that come after you, even if it reduces work for you. [10:00] MikeBennett: We included re-use by inspiration inthe Hackathon [10:00] TerryLongstreth: Doesn't reuse imply usage beyond the required applicability of the ontology? [10:01] Ram D. Sriram: Todd brought up an important issue on the semantics of Reuse [10:01] ToddSchneider: Terry, yes. [10:01] MikeBennett: @Terry certainly. That's a major factor since the requirements for a given use case are narrower than being able to re-use it elsewhere. [10:02] MikeBennett: Re @Andrea hh:49 I added two sentences in Wednesday. Will review. [10:04] MichaelGruninger: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n_28fM0GpEkp9Y_y1dUmHbCY0phjiF-1S8wrz32EtfQ/edit?usp=sharing [10:05] TerryLongstreth: Then, perhaps the essence of reuse is the unanticipated application of an ontology in an unexpected way or to an unforeseen purpose. For example, using a formal (OWL, CL ...) ontology to instruct a programming staff. [10:05] anonymous morphed into LamarHenderson [10:05] Ram D. Sriram: I think the recommendations section should probably say something that the reader can take away with. We should provide some answers -- based on the presentations in the tracks -- to the questions posed in this section. [10:05] AndreaWesterinen: @MikeBennett [10:01] I will include in comments and Mike indicated that he would pull them. [10:06] Ram D. Sriram: OOPS! I mean't "something useful that the reader" [10:07] Ram D. Sriram: Need to go out for 30mins. Will be back at 1:30pm [10:09] HensonGraves: agree with 3.1 first [10:10] ChristophLange: Suggestion was: put 3.1 "What Ontologies are Needed?" (or, in other words "why ontologies?") before "reuse" [10:12] ChristophLange: Regarding "what did section 3 miss from the Track B synthesis": I forgot to _say_ it, but I scattered a few more such comments over the document. Over sections _other_ than 3. [10:12] SteveRay1: Mystery solved on the comments addition. I was also logged in on another tab with a different account. Once I logged out of that account, it worked. [10:13] SteveRay1 morphed into SteveRay [10:14] MikeBennett: One iss with tools for me (relating to re-use and beyond) is the abscence of tools at the level of a "system" design of a group of ontologies and the relationships (imports) among them. [10:14] AlexShkotin: @SteveRay, I do not have different account but "You do not have permission to add comments.":-( [10:15] AndreaWesterinen: @TerryLongstreth [10:05] Unexpected use MAY result from reuse, but does not have to. Reusing an event ODP would not be unexpected. [10:17] ChristophLange: @TorstenHahmann @MichaelGruninger I'm currently looking up whether/where TillMossakowski mentioned visualization in Track B [10:18] ChristophLange: @ChristophLange [10:17] See TillMossakowski slide 17 and 18 on visualizing ontology module imports and other links (http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/2014-01-30_OntologySummit2014_Using-Ontology-Tools-Services-Techniques-1/OntologySummit2014_Scaling-Tools--Experiences-with-Hets-n-OntoHub--TillMossakowski_20140130.pdf [10:21] TorstenHahmann: visualization is mentioned quite frequently in the track B summary: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014_Ontology_Tools_Services_Techniques_Synthesis. Partiuclar examples mentioned are OntoIOp and the Open Semantic Framework [10:22] TerryLongstreth: Sorry - I tried to re-mute and hung up the phone. I was going to say that 'Use' specifies an intended purpose -that satisfies some requirement(s)- while reuse suggests anything beyond requirements. The conundrum is how to deal with the requirement that "X shall be reusable", but that's equivalent to the old systems engineering shibboleth that a product "shall be user friendly." [10:22] AndreaWesterinen: @TerryLongstreth Can you look at the reuse definition on Track A's synthesis page? The first 2 paragraphs of the Synthesis deal with the definition. And, I just updated it to reflect the conversation in this call. [10:23] TerryLongstreth: @Andrea - I'll look at it [10:25] HensonGraves: second Michael's comment on need to discuss reuse and other issues in context of big data. [10:26] AndreaWesterinen: Michel Dumontier talked about reuse and big data. [10:26] AndreaWesterinen: Michel's talk was during Track A's second session. [10:26] MikeBennett: I think my sound must be one way at the moment. Anyway, I think on re-use there are issue around what the ontology was created for versus what it's used for, which I think goes beyond simply whether the creator thought about Big Data and Linked Data contexts. For example, the levels of abstraction of the concepts may have been very specific to the creator's use case, and it's not a criticism to say that they won't have had the budget / justification to think about the broader meanings of the concepts in their ontologies - i.e. no reason they should think about the re-usability of their ontology unless it's intended as an industry standard. [10:28] AmandaVizedom: FYI, I have been putting most of my comments in comments on the Google doc, rather than here. [10:28] AndreaWesterinen: @Steve Track A recommends examining the content to make sure that they address their competency questions. [10:29] MikeBennett: @Amanda my bandwidth today is too narrow for me to contribute to the Google area. [10:30] AndreaWesterinen: @Amanda [10:28] I will add later when I am not multi-tasking on the call and chat. :-) [10:30] MikeBennett: We have barely scratched the surface in the area of re-use. We need to make sure the Communique catalogues the questions that are out there. [10:31] TerryLongstreth: @Andrea - from Synthesis Para 1 "The reuse may directly align with the original intentions of the developers" -- I'd maintain that direct alignment should fall within the intended use requirements. Finding the discontinuity between intended use and unintended reuse is probably in NP. [10:34] ToddSchneider: For the challenge problems, what about the challenge of building/designing ontologies for reuse? [10:35] PeterYim: I still think we need to be more convincing to the Big data community, especially those in data analytics which makes up the bulk of commercial applications now (than the one paragraph under 3.1) ... Ontology can give them much more than that. ... [I look through, say the attendees in today's session, and I can't even be sure if we have any representation from that group here ... which means we *really* have a gap to close (starting from grabbing their attention and getting them interested).] [10:35] AndreaWesterinen: @TerryLongstreth [10:31] But reuse for the intended design is still reuse ... and builds trust in the original content. [10:35] MikeBennett: @Todd but does anyone want to design ontologies for re-use? Other than industry standards ontologies, what cost justification is there? [10:35] AndreaWesterinen: @TerryLongstreth [10:31] Just like reuse of software. [10:36] AndreaWesterinen: @Mike [10:35] Even ontologies defined for standards are usually specific-to-purpose. [10:36] SundayOjo: Reusability is constrained by semantic compatibility of the intended use application domain and the unintended reuse application domain [10:37] AndreaWesterinen: @SundayOjo [10:36] +1. Track A's synthesis tries to say this. If it can be made better, please let us know. [10:39] BartGajderowicz: Regarding finding ontologies on crowd sourced websites like stackoverflow, the purpose is also for experimentation, not just design or implementation. Analogous to software engineering, ontologies fall somewhere between software and data. To ensure a copy/pasted algorithm does what you want, you run it against some input values and compare the output to what was expected. With data you run queries in a more structured environment (think SQL). I think ontologies work in the same way. We currently have a set of tools that we can use to quickly verify an ontology against some set of queries. The gap exists in helping engineers identify and create the queries they need to ensure an ontology is right for them. [10:41] MikeBennett: @Andrea +1 and sometimes too much so. (my detailed response here got eaten) [10:41] BartGajderowicz: The main benefit of this is that it allows engineers to experiment before committing to a more in depth analysis and verification. [10:46] AndreaWesterinen: Standard, searchable metadata [10:46] ToddSchneider: Documentation of ontologies: Assumptions, requirements, scope, intent, .... [10:46] PeterYim: === MichaelGruninger: soliciting input - if you have one "recommendation" what would it be - please enter into chat or verbally say it [10:47] SteveRay: Suggestion for recommendation: You don't need to jump in the deep end of the pool to use ontologies. "A little semantics goes a long way" Try it. [10:47] MikeBennett: Recommendations: Metadata: include details of intended use case of ontology. [10:48] MikeBennett: Recommendation: Tooling: model driven, top down tooling with TBox and ABox level visualisation, need to exist. [10:48] TorstenHahmann: my #1 recommendation: tools all the way down, including for designing, publishing, finding, understanding, visualizing, verifying, maintaining, translating, integrating ontologies on the web [10:49] ChristophLange: @SteveRay [10:47] I think somewhere in the Track C (?) synthesis (from OscarCorcho's talk IIRC) I saw a reference to the importance of noting down a commonly agreed-upon vocabulary in whatever tool, even Excel, and that capturing such information is more important than first discussing what ontology engineering methodology to use [10:50] PeterYim: +1 to earlier discussed recommendation (verbal: Vizedom-Gruninger-Yim) that there needs to have better communication/dialog/collaboration at the community level [10:50] SteveRay: @Christoph: Agreed. [10:50] BartGajderowicz: Adding to @TorstenHahmann's point regarding tools, tools for experimentation with ontologies on the web, to promote reuse. [10:51] PeterYim: @ALL: Please mark your calendars and reserve this same time for the next Thursday, when we will, hopefully, be finalizing the OntologySummit2014_Communique, after the editors have incorporated all the input from this session into that document - ref. developing details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_04_17 and http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014_Communique/Draft [10:51] EdBernot: Thanks all. Good session! [10:52] PeterYim: @ALL: as announced by our Symposium co-chairs, Dr. Ram Sriram & Professor TimFinin our Apr 28~29 Symposium (at NSF in Greater Washington DC) is now open for registration. Please register yourself ASAP, as capacity is limited - see OntologySummit2014_Symposium details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014_Symposium ... Register for the Symposium NOW, if you haven't already! - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014/WorkshopRegistration [10:52] PeterYim: -- session ended: 10:49am PDT -- [10:52] List of attendees: AlexShkotin, AmandaVizedom, AmandaVizedom1, AndreaWesterinen, AnneThessen, BartGajderowicz, BobbinTeegarden, CarolBean, ChristophLange, DennisPierson, EdBernot, HensonGraves, LamarHenderson, LamarHendersonanonymous, Les Morgan, MatthewWest, MeganKatsumi, MichaelGruninger, MikeBennett, MikeBennett1, MikeBennett2, MikeDean, NancyWiegand, PeterYim, Ram D. Sriram, RexBrooks, SteveRay, SteveRay1, SundayOjo, TerryLongstreth, Todd Pehle, ToddSchneider, TorstenHahmann, Uri Shani, anonymous, anonymous1, anonymous2, anonymous3, anonymous4, anonymous5, vnc2 ------