ppy/oor_chat-transcript_unedited_20130528a.txt ------ Chat transcript from room: oor_20130528 2013-05-28 GMT-08:00 [PDT] ------ [8:26] PeterYim: welcome to the = OpenOntologyRepository: "Revisiting the OOR Strategy and Tactics" Discussion Session - Tue 2013_05_28 = session page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2013_05_28 . == Proceedings: == . [8:28] PeterYim: Hi Michael ... [8:37] PeterYim: == starting session with the slides ... http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2013_05_28#nid3TD6 [8:50] PeterYim: == our SWOT analysis ... [8:50] PeterYim: === "Strength": one (or two) top "value" you are gaining that makes you think the time you put into OOR is worth it [8:51] MichaelGruninger: collaboration opportunities [8:51] MikeBennett: The potential for common, shared semantics for reuse in our standards efforts. [8:51] TillMossakowski: the decentralized service-based architecture [8:52] MikeDean: leading edge for anticipated future repository BAAs and other procurements [8:52] LeoObrst: When we first started, there were no ontology repositories, and in fact many thought there was no need. I think they are still absolutely necessary: for ontology and vocabulary mapping and interoperability, with supporting services. [8:52] PeterYim: potential of being part of an infrastructure initiative that creates a component that will fill strategic gap for Ontology to grow [8:54] MichaelGruninger: coordination of our individual efforts with ontology repositories [9:00] PeterYim: out of curiosity ... was "mutual help to get funded" a value to people? [9:02] PeterYim: ... useful for projects like: SOCoP, Ken, Till ... [9:03] PeterYim: === "Weakness": if you had thought of quitting from OOR, what would have been the key reason(s) [9:05] PeterYim: it is not making the kind of impact I would have hoped it will (at least so far) [9:06] LeoObrst: Too slow progress relative to other efforts: Ontology Summit, Earth Science - Ontology series, many work projects. [9:06] MikeDean: limited direct return on investment so far [9:06] MichaelGruninger: lack of progress on common architecture [9:06] MikeBennett: If we weren't producing our ontologies in OWL (which we now are); if we could not find suitably reusable, standards-based ontologies (which we haven't really looked for); or if my management were not aware of OOR because it's down in the weeds from their perspective and they don't really know what it adds to my deliverables bottom line. [9:07] TillMossakowski: there has been no implementation apart from BioPortal (and even the OOR modifications of BioPortal are trivial). I think OOR's top-down approach for software implementation does not work. [9:14] PeterYim: ==== what is one things that the team could do to mitigate the issue you cited above [9:15] PeterYim: ^"the one thing" [9:17] LeoObrst: Joint funding would help. Also, perhaps we should position OOR as providing plugin services to BioPortal, e.g., rather than trying to do it all. [9:17] MichaelGruninger: perhaps try a bottom-up approach, where we address the OOR issues in the context of our individual projects, and then come together to identify how we can best coordinate work, share ideas, and reuse implementations [9:17] MikeDean: identifying a qualified funding opportunity [9:17] MikeBennett: If the OOR repository contained the standard ontologies we would use as a key part of our shared semantics strategy. And made some contribution to how those are accessed / referenced etc. [9:17] PeterYim: to increase OOR's impact: get into one of two where OOR will the default place for those people to find their ontologies (like what BioPortal is doing for the biomedical informatics domain [9:17] TillMossakowski: funding will help, we need more resources for ontoloy development and implementation [9:18] PeterYim: ^"one or two domains" [9:23] LeoObrst: Following on Mike Dean's comments: some of us had hoped that big science NSF efforts such as EarthCube would show the need for ontology repositories, and thereby push some funding. [9:25] MikeBennett: One or two domains: ontologies based in law, commerce and accounting would provide many of our building blocks. Also real estate, construction. [9:26] LeoObrst: I don't think a domain focus will help. I think BioPortal is not bound to just biomedical ontologies. [9:34] PeterYim: domain possibilities: SOCoP (geospatial), OntologyBasedStandards, Finance (FIBO, accounting, legal, real estate), Academic Papers (Gruninger ...) [9:37] anonymous morphed into BobSmith [9:41] PeterYim: ^Till: domains: SpacePortal, ConceptPortal, (similar to BioPortal) [9:41] PeterYim: === "Opportunity": given what we have now, what is the one (or two) thing we can do that would allow OOR to make a huge (at least meaningful) impact [9:44] MikeBennett: Make the published standards ontologies available that have wide application e.g. W3C Organization, as they become available. And make their status, usage clear and accessible. [9:44] PeterYim: (as before) build domain focus and reach out to the domains ... in order of viability - Academic paper, Finance, Standards, ... [9:44] LeoObrst: Unsure really. Maybe provide services for some of the Ontology Summit ontology evaluation tools, vocabulary->ontology mapping service, enhanced ontology/vocabulary versioning service. [9:45] MichaelGruninger: content that will be used by multiple users and communities [9:45] BobSmith: BIM (Building Information Modeling and resulting models) are at the heart of city sustainability thinking- and some OOR efforts have been going on (IN Germany, esp.) for several years. Simply need better awareness between those doing BIM OOR and those needing BIM OOR... [9:45] PeterYim: (a totally separate idea that came out of the OntologySummit2013 postmortem session) tackle: what we could do to enable/improve "Reasonable over the LOD Cloud" [9:45] TillMossakowski: come up with software tools that help in the daily ontology development and maintenance work [9:45] MikeDean: Identifying a significant corpus of ontologies that a community needs help navigating. In addition to standards, ontology design patterns might be a good candidate. [9:46] MichaelGruninger: note from earlier: a student project will start in September to harvest ontologies from the journal and conference literature [9:48] MikeBennett: Can I suggest a second thing: ontology visualization, as an aid to people knowing what they can reuse and how. [9:53] MichaelGruninger: @Till: yes, the plan was to upload the ontologies to OntoHub [9:53] MikeDean: We could populate ODPs in OOR from http://ontologydesignpatterns.org [9:53] PeterYim: ^"Reasoning over the LOD Cloud" [9:54] MikeDean: GaryBegCross and KrzyzsztofJanowicz have been advocating use of ODPs in SOCoP (and SOCoP OOR) for some time [9:57] LeoObrst: Folks, I must leave at 1 pm. [9:57] TillMossakowski: me too [9:58] MikeDean: Perhaps there's a branding opportunity for an OntologyStore or OntStore, leveraging some of the current buzz over various AppStores in the mobile and (at least within government) desktop space. [9:59] BobSmith: NOTE - Linked Open Data vs. Levels of Detail (of a BIM Model) [9:59] MikeDean: s/government/DoD software procurement/ [10:01] TillMossakowski: we will provide ontology mapping and versioning on Ontohub soon (before Sept.) [10:02] LeoObrst: Bye, folks! [10:04] PeterYim: Part-2 of this "Stratey-Tactics" session Tue 2013.06.18 ... Hackathon now postponed to Tue 2013.06.25 [10:06] PeterYim: great session ... thanks everyone for your input ... I think the ideas support each other very well and viable solutions are emerging ... let's continue on Tue 2013.06.18 same time ... talk to you all then! [10:06] PeterYim: -- session ended: 10:05am PDT -- [10:07] List of attendees: BobSmith, LeoObrst, MichaelGruninger, MikeBennett, MikeDean, OliverKutz, OliverKutz1, PeterYim, TillMossakowski, anonymous ------