Chat transcript from room: summit_20141009
2014-10-09 GMT-08:00
[09:27] MichaelGruninger: Welcome everyone to the
Ontology Summit 2015 Community Brainstorming Session!
[09:31] anonymous morphed into SteveRay
[09:32] anonymous morphed into ChristopherSpottiswoode
[09:33] anonymous1 morphed into Ram D. Sriram
[09:35] anonymous morphed into A;iHashemi
[09:35] A;iHashemi morphed into AliHashemi
[09:36] MichaelGruninger: 1. Overview &
introduction 2. Open discussion: explore the theme(s) and topics
that the community would want to see covered in OntologySummit2015
3. Any other business 4. Recap Actions, Summary & Wrap-up
[09:38] anonymous morphed into MichaelRiben
[09:41] MatthewWest: Apologies for late arrival.
Minor domestic emergency.
[09:42] ChristophLange: Excuse me, a question
about the new wiki. Seems the accounts of the old wiki don't work
here. But, at
http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=WikiHomePage,
how do I create a new account?
[09:46] MikeBennett: Topics 1, 2 and 4 are
potentially almost the same thing: what lessons have been
developed in previous summits, how does one define the discipline
of ontological engineering around this and how to write a book
that presents this.
[09:46] anonymous morphed into FrankOlken
[09:48] TerryLongstreth: Reasoning with ontologies
could be broken into Machine and Human reasoning; the first would
probably be software engineering oriented, the second would
explore the application of ontologies as a tool of thought.
[09:48] anonymous morphed into JoelBender
[09:49] TerryLongstreth: The initial outline for
the textbook could be derived from Slide 4
[09:50] SteveRay: @Terry: I like your idea of
training materials.
[09:50] FrankOlken: I have joined the
teleconference. ---Frank Olken
[09:51] MatthewWest: I would be keen that we
worked towards a deliverable (other than a communique).
[09:52] anonymous morphed into Mark Underwood
[09:52] ToddSchneider: Perhaps, if we go with the
text book notion, then the summit could produce the outline with
some degree of content/detail. And in place of the usual
communique, a set of training material. In addition, as a
Hack-a-thon theme, mining the Ontolog forum and past summit
materials.
[09:52] anonymous morphed into Mark Underwood1
[09:52] SteveRay: @Todd: I meant to say Todd, not
Terry!
[09:52] MichaelGruninger: Combining topics might
lead to something like Applied Ontology / Ontological Engineering
Body of Knowledge
[09:53] LeoObrst: Yes, the textbook idea can
encompass the other topics, since many of the previous summit
themes would probably be separate chapters in the book.
[09:53] TerryLongstreth: @Steve: Thanks. I also
like Leo's idea of using the titles of previous summits as topics.
[09:54] ToddSchneider: How would a body of
knowledge be presented?
[09:54] JoelBender: I like the idea of a textbook,
and I would like to help packaging into a variety of consumable
forms (eDoc, HTML, PDF, LaTeX, etc)
[09:55] MikeBennett: Question is how we structure
the Summit activities to pull this BoK together?
[09:55] MatthewWest: There is a large amount of
information from the ontolog presentations, as well as the summit
and even the ontolog forum email list. But it is not organized in
a way that is useful. Mining it and presenting it in a coherent
way and identifying gaps would be useful.
[09:56] JoelBender: I would also like some kind
Q&A and the ends of the chapters to review
[09:56] MikeBennett: Ken's point is a good one -
part of structuring this is identifying the skills. I'd add we're
looking both at the pre-requisite skills and the skills to be
developed through training.
[09:56] ToddSchneider: Ken, training materials
usually have examples and student problems.
[09:56] MikeDean: see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_of_Knowledge for quite a few
examples of BOKs
[09:57] ToddSchneider: Ken, could training
materials be extended to a 'complete' text book?
[09:57] SteveRay: I strongly agree with what
MikeBennett is saying. I'm always amazed at the longevity and
continued use of Natasha Noy's old old paper on how to create an
ontology.
[09:58] ToddSchneider: It's not incompatible to
have multiple outcomes/deliverables from the summit.
[09:59] MikeBennett: Examples ... and
counter-examples?
[09:59] MatthewWest: Should we use a traditional
wiki approach? Should part of what we produce be some articles on
wikipedia?
[09:59] JoelBender: Could the training materials
be in a Self Paced Instruction format, and/or a MOOC?
[09:59] Mark Underwood1: Agree that Wikipedia
contribs is useful, though requires dedicated attention if the
current "owners" are vigilant about the subj
[10:00] MikeBennett: Apologies, i need to drop off
the audio now.
[10:00] ToddSchneider: Joel, I would think the
former. But a BoK might take the place of MOOC.
[10:00] SteveRay: I have to go also. I'll review
the chat later.
[10:00] LeoObrst: @KenBaclawski: we could even
consider a focused example that embodies the excercises and which
spans all the chapters, with different aspects of course.
[10:01] KenBaclawski: It would be very helpful to
have realistic examples in full detail using best practices. Too
much of what I see is much too high-level for a course. These
would be very useful even if they are not just a disparate
collection of examples.
[10:01] MichaelGruninger: RamSriram: What is the
role / purpose of the Summit?
[10:02] MichaelGruninger: RamSriram: Applied
Ontology and the Internet of Things
[10:03] JoelBender: +1
[10:03] Mark Underwood1: IoT is plenty big, maybe
too big
[10:03] KenBaclawski: @[12:56] ToddSchneider: They
often do have examples, but they are not necessarily very
realistic. Just look at any Database textbook. The examples are
mostly not very good.
[10:04] JoelBender: But the typical presentations
of IoT focus on smaller realms like Home Automation, which should
be focused enough for a chapter.
[10:04] Mark Underwood1: I just wrote a short blog
post on smart buildings and the ontology needs there are legion
[10:05] Ram D. Sriram1: That is an effort going on
at NIST
[10:05] TerryLongstreth: @Ram: perhaps the summit
could expand / generalize your idea to base the Summit on
"Ontology aspects of Current Social and Technology trends "
[10:05] AliHashemi: Re the textbook idea - using
part of the summit to identify how to utilize the web+browsers to
deliver content could be something of interest, c.f.
http://www.nature.com/nature_education/interactive_textbooks
[10:05] MichaelGruninger: ChristopherSpottiswoode:
Possible topic related to the activities of the National Strategy
for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace
[10:06] Mark Underwood1: http://www.nist.gov/nstic/
[10:06] Ram D. Sriram1: @Terry: We call that Smart
Networked Systems and Societies, i.e., a connected network of
Internet of Things and Social Networks
[10:06] KenBaclawski: The idea of developing
realistic examples could be combined with the retrospective idea.
Lots of great examples were developed in the previous summits, but
they need to be collected and documented.
[10:07] LeoObrst: @ChristopherSpottiswoode: can
you provide some references to this?
[10:07] TerryLongstreth: Trends so far: nstic,
internet of things, disaster responses - http://www.gdacs.org/...
[10:08] LeoObrst: Thanks, all.
[10:09] KenBaclawski: @[13:00] LeoObrst: Yes,
running examples are valuable.
[10:10] Ram D. Sriram1: Here is a link to an
animated video of NSTIC: http://www.nist.gov/nstic/animation.html
[10:10] Mark Underwood1: https://www.idecosystem.org/
[10:11] KenBaclawski: @[12:57] ToddSchneider: Yes,
good examples and training materials are an excellent basis for a
textbook.
[10:11] AliHashemi: @KenBaclawski - in an online
textbook, one could use ontology best practices in building the
resource itself.
[10:11] Ram D. Sriram1: Regarding NSTIC, I think
you might want a more general topic about the role of ontologies
in privacy and cybersecurity. Not clear whether we can get enough
people to take about this.
[10:12] TerryLongstreth: @Ram - I didn't mean
Social networks (not only, anyway), but changes in societies and
cultures and how can ontologies help with evolution/devolution.
[10:12] Mark Underwood1: RE the Sec & Privacy
- I'm on the NIST Big Data WG S&P subgroup ... longer
conversation on that available
[10:13] Mark Underwood1: http://bigdatawg.nist.gov/home.php
[10:13] KenBaclawski: @[13:11] AliHashemi: Indeed,
one should always "eat one's own dogfood".
[10:15] KenBaclawski: Correction: In [13:01]
KenBaclawski I meant "even if they are just a disparate
collection"
[10:15] MikeDean: pressed the wrong button on my
phone - back in a minute
[10:20] Mark Underwood1: In the Big Data WG's,
this is the "Variety" dimension, especially when PII + IoT combine
to weaken anonymizaiton
[10:22] MikeDean: Internet of Things is topical -
I'd keep that term in the title
[10:23] LeoObrst: I think that the "Reasoning with
Ontologies" topic can also be an aspect of the textbook, and in
addition bring in folks from the mini-series last year on this
topic, which we may still explore in additional sessions this
year.
[10:23] Ram D. Sriram1: I think reasoning could be
a part on any of the topics discussed. Will we get enough people
to talk about this
[10:24] AliHashemi: I would agree with the speaker
that it's too early in the technology cycle for IoT
[10:24] Mark Underwood1: @MikeDean - Agree IoT
will attract more architect interest
[10:24] LeoObrst: How about the Internet of
Abstract Things? ;)
[10:25] MichaelGruninger: Potential topic arising
from the discussion: Sociotechnical Aspects of Applied Ontology
[10:25] KenBaclawski: @[13:23] LeoObrst: I agree.
Any realistic example will involve reasoning issues, and one part
of the solution will involve selecting an appropriate reasoning
approach/technology.
[10:25] ToddSchneider: Leo,
[10:26] ToddSchneider: Leo, What's abstract? Or
abstract with respect to what?
[10:26] ChristopherSpottiswoode: @LeoObrst:
nstic.gov for that context. For my take on it, please be patient
for my post to the Summit list.
[10:28] MikeDean: I think it's actually the
perfect time for IoT
[10:29] ToddSchneider: Have to go to another
meeting. Cheers.
[10:29] LeoObrst: Also, a possible other
topic/theme: information (or even physical) artifacts and
specifications. These notions come up all the time, and there is a
rich literature on artifacts in ontological analysis. This topic
could also get into design issues.
[10:30] Mark Underwood1: A possible new "track,"
is also in the software engineering direction, is ontology support
for software test, reliability engineering, recovery, resilience
and forensics. (List uncomfortably, intentionally broad). Testing
completeness could be enhanced by systematic exploitation of
domain ontology models, vs. seat-of-pants testing frameworks
[10:30] LeoObrst: I agree with MikeDean that if we
could get out front on the IoT topic emphasizing ontologies, that
could be very good.
[10:30] KenBaclawski: The various topics such as
IoT and PII could be the basis for examples of how ontologies
could be applied in real-world problems. This would serve both as
a way of being more focused by having relatively specific tracks
while also contributing to the "textbook" idea.
[10:32] Ram D. Sriram1: If anyone is interested, I
can send my slide set on Smart Networked Systems and Societies
[10:32] Mark Underwood1: @Ram - sure -
mark.underwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[10:34] Mark Underwood1: Is the goal to go wide,
or go narrow for the summit?
[10:35] JoelBender: @Ram: yes please,
jjb5@xxxxxxxxxxx
[10:36] LeoObrst: Yes, Ram, would like to see
this.
[10:38] Mark Underwood1: Provenance (or Veracity)
for the Big Data V
[10:40] LeoObrst: @TerryLongstreth: yes, and with
3D printing, we will be creating more "things", and the
information/physical distinction begins to break down.
[10:40] MichaelGruninger: There seem to be four
possible topics that have emerged from the discussion so far: 1)
Applied Ontology Body of Knowledge; 2) Internet of Things; 3)
Sociotechnical Aspects of Applied Ontology; 4) Artefacts
[10:41] TerryLongstreth: @Leo- extend artifacts
discussion to include those which have no intrinsic physical
manifestation (i.e. digital objects)
[10:41] LeoObrst: Also, one can consider the IoT
really does expand the network stack upward, perhaps at the top
being the ontological level?
[10:42] Mark Underwood1: @Leo Hard to the avoid
the SDN topic then
[10:43] MichaelGruninger: Decision: Identify one
or two champions for each of the above potential topics. We will
have a follow-up meeting sometime in November to select the topic
[10:44] MichaelGruninger: so that the Org
Committee has time to prepare for the Pre-launch in december
[10:44] MichaelGruninger: 1) Applied Ontology Body
of Knowledge. Champions: MatthewWest and KenBaclwaski
[10:45] MichaelGruninger: 2) Internet of Things.
Champions: MarkUnderwood and RamSriram and JoelBender
[10:47] MichaelGruninger: 3) Sociotechnical
Aspects of Applied Ontology. Champions: TerryLongstreth,
ChristopherSpottiswoode
[10:48] JoelBender: On campus I have slightly less
than a million things (building automation sensors, values, etc)
with some naming convention and no ontology - so I'm kind of
desperate to make an IoT ontology happen
[10:48] MichaelGruninger: 4) Artefacts. Champions:
LeoObrst
[10:50] LeoObrst: I'm also interested in topic
(1)and (2).
[10:51] MikeBennett: Pre-launch event should
probably be Dec 4th since there is an OMG meeting on 11th which
some might be attending.
[10:53] MichaelGruninger: Next meeting on November
6, 2014. Objective of this meeting will be the final selection of
the Ontology Summit 2015 theme
[10:53] MichaelGruninger: We will also identify
the Organizing Committee at that time
|
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
|