[Top] [All Lists]

[ontology-summit] summit_20151210: Chat Transcript - sent by: MichaelGru

To: Ontology Summit 2015 Forum <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Michael Gruninger <gruninger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:29:35 -0500
Message-id: <5669E0AF.2060401@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Chat transcript from room: summit_20151210
2015-12-10 GMT-08:00
[09:25] MichaelGruninger: Agenda: 1. Discussion on scope of the theme -- Semantic Integration 2. Discussion on structure of the Summit 3. Identify Tracks 4. Nominate Chairs 5. Nominate Track Champions 6. Schedule Launch session (January 2016) 7. Schedule Tracks?
[09:30] anonymous morphed into ChristopherSpottiswoode
[09:32] anonymous morphed into Gary Berg-Cross
[09:32] anonymous1 morphed into AnatolyLevenchuk
[09:36] anonymous morphed into Judith Gelernter
[09:38] anonymous morphed into BethDiGiulian
[09:39] ToddSchneider: I'm having trouble accessing Skype. Anyone else experiencing the same problem?
[09:40] Gary Berg-Cross: @ToddSchneider 12:39] I had trouble before 12:30 and it took 4 tries.
[09:40] Uri Shani (IBM): same here
[09:41] ToddSchneider: I'm trying from a different machine and OS.
[09:41] ChristopherSpottiswoode: Same here too. Skype is shedding tears onscreen!
[09:41] Donna Fritzsche: Discuss overall timing/schedule. Very intense marathon in winter-spring.
[09:41] Mark Underwood: RE Skype Took a couple of tries, but I'm on it now
[09:42] MichaelGruninger: **** 1. Discussion on scope of the theme -- Semantic Integration ***
[09:42] TerryLongstreth: We started out as 4 or 5 day FtoF conferences. AFAIK we went to the 3 months of weekly sessions to try to cover the same ground.
[09:42] anonymous morphed into Veda Storey
[09:43] MichaelGruninger: Focal questions we would expect to have addressed in each session: What are the semantic integration challenges that are being faced? How are ontologies expected to play a role? What new techniques are needed? How are existing techniques working or failing?
[09:45] MichaelGruninger: Potential Track topics raised at the Brainstorming II session
[09:45] MichaelGruninger: Topic 1: Financial Industry -- MikeBennett, John Yanosy Topic 2: Earth Sciences Gary Berg-Cross Topic 3: Biomedical Donna Fritzsche Topic 4: Cloud Services Mark Underwood Topic 5: Sensor Fusion Ken Baclawski Topic 6: Manufacturing/Engineering Topic 7: Cybersecurity
[09:45] MichaelGruninger: GaryBerg-Cross: Scope shouold included semantic interoperability / data interoperability / data sharing
[09:47] MichaelGruninger: What ideas are included under "semantic integration"?
[09:48] ToddSchneider: Semantic Mediation
[09:48] ToddSchneider: Semantic Architecture
[09:48] MichaelGruninger: GaryBergCross: Focus is on the interoperability / integration of systems rather than restricting integration to ontologies per se
[09:48] ToddSchneider: Ontology Architecture
[09:49] Uri Shani (IBM): My interpretation: Semantic mediation would be integrating models based on ontologies, not integrating the ontologies themselves.
[09:49] ToddSchneider: Agree with Gary.
[09:50] Donna Fritzsche: Look at broad umberella of ideas relating to sematic interoperability and architecture
[09:50] AnatolyLevenchuk: Usage of embeddings and distributed semantic representation to map ontologies (how deep learning can help ontologies and vice versa). Se https://www.google.com/search?q=distributed+representations
[09:51] TerryLongstreth: Situations where semantic integration needs arise: 1) legacy systems with a) no ontology conceptions b) incompatible NL bases (where semantics are aspects of human language 2)systems where current Ontology tools are inadequate and require/d procedural supplementation
[09:51] ToddSchneider: Uri, semantic integration could involve both.
[09:52] Donna Fritzsche: ideas, solutions, best practices, failings, shortcomings
[09:52] MichaelGruninger: Although ontology integration is not the focus or motivation, it will definitely be part of the solution in a scenario in which each software application has its own ontology
[09:52] Gary Berg-Cross: I agree with Mike (and Uschold's) point that withing some system attempts to integrate a given system may have its own, local ontology and thus to integrate more broadly with other systems having their own ontologies, one must then also "integrate" (or bridge) these ontologies.
[09:52] Mark Underwood: Agree that we would not want to exclude the scenarios Terry mentions - Would be common with cloud service interop undertaken by non-AI non-KBS folk
[09:54] Uri Shani (IBM): Gary, again in my interpretation, semantic mediation would in fact "bridge" ontologies.
[09:55] Donna Fritzsche: see what solutions/architecture arise out of different domain areas (per Mike)
[09:55] ToddSchneider: The notion of 'integrate' suggests a static one time solution. Whereas 'mediation' suggests (I think) something more flexible.
[09:56] Donna Fritzsche: True - to Todd - does semantic architecture encompass both?
[09:56] Uri Shani (IBM): The common use case would be: data (model) for certain ontology is mediated and can be inerpreted according to another ontology.
[09:56] Donna Fritzsche: architectures that integrate, mediate, interpret
[09:56] ToddSchneider: Donna, certainly, but it depends on the problem to be solved (and the client's willingness:)
[09:56] Donna Fritzsche: and faciliate
[09:56] Uri Shani (IBM): nice
[09:56] Mark Underwood: The synthesis advocate can be the loose rein on topic drift
[09:57] Donna Fritzsche: to Todd - that is the point of covering different domains - to tease out these variations.
[09:58] Uri Shani (IBM): my examples of semantic mediation are in the systems engineering. That would be tools interoperability through that.
[09:58] TerryLongstreth: Donna, Todd, ---- and find /exploit similarities/differences
[09:58] MichaelGruninger: We could also have a series of sessions in which the Applied Ontology community can then respond with potential solutions to the problems raised by the Domain Tracks The first synthesis session would summarize the challenges which the Applied Ontology community would address and the second synthesis session would determine how well the proposed solutions meet the challenges.
[09:59] AnatolyLevenchuk: There are different means now to express ontology and semantics, not only logic. See, e.g. http://msrvideo.vo.msecnd.net/rmcvideos/258666/dl/258666.pdf -- then you can use map two ontologies/data models to embeddings space that you can get from deep learning techniques. This is a challenge, to use non-logical representations of ontologies!
[09:59] Judith Gelernter: Could representatives from the domains volunteer data sets/databases that require integrating? These might be used for case studies.
[10:00] Donna Fritzsche: at a meta level - we can see differences and similarities more clearly as they relate to use cases - time, granularity, accuracy, cost. We can start to understand which models work in which use cases/domains
[10:00] Gary Berg-Cross: I agree that one or more synthesis sessions is an important step leading to the Symposium.
[10:02] Mark Underwood: Judith - Agree - the track mgr should try to attract prospective datasets, though I see from the Big Data CoI that one often gets vague description vs schema dumps; i.e., compelling use cases, but with generalized descriptions of data elements
[10:03] Gary Berg-Cross: It is my experience that within the Earth Science and the Biomedical area ontologies are increasingly being looked at as ways of going beyond domain controlled vocabularies and related metadata effort. I would expect to have issues around this discussed in one of more these domain sessions.
[10:03] ToddSchneider: Most drivers of semantic integration involve a need to cross a boundary (of some sort) that hadn't been crossed or needed to be crossed before. So perhaps the tracks could look for examples of these sorts.
[10:03] Uri Shani (IBM): 7 is good number... :)
[10:04] Donna Fritzsche: Todd - there are some solutions that start to accomplish this
[10:04] Uri Shani (IBM): I can help with #6 - my domain.
[10:05] ToddSchneider: Looking at data/data sets in isolation won't help to understand nor convey the value of semantic integration. The larger context of why the data needs to be shared or accessed (across boundaries) provides the motivation.
[10:06] TerryLongstreth: +1 Todd
[10:06] ToddSchneider: P.S. Skype is a total failure for me today. So I'm only responding to what's in the chat.
[10:07] Donna Fritzsche: bummer todd!
[10:09] Donna Fritzsche: good point Tood - on data sets comment - use cases/context/requirements/need drive the integration and architecture needs
[10:10] MichaelGruninger: Confirmed Tracks:
[10:10] MichaelGruninger: 1. Earth Sciences (Gary Berg-Cross, KenBaclawski)
[10:10] MichaelGruninger: 2. Biomedical (Donna Fritzsche)
[10:11] Donna Fritzsche: Music community is doing alot.
[10:11] Donna Fritzsche: (re cloud)
[10:12] Donna Fritzsche: IBM Bluemix / Watson comments
[10:12] MichaelGruninger: 3. Cloud Services (Mark Underwood)
[10:15] MichaelGruninger: 4. Systems Engineering (including manufacturing)
[10:18] AnatolyLevenchuk: ISO 15926 community still working on their solutions in engineering. But there are no huge success still with it. All CAD/PLM vendors declare support of this ontology, but in reality there are no real interoperability yet. Too much manual labor to map 'em all!!!
[10:18] Donna Fritzsche: ISA-88 and 95 in manufacturing is a related set of efforts
[10:19] TerryLongstreth: @Donna - can you elaborate on music community (machine composing, editing, synthesis ....?)
[10:19] Mark Underwood: RE Cloud services: What I was trying to articulate about API-driven design was better explained here: http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/27/the-future-of-coding-is-here-and-threatens-to-wipe-out-everything-in-its-path/?ncid=rss&cps=gravity_1730_-931760535667349867#.vrjnuun:y8he
[10:20] AnatolyLevenchuk: System engineering fade in its ontology discussians. In INCOSE there are not rise of ontology mentions.
[10:20] Donna Fritzsche: for music - curation - just based on what I have seen in the news and job boards
[10:20] LeoObrst: See Ontology Summit 2012: Ontology for Big Systems: http://ontolog.cim3.net/OntologySummit/2012/. For systems engineering, etc.
[10:21] Uri Shani (IBM): Anatoly - indeed.
[10:21] Uri Shani (IBM): I made the point of tools interoperability for SE tools.
[10:21] ToddSchneider: Anatoly, INCOSE is not known for being forward thinking.
[10:21] AnatolyLevenchuk: New ontologies in clouds are services of image recognition (there should be some kind of ontology to classify images and video). E.g. http://clarifai.com/
[10:21] Uri Shani (IBM): :)
[10:21] MichaelGruninger: NIST has offered April 19/20 for the Symposium
[10:22] AnatolyLevenchuk: @Todd. Yes )))
[10:22] MichaelGruninger: One possible schedule:
[10:22] MichaelGruninger: January 14 Launch Session 21 Track X 28 Track Y February 4 Track Z 11Track W 18 Track V 25 Synthesis I March 3 Potential ontology-based solutions I 10 Potential ontology-based solutions II 17 Synthesis II 24 Communique I 31Communique II April 7 14 19/20 Symposium
[10:22] Donna Fritzsche: cool - Anatoly
[10:22] Judith Gelernter: I suggest limiting each session to 1 hour.
[10:22] Uri Shani (IBM): Although INCOSE honored us with best paper a couple of years back on a paper promoting semanatic mediation and ontologies for model-based SE tools.
[10:24] Mark Underwood: Anatoly - thx for Clarifai link
[10:26] TerryLongstreth: Major difference in recent Symposia is the requirement to have a completed communique before the FtoF.
[10:28] AnatolyLevenchuk: Clarifai is only one of many, but this is more about it than simply "cloud ontology". Please, think about non-logical ontology representation (e.g. to compare image with ontology type there should be common representation for images and types!). This is representation learning, deep learning most prominent. You should invite somebody from that community. It is most disruption technology from all up to now.
[10:29] AnatolyLevenchuk: My point is that computational ontology not bounded in 2015 to logic-based representations. It should be somehow reflected by agenda of a Summit.
[10:30] Donna Fritzsche: +1 anatoly's point
[10:30] Judith Gelernter: Quality of output would be higher if the sessions were more succinct.
[10:30] AnatolyLevenchuk: Ontology is about "what is in the world", answers up to now was logic-like, but today answers can be neural-like.
[10:32] Donna Fritzsche: Creating more succinct sessions - requires more time input up front
[10:33] Judith Gelernter: Yes, and it would be worthwhile
[10:34] Mark Underwood: For me, the level of effort is the burden, not the elapsed time, but that may be a subjective preference
[10:36] Judith Gelernter: To keep the sessions to 1 hour, what would be required would be to limit the number of slides per speaker (to say, 15).
[10:36] Donna Fritzsche: what do you mean mark? can you talk
[10:36] Donna Fritzsche: and targeted questions - @judith
[10:38] LeoObrst: Have to go, folks. Thanks.
[10:38] Mark Underwood: Ciao, Leo
[10:38] AnatolyLevenchuk: Ontology of style and non-word-expressable objects. E.g. semantic morphying (query of objects that you have no keywords) -- http://illustration2vec.net/ (this is about possibility mapping of two ontologies in common semantic space that is multidimentional meanings space, not ontology graph).
[10:38] Donna Fritzsche: agree Judith!
[10:39] Judith Gelernter: We will get better slides -- and better presentations -- if we require speakers to think about what they want to say, and limit their slides.
[10:39] Gary Berg-Cross: On this topic of speaker time for the sessions. We have had 2 hr sessions with the last half hour for disussion. This allowed 3-4 speakers per session.
[10:41] Donna Fritzsche: What is the value of so many tracks? maybe we need to think on that?
[10:41] Judith Gelernter: Sure. We can restrict the number of tracks.
[10:41] Donna Fritzsche: What areas is doing the best work or has the most interesting open questions?
[10:41] TerryLongstreth: One track could be cross track lessons to be communicated
[10:42] TerryLongstreth: Commitment is a problem
[10:42] Judith Gelernter: Speakers asked to talk for 30 min only will be less likely to drop out
[10:43] Uri Shani (IBM): maybe, skip the domains, and play with techniques for semantic integration. Domains can be associated as use cased to demo/example when presenting the integration method.
[10:44] Donna Fritzsche: Uri- need to do more work up front for that - tease out the techniques
[10:45] Judith Gelernter: If we have fewer topics this year, we can still consider a topic next year. It's not as though a topic will be lost.
[10:45] Mark Underwood: Cross-domain is important for bridging human subject / human data vs. natural science a la earth science, esp for security / privacy issues, curation, data quality risk management etc.
[10:47] TerryLongstreth: Mark - I agree. We would be well served with semantic integration across humanities and Science,
[10:47] Judith Gelernter: I think I'll be running the actual symposium at NIST this year.
[10:50] Gary Berg-Cross: The 2nd week of may works for me, but no the first.
[10:50] Judith Gelernter: I'll check those dates for you. 2nd week of May for the symposium at NIST
[10:50] Donna Fritzsche: @judith - what do you think of May possibilties? off hand?
[10:50] Mark Underwood: Maybe we could ask presenters to supply a quad chart in advance? Would that be too Dod?
[10:50] Donna Fritzsche: what is a quad chart!
[10:51] Uri Shani (IBM): I guess i can drop from this discussion now. Have a good day/night...
[10:51] Judith Gelernter: Scheduling depends upon other conferences happening here. I'll have to check the larger schedule and report back later.
[10:51] MichaelGruninger: @Judith: Can you please check with Janet Madison about room availability in the second week of May (or possibly even the third week)?
[10:51] Judith Gelernter: Yup
[10:51] Mark Underwood: Wikipedia "A quad chart is a form of technical documentation used to briefly describe an invention or other innovation through writing, illustration and/or photographs.[1] Such documents are described as "quad" charts because they are divided into four quadrants laid out on a landscape perspective.[2][3][4] They are typically one-page only; their succinctness facilitates rapid decision-making.[5] Though shorter, quad charts often serve in a similar capacity to white papers and the two documents are often requested alongside one another.
[10:52] Judith Gelernter: Yup, will do.
[10:52] Donna Fritzsche: @mark - thanks
[10:52] Judith Gelernter: Let's start in February rather than January.
[10:56] Judith Gelernter: option 1
[10:57] Mark Underwood: I had Michael's concept in mind also
[11:03] MichaelGruninger: Another Strawman schedule
[11:03] MichaelGruninger: January 28 Launch Session February 4 Track X 1 11 Track Y 1 18 Track Z 1 25 Track W 1 March 3 Track U 1 10 Synthesis I 17 Track X 2 24 Track Y 2 17 Track Z 2 24 Track W 2 31Track U 2 April 7 14 Synthesis II 21 Communique I 28 Communique II May 9 Symposium
[11:03] Mark Underwood: Gary suggested that earlier schedule for cloud services with "lightweight" solutions could help evolve topic depth
[11:05] Mark Underwood: Looks ok to me
[11:07] MichaelGruninger: Organizing Committee meeting next week Dec 17
[11:08] Judith Gelernter: I can't it make that day
[11:08] Gary Berg-Cross: I can be on a call Thursday the 17th.
[11:08] Judith Gelernter: Okay, will do
[11:09] TerryLongstreth: I'll be there
[11:09] Donna Fritzsche: Thanks!
[11:10] Mark Underwood: I will have to move a meeting, but I'll try to attend next week
[11:10] List of attendees: AnatolyLevenchuk, BethDiGiulian, ChristopherSpottiswoode, Donna Fritzsche, Gary Berg-Cross, Judith Gelernter, KenBaclawski, LeoObrst, Mark Underwood, MichaelGruninger, TerryLongstreth, ToddSchneider, Uri Shani (IBM), Veda Storey, anonymous, anonymous1

Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/   
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2015/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2015  
Community Portal: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/     (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [ontology-summit] summit_20151210: Chat Transcript - sent by: MichaelGruninger, Michael Gruninger <=