OntologySummit2009 Launch Event - Thu 2009-01-15    (1PXX)

Conference Call Details    (1RL4)

Attendees    (1RM4)

Agenda Ideas    (1RMD)

Resources    (1RMG)

Background    (1RUA)

This is our 4th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by NIST, Ontolog, NCOR, NCBO, OASIS, UN/CEFACT, OMG, ISO TC 184/SC4, STI International, ... (along with other co-organizers and co-sponsors.) In an earlier planning call back in Dec-2008, we brainstormed on this initiative among members of the community. That and subsequent solicitation for topic and planning support were answered with positive and enthusiastic contribution. The theme adopted by the community for Ontology Summit 2009 is: "Toward Ontology-based Standards."    (1RUB)

We are launching "Ontology Summit 2009" here. This will be three months of virtual discourse that culminates in a two-day face-to-face workshop (April 6 & 7, 2009 at Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA) as part of the NIST Interoperability Week 2009 program. At this launch, we will be introducing the "Ontology Summit 2009" objective, organization, process, deliverables and preliminary plans to you, and we welcome your ideas and participation.    (1RUC)

See: OntologySummit2009 (home page for the project)    (1RUD)

Agenda & Proceedings:    (1RUE)

Ontology Summit 2009 Launch    (1RUF)

Topic: Ontology Summit 2009 Launch    (1RUO)

This summit will address the intersection of two active communities, namely the information standards world, and the technical community of ontology and semantic technologies. This intersection is long overdue because each has much to offer the other. Ontologies represent the best efforts of the technical community to unambiguously capture the definitions and interrelationships of concepts in a variety of domains. Information standards are intended to provide unambiguous specifications of information, for the purpose of error-free access and exchange. If the standards community is indeed serious about specifying such information unambiguously to the best of its ability, then the use of ontologies as the vehicle for such specifications is the logical choice.    (1RUQ)

Conversely, the information standards world can provide a large market for the industrial use of ontologies, since ontologies are explicitly focused on the representation of information. This will be a boost to worldwide recognition of the utility and power of ontological models.    (1RUR)

The goal of this Ontology Summit 2009 is to articulate the power of synergizing these two communities in the form of a communique in which a number of concrete challenges can be laid out. These challenges could serve as a roadmap that will galvanize both communities and bring this promising technical area to the attention of others. Exactly what challenges are chosen is the subject to be debated and decided upon during the electronic discussion period leading up to the face-to-face meeting in April of 2009.    (1RUS)

The 2009 Ontology Summit begins with today's launch event that begins a series of topical online discussions, virtual panel sessions, etc. all of which come together with a face-to-face meeting on April 6 & 7, 2009 in Gaithersburg, MD at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).    (1RUT)

Questions, Answers & Discourse:    (1RUU)

 PeterYim: Welcome to the OntologySummit2009 Launch Event - Thu 2009-01-15    (1RV2)
 PeterYim: Session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2009_01_15    (1T6P)
 PeterYim: Ontology Summit 2009 Theme: "Toward Ontology-based Standards"    (1T6Q)
 anonymous morphed into FlorescuFlorescu    (1T6R)
 anonymous1 morphed into SteveRay    (1T6S)
 anonymous2 morphed into DavidPrice    (1T6T)
 anonymous morphed into RexBrooks    (1T6U)
 anonymous morphed into MikeDean    (1T6V)
 anonymous morphed into HowardMason    (1T6W)
 DeborahMacPherson: just emailed ppy: ogc context, like an ontology, with iso standards overlaid, 
                    especially bc MatthewWest online, interested to discuss iso 15926 vs 16739    (1T6X)
 MatthewWest: Deborah: I'm not familiar with ISO 16739, but very familiar with 15926 of course. 
              Happy to talk about what the differences might be. But probably not right here right now.    (1T6Y)
 DavidPrice: What is 16739?    (1T6Z)
 MatthewWest: They are Geoff Wix's Industry Foundation Classes for buildings.    (1T70)
 DeborahMacPherson: ISO 16739 is the Industry Foundation Classes, 
                    refer to http://www.blis-project.org/2xconcepts/index.htm 
                    especially the PDF at http://www.blis-project.org/2xconcepts/index.htm. 
                    I'm working with 3 classification systems for buildings MasterFormat 2004, 
                    OmniClass, and UniFormat. Each has their own utility for different parts 
                    of the building life-cycle communication process. Maybe they can 
                    find a common ground in the IFC's. The graphic sent to Peter takes 
                    the OGC and NBIMS hierarchy, then Deke Smith at BuildingSMART alliance 
                    overlaid areas where 16739 probably applies vs 15926.    (1T71)
 PeterYim: see the slide DeborahMacPherson is referring to 
           at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2009/OntologySummit2009-Launch_20090115/wip/ogc.tiff    (1T72)
 anonymous morphed into KenBaclawski    (1T73)
 RexBrooks: In terms of examples, for those of us who are working on building ontologies 
            for standards, specifically as foundations for sets of standards in a given domain, 
            examples that show the role of an ontology within other representations for 
            a standard or standards.    (1T74)
 SteveRay: Comment from Michael: We should seek out concrete examples of standards that use ontologies, 
           and standards that COULD use ontologies.    (1T75)
 RexBrooks: I have another meeting I need to get to, but I will keep an eye on the wiki.    (1T76)
 DavidLeal: Ultimately ontologies should be used by engineering domain experts as a computer interpretable 
            part of a standard which is also expressed as person readable text. Ontologies should not 
            be in separate "digital representation" standards. A good example could be material test standards 
            where the criteria that define a test type could be defined as an ontology as well as text.    (1T77)
 DavidPrice: As many ontology languages support annotation, it's unclear why the ontology isn't 
             person- as well as human-readable.    (1T78)
 DavidLeal: agreed    (1T79)
 TomRuss@ISI: A combination ontology and text representation would be fine.  But it does raise 
              the additional issue of coherence.  One would need to make sure that the text and 
              formal representation are really equivalent.  I suspect that a process similar to 
              that used by Canada or the EU, with the need to have multi-lingual versions of 
              standards, laws, etc. would be needed.    (1T7A)
 PeterYim: I will start a wiki page and list the topics and solicit people to add their names 
           to specific topics they will focus their efforts on.    (1T7B)
 PeterYim: Thanks everyone ... bye!    (1T7C)
 - end of transcript -    (1T7D)

An Open Invitation    (1RV6)

If you do find this initiative interesting or useful, we cordially invite you to join us in the "Ontology Summit 2009" virtual discourse that will be taking place in the next 3 months or so, and to the face-to-face workshop that will be held on 6 & 7-April-2009 as part of the NIST Interoperability Week in Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.    (1RV7)

Audio Recording of this Session    (1RVB)