ConferenceCall 2009 03 05

Test your voice and introduce yourself first before proceeding with your remarks, please.

 PeterYim: Welcome to the SemanticWiki mini-series Session-6 - Thu 5-Mar-2009    (1UQ3)
 * Mini-series Title: Semantic Wikis: The Wiki Way to the Semantic Web  
 * Session-6 Topic: The Future of Semantic Wiki: Trends, Challenges and Outlook  
 * Session Chair: Prof. Dr. RudiStuder (FZI & Institut AIFB, Universitt Karlsruhe) & Dr. MarkGreaves (Vulcan)  
 * Panelists:    
  o Chairs of previous sessions in this mini-series to summarize the outcome from their sessions, 
    and to make their short statements on today's topic (5 min. each)  
    + Dr. SebastianSchaffert, Mr. HaroldSolbrig, Mr. MaxVoelkel, Mr. MarkusKroetzsch, 
      Mr. MikeDean, Mr.  PeterYim, Dr.  LiDing & Dr. JieBao  
  o Speakers from previous sessions of this mini-series to each deliver short statements 
    regarding the future of semantic wikis as they each see it (2 min. each)   
    + Mr. ChristophLange, Mr. DanielHansch, Professor DanielSchwabe, Mr. HaroldSolbrig, 
      Mr. JoelNatividad, Professor  KeiCheung, Mr. MarkusKroetzsch, Mr. MikeDean, 
      Professor Dr. PeterDolog, Mr.  PeterYim, Dr. SebastianSchaffert, Mr. TobiasKuhn & Mr. YaronKoren    (1UQ4)
 PeterYim: See details on the session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2009_03_05    (1UQ5)
 anonymous morphed into  DanielSchwabe    (1UQ6)
 anonymous morphed into  RudiStuder    (1UQ7)
 RudiStuder1 morphed into MarkusKroetzsch    (1UQ8)
 anonymous morphed into SonDoan    (1UQ9)
 SonDoan requests a private chat with you    (1UQA)
 RudiStuder: We are having problems dialing in. The German telecon service says that the conference ID is not valid    (1UQB)
 PeterDolog: hi all    (1UQC)
 MarkusKroetzsch: We are now using the UK line to dial in.    (1UQD)
 anonymous morphed into YaronKoren    (1UQE)
 MarkusKroetzsch: Hi Yaron.    (1UQF)
 YaronKoren: What's up, Markus.    (1UQG)
 MarkusKroetzsch: We are still waiting for Peter to dial in ...    (1UQH)
 DanielHansch: Hi everybody!    (1UQI)
 PeterYim: Sorry guys ... I am slightly delayed ...  I will be over in a couple of minutes    (1UQJ)
 PeterYim: slides just posted ... please refresh session page    (1UQK)
 anonymous morphed into  EdDodds    (1UQL)
 LarsLudwig: Hello there    (1UQM)
 YaronKoren: Looking through the presentations, it looks like Markus and Max's is an old one.    (1UQN)
 anonymous morphed into  JesseWang    (1UQO)
 YaronKoren: From the 3rd session.    (1UQP)
 SebastianSchaffert: Hi, I dialed in via the German line just fine    (1UQQ)
 MarkusKroetzsch sees two people with their hands up. You can put them down again with the hand button at the bottom right, I think.    (1UQR)
 MarkusKroetzsch: We will try that too, back in a minute.    (1UQS)
 SebastianSchaffert: yes, I could if I had not logged in again    (1UQT)
 SebastianSchaffert: -n+d    (1UQU)
 MarkusKroetzsch: ok, we are back via the German line    (1UQV)
 anonymous1 morphed into  ChristophLange    (1UQW)
 ChristophLange: hi, sorry for coming a bit late...    (1UQX)
 MarkusKroetzsch: Hi, we are just starting    (1UQY)
 anonymous morphed into  TimFinin    (1UQZ)
 anonymous morphed into Mike Lang    (1UR0)
 SebastianSchaffert morphed into SebastianSchaffert    (1UR1)
 anonymous3 morphed into DanielRedmon    (1UR2)
 DanielSchwabe: Bullets for those w/o slides should are at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SemanticWiki/Future    (1UR3)
 anonymous morphed into JieBao    (1UR4)
 EdDodds: Thanks to the conveners!!!    (1UR5)
 anonymous1 morphed into John Pacheco    (1UR6)
 anonymous2 morphed into  BobbinTeegarden    (1UR7)
 anonymous morphed into  ChristophLange    (1UR8)
 SebastianSchaffert: there is also the 4th SemWiki workshop at ESWC2009    (1UR9)
 YaronKoren: I submitted a talk for the SemTech conference, but they never responded, which I guess means that they rejected me.    (1URA)
 YaronKoren:    (1URB)
 MarkusKroetzsch: You should inquire anyway.    (1URC)
 SebastianSchaffert: ero-training is the goal of every software developer, or should be    (1URD)
 YaronKoren: I did, actually, about a month ago - they didn't respond to that either.    (1URE)
 MarkusKroetzsch thinks they filter "Yaron" in email headers    (1URF)
 YaronKoren: I knew it!    (1URG)
 YaronKoren: ...or "forms".    (1URH)
 EdDodds: Is there a knowledge engineer job posting resource, either on Ontolog or else place?    (1URI)
 TimFinin: we'll continue to need knowledge engineers just as we programmers and database specialists    (1URJ)
 SebastianSchaffert: but hard to convince companies that they need one, at least that's my experience    (1URK)
 SebastianSchaffert: thanks Rudi    (1URL)
 MarkusKroetzsch: There will also be another SMW user meeting, maybe  DanielHansch can say something on that.    (1URM)
 DanielHansch: Peter, would you be so kind and show my updated slide later? (v1.1)    (1URN)
 PeterYim: @DanielHansch: I've got your updated slide online    (1URO)
 MarkGreaves: Tim: I agree that we will need KEs in many cases; the question is the degree to which 
              semantic wikis can socialize some of the lower-end schema design applications.    (1URP)
 DanielSchwabe: I don't believe there will be a single "user interface" that is universally "good" for all    (1URQ)
 MarkusKroetzsch: Right, see item 2    (1URR)
 DanielSchwabe: therefore, we really need environments that make it easy to create customized interfaces    (1URS)
 LarsLudwig: we need one environment to customize, maybe    (1URT)
 DanielSchwabe: perhaps some communities may reach a consensus on some interface model that suits them    (1URU)
 DanielSchwabe: Why access only from other wiki *systems*, and not from any data source?    (1URV)
 MarkusKroetzsch: Didn't he say this?    (1URW)
 DanielSchwabe: I heard Rudi say "accessing data from other wiki systems"...    (1URX)
 MarkGreaves: DanielSchwabe: I agree about the multiple UIs; we don't expect a single best interface to a RDBMS, 
              so why should we expect a single best interface to semantic data?  
              Your M-V-C work is quite cool in this regard.    (1URY)
 MarkusKroetzsch: ok, we can check on the recording, I was more focussed on the slide    (1URZ)
 DanielSchwabe: MarkGreaves - ok, but the actual challenge of good UI design remains    (1US0)
 YaronKoren: No, he talked about other data sources before, including desktop-only data.    (1US1)
 DanielSchwabe: ok, my mistake...    (1US2)
 MarkusKroetzsch: The slides are here: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/SemanticWiki/SWiki-06_Future-of-SemanticWiki_20090305/SemanticWiki-Future--RudiStuder_20090305.pdf    (1US3)
 YaronKoren: That was early on in the talk.    (1US4)
 DanielSchwabe: yes, there is the URL to all the slides earlier in the transcript    (1US5)
 DanielSchwabe: I think this definition is missing collectively produced content. To me this is one of the defining notions of "wiki"    (1US6)
 YaronKoren: Sure.    (1US7)
 SebastianSchaffert: we had a definition of "Wiki Philosophy" in the first session    (1US8)
 SebastianSchaffert: it included "everyone can edit"    (1US9)
 EdDodds: Anyone using twitter here? What hash tags do you use for Ontolog Forum related tweets?    (1USA)
 MarkGreaves: DanielSchwabe:  I think there is enough diversity between SMW+, Knoodl, AceWiki, IkeWiki, SWiM, 
              and the other semantic wikis that our community is not well served by drawing bright inclusion lines 
              or debating terminological scope, even around a fundamental property like collaboration.  
              The marketplace is redefining our term anyway.  I'd rather see us be inclusive about 
              the term "semantic wiki", leave it hazily defined, and let our various pieces of software speak for themselves.    (1USB)
 SebastianSchaffert: research has to be fun;.)    (1USC)
 MarkusKroetzsch: +1 to Mark    (1USD)
 YaronKoren: I would think a definition of semantic wikis that doesn't include collaboration is not a definition at all.    (1USE)
 DanielSchwabe: +1 to Yaron - and that's true for Wikis, not just Semantic Wikis...    (1USF)
 MarkGreaves: YaronKoren:  I use a semantic wiki in a noncollaborative way for my own personal information management, for example.    (1USG)
 MarkusKroetzsch: Actually, my hoempage is a semantic wiki, but I am the only editor    (1USH)
 SebastianSchaffert: BTW, first KiWi open source prerelease: http://www.schaffert.eu/2009/02/27/first-kiwi-open-source-release/ 
                     (sorry for advertisement, couldn't resist)    (1USI)
 DanielSchwabe: MarkGreaves - I agree with the overall approach to the problem; I also don't believe 
                in very strong categorizations that serve no purpose.    (1USJ)
 YaronKoren: Yes, I'm aware of single-user wikis, but the tools are in place for collaboration.    (1USK)
 MarkusKroetzsch: Sure    (1USL)
 SebastianSchaffert: not necessarily    (1USM)
 DanielSchwabe: The issue is that if you really take away the collaboration infrastructure, the problem becomes much simpler.    (1USN)
 SebastianSchaffert: it always becomes simpler without cocurrency    (1USO)
 DanielSchwabe: exactly    (1USP)
 SebastianSchaffert: but still, wikis are not about collaboration primarily, they are about creating web content quickly    (1USQ)
 StephenDavies: (what slide are we on now?)    (1USR)
 MarkGreaves: "Database" doesn't have a very tight definition, nor does "word processor" or other common classes 
              of software -- they more have a family resemblence and hazy boundaries.  No one has an issue with this.  
              So I'd hope this approach is part of our semantic wiki community as well.    (1USS)
 DanielSchwabe: Hmmm, then wysywig HTML editors would be wiki tools!    (1UST)
 StephenDavies: (ah, okay)    (1USU)
 SebastianSchaffert: there is tiddlywiki - http://www.tiddlywiki.com/    (1USV)
 YaronKoren: Slide 11 - interestingly, it's about "what is a wiki".    (1USW)
 SebastianSchaffert: a kind of wysiwyg editor if you like    (1USX)
 SebastianSchaffert: but a wysiwyg editor does not create a website, it just creates HTML    (1USY)
 LarsLudwig: take a CMS    (1USZ)
 DanielSchwabe: Ok, some CMSs or tools do that - create the page, publish right away. 
                One of the really enabling factors in wikis is easy *linking* (not so much formatting, imho)    (1UT0)
 TimFinin: FB and youtube don't seem to be wikis to me.    (1UT1)
 SebastianSchaffert: yes, linking is crucial    (1UT2)
 SebastianSchaffert: and then there is versioning    (1UT3)
 YaronKoren: You can't edit other people's contributions in FB, YouTube, etc.; that's the issue.    (1UT4)
 SebastianSchaffert: and (you can debate that) everyone can edit    (1UT5)
 DanielSchwabe: So that's why some of the social software sites/tools mentioned in slide 11 would not really count as wikis 
                (from the easy linking pov). And, of course, editing other people's contents, sure.    (1UT6)
 TimFinin: more like forums, then    (1UT7)
 SebastianSchaffert: yes, but there are nowadays many corporate wiki installations where *not* everyone can edit    (1UT8)
 SebastianSchaffert: but still they are wikis    (1UT9)
 TimFinin: bossWiki    (1UTA)
 DanielSchwabe: it's ok if you have some editorial control on who is allowed to publish...    (1UTB)
 DanielSchwabe: functionally speaking, it's still collaborative content AND linking    (1UTC)
 HaroldSolbrig: I think the history component is an important aspect as well.    (1UTD)
 SebastianSchaffert: I often summarise the wiki characteristics as follows:    (1UTE)
 SebastianSchaffert: - On a wiki, anyone can edit    (1UTF)
 SebastianSchaffert: - Wikis are easy to use (buzzword!)    (1UTG)
 SebastianSchaffert: - Wiki content is linkable    (1UTH)
 SebastianSchaffert: - Wikis support versioning    (1UTI)
 SebastianSchaffert: - Wikis support all media (that one is an extension of the old idea of web page)    (1UTJ)
 SebastianSchaffert: http://www.kiwi-project.eu/index.php/kiwi-vision/21-wiki-philosophy    (1UTK)
 LarsLudwig: hm, I could think of a virtual wiki integrating personal statements without direct editing    (1UTL)
 ChristophLange: I wouldn't call the feature "versioning" -- IIRC it was originally called "easy undo" 
                 = it's easier to undo a mistake than to mess up sth. (and versioning is one solution for that)    (1UTM)
 SebastianSchaffert: true    (1UTN)
 DanielSchwabe: my definition - easy content and linking; collaborative creation. 
                Versioning is really just a way to overcome lack of concurrency control 
                - leave to the users to undo inconsistent updates, simplifies implementation.    (1UTO)
 SebastianSchaffert: @Lars: Twitter?    (1UTP)
 SebastianSchaffert: Daniel: versioning is much more important    (1UTQ)
 SebastianSchaffert: it is about taking away fears    (1UTR)
 SebastianSchaffert: the fear of breaking things    (1UTS)
 LarsLudwig: why not integrating twitter messages into a wiki    (1UTT)
 DanielHansch: The "rule knowledge in SMW"-prototype is online: http://ruledemo.ontoprise.com/index.php?title=Main_Page    (1UTU)
 DanielSchwabe: ok, but I consider that as part of "collaborative content creation" support    (1UTV)
 SebastianSchaffert: if I know that I can undo my changes in a Wiki, I feel much more easy to actually contribute    (1UTW)
 SebastianSchaffert: @Lars: yes, of course (KiWi)    (1UTX)
 YaronKoren: I was smiling at the "breaking things", BTW.    (1UTY)
 EdDodds: Isolated components will be available to link with electronic medical records and 
          financial reporting increasingly done in extensible business reporting language (xbrl) as well. 
          Anyone looking at the medical banking implications of this yet?    (1UTZ)
 HaroldSolbrig: The versioning isn't just being able to undo - it carries the evolution of how the idea was formed. 
                Interestingly, discussions should probably be linear - time flows down the page, but core pages need history.    (1UU0)
 MarkusKroetzsch: The "Ask The Wiki" demo is still found at http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Special:ATWSpecialSearch (URL not on my slides)    (1UU1)
 anonymous1 morphed into  JohnMcClure    (1UU2)
 PeterDolog: just some thoghts based on above discussion. I think we probably need some kind of 
             a metaphor for semantic wiki. Looking at what the other wrote: Sebastian - quickly update content 
             -> I think this is historically wiki; Daniel: collaborative editing of content was probably added 
             after when CSCW peaple entered, knowledge evolution goes towards semantics a bit 
             (versioning vs. evolution? probably a discussion point too)    (1UU3)
 EdDodds: >> LarsLudwig: why not integrating twitter messages into a wiki - Indeed, saw this a.m. 
          http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/News/Breaking-News/Wikis-get-social-52891.aspx on a product 
          (eTouch announces SamePage Version 4.1) that "functionally" attempts this, 
          although not actually with twitter or identi.ca/laconi.ca    (1UU4)
 DanielSchwabe: @PeterDolog - No, collaboration was there since the beginning in Ward Cunninghams first wiki    (1UU5)
 PeterDolog: OK, I am not excluding it. I think we just probably miss some kind of methaphor we could all ground too.    (1UU6)
 MarkusKroetzsch: A core aspect of Ward's Wiki was simplicity -- hardly any markup.    (1UU7)
 HaroldSolbrig: As was the original HTML    (1UU8)
 LarsLudwig:  EdDodds: next step: integrate 'semantic' messages    (1UU9)
 PeterDolog: ok, so what would be an equivalent simplicity to semantic wiki    (1UUA)
 MarkusKroetzsch: As Ward said himself, Wikipedia and others have moved away from this part a lot, but I think he is okay with this    (1UUB)
 PeterDolog: simplicity in editing beyond content - knowledge?    (1UUC)
 DanielSchwabe: I translated these into "easy content creation and linking"    (1UUD)
 DanielSchwabe: So I really don't care what is the underlying representation - if I have a tool that makes it 
                very easy to create content, that's fine.    (1UUE)
 MarkusKroetzsch: Ward's wiki was not just "easy" (to use), its whole data model was extremely simple. 
                  There was hardly any structure in the data it contained. Mostly links.    (1UUF)
 LiDing: the notion of easy is hard to say    (1UUG)
 DanielSchwabe: Hence, with wysiwyg HTML enable wiki content to be HTML, so long as people don't have to edit the source...    (1UUH)
 LiDing: even editing with wiki require training    (1UUI)
 HaroldSolbrig: Interesting now that I think about it.  HTML 1.0 was more semantic than syntax.  
                The XML community argues that it "got off track" with the images and formatting information 
                rather than the semantics of the message itself.  XML, on the other hand, made it *too* easy 
                for everyone to say whatever they said their own way.  RDF & OWL etc. are attempts to agree 
                on semantics, but WIKI, in a way, is a return to the original HTML principles.    (1UUJ)
 MarkGreaves: LiDing:  very well said, "the notion of easy is hard to say"    (1UUK)
 LiDing: furthermore, editing in English is not that easy    (1UUL)
 DanielSchwabe: Besides content itself with the simple markup, the real winner was the simple linking mechanism - reference by name    (1UUM)
 MarkusKroetzsch: but maybe maintaining a basic data model with as little strucutre as possible is not actually our goal these days ...    (1UUN)
 DanielSchwabe: at that time, this was the difficult part to achieve in a simple way    (1UUO)
 HaroldSolbrig: Agreed - especially the link to a yet to be created page.    (1UUP)
 MarkusKroetzsch: indeed    (1UUQ)
 JohnMcClure: Core & definitional to wikis -- which seems not to have received alot of attention -- are namespaces. 
              I believe that public understanding of wikis needs to evolve, not be a revolution with too many concepts. 
              Thus, I suggest that the concept of namespaces -- as a form of strong typing -- is the next crucial atom 
              of info to be communicated.    (1UUR)
 DanielSchwabe: @Markus - sure, I would not focus so much on a "data model"    (1UUS)
 DanielSchwabe: @johnM - interesting point...    (1UUT)
 EdDodds: @ LarsLudwig: next step: integrate 'semantic' messages >> yes, I wonder if the open ontology registry (Ontolog Project) 
          might be utilized to connect with tagging a la delicious, folksonomies, twit hash tags, etc. to help give context 
          to these semantic messages...    (1UUU)
 PeterDolog: @DanielSchwabe: so our ultimate goal is then, what is now difficult on the content in the wikis 
             which semantics can make it simple    (1UUV)
 MarkusKroetzsch: @DanielSchwabe: I mean the basic structural model of the wiki content. In spite of all freedom 
                  that users should have, technically there must be some basic "model".    (1UUW)
 DanielSchwabe: that's part of it. Then there is the "consuming the information" part. 
                No good to be easy to create if it is hard to consume! which leads us to customizable interfaces    (1UUX)
 MarkusKroetzsch: s /Daniel/DanielS/    (1UUY)
 JohnMcClure: I suggest that IF ontologies are calibrated with (inter)wiki namespaces,  
              THEN ontology metadata can be reasoned, leading to interoperability    (1UUZ)
 DanielSchwabe: @MarkusKroetzsch - sure    (1UV0)
 MarkusKroetzsch: we see it!    (1UV1)
 YaronKoren: SMW mostly uses categories and not namespaces.    (1UV2)
 MarkusKroetzsch: Well, it uses both but for very different things.    (1UV3)
 HaroldSolbrig: We had to splice namespaces in...    (1UV4)
 LarsLudwig: document annotation is no solution    (1UV5)
 HaroldSolbrig: e.g. RDF_type  or WINE_cabernet    (1UV6)
 MarkusKroetzsch: @ PeterYim: my lightning slide is not linked online -- did you get it?    (1UV7)
 JohnMcClure: Yaron, yes I agree, but that doesnt distress me. The essential point 
              is that SMW needs to develop an ontology that describes NSs.    (1UV8)
 YaronKoren: Markus - a minority of people use namespaces for data. Like Harold.    (1UV9)
 MarkusKroetzsch: Oh, I would not encourage this, from a technical viewpoint    (1UVA)
 YaronKoren: Talk to Harold. And John.    (1UVB)
 JohnMcClure: because...?    (1UVC)
 YaronKoren: John - I don't see why usage of namespaces is that important to you.    (1UVD)
 JohnMcClure: Because it is a container. Because it's already in MW. Because it is not new    (1UVE)
 YaronKoren: You could say the same for categories.    (1UVF)
 MarkusKroetzsch requests a private chat with you    (1UVG)
 MarkusKroetzsch requests a private chat with you    (1UVH)
 HaroldSolbrig: Two different notions of namespace.  One is the Mediawiki ns 
                (Category, Template, Property, and talk analogs) and the second is ontology namespace (URI)    (1UVI)
 MarkusKroetzsch: Ah, that is indeed different    (1UVJ)
 JesseWang: Yaron: I believe one reason people use namespaces is to avoid name conflict: say, 
            two pages: NS1:MembersList vs NS2:MembersList.    (1UVK)
 JohnMcClure: Harold, agreed. What is the difference my friend?    (1UVL)
 MarkusKroetzsch: @Harold: Of course, namespaces in ontologies often have no semantic significance. 
                  They are specific to some serializations, but not part of the ontological content.    (1UVM)
 SebastianSchaffert: and they don't say anything about the ontology    (1UVN)
 SebastianSchaffert: they are about the URIs and not suitable for grouping ontologies    (1UVO)
 MarkusKroetzsch: (opening a file in an ontology editor and saving it again may sometimes change the namespaces that are used)    (1UVP)
 MarkusKroetzsch: The notion of "URI" does not involve namespaces either.    (1UVQ)
 MarkusKroetzsch: They only come in in XML and some other file formats.    (1UVR)
 DanielSchwabe: I guess what is meant is some facility to help "distributed vocabulary management"    (1UVS)
 LiDing: isn't wiki a place forcing people to converge?    (1UVT)
 MarkusKroetzsch: @DanielS: Yes, the problem is that semantic technology standards are pretty poor on this task.    (1UVU)
 DanielSchwabe: @MarkusK - sure, I was just trying to give my interpretation of the remark on using NSs    (1UVV)
 MarkusKroetzsch: yes, and I think it is a valid remark, just hard to implement properly using standards    (1UVW)
 DanielSchwabe: @ LiDing - yes, but converge != merge    (1UVX)
 JohnMcClure: What is meant is a hook to define context, the 'frame' through which a particular wiki, 
              or namespace within a wiki, is constructed. 
              Where else to define such context *in the existing framework*?    (1UVY)
 LiDing: @daniel, right we do forced-converge or merged by mapping    (1UVZ)
 JohnMcClure: Frankly I am most concerned with making swikis palatable as possible - Start with existing concepts, 
              like namespaces (aka context) and pages (aka resources)    (1UW0)
 DanielSchwabe: @ LiDing - I believe merged by mapping is more acceptable, hence the use of NSs to help that    (1UW1)
 JohnMcClure: we can all agree semantically what the  'talk' ns is for. Why stop there? 
              Am suggesting some additional foundational namespaces in addition to 
              the fourteen (14) standard ns's.    (1UW2)
 TimFinin morphed into  TimFinin    (1UW3)
 DanielSchwabe: Shameless plug - partial answer to point 2 (interface between dbpedia and semantic wiki)
                - Explorator: http://www.tecweb.inf.puc-rio.br/explorator. 
                First step, exploring data; second step, create/add/edit content (coming)    (1UW4)
 YaronKoren: @ KeiCheung - well, some might say that a semantic Wikipedia might replace DBPedia entirely.    (1UW5)
 JohnMcClure: e.g., put one's formal ontology in a 'term' ns, controlled by KEs. 
              Leave folksonomies in the 'category' ns -- potential terms adoptable by KEs    (1UW6)
 DanielSchwabe: @YaronKoren - sorry, I really don't believe that. They serve entirely different purposes. 
                I could see Semantic Wikipedia being based on top of dbpedia...    (1UW7)
 SebastianSchaffert: @Yaron: which would make sense, why are they separate in the first place ...    (1UW8)
 SebastianSchaffert: well, at the moment, DBPedia is based on Wikipedia    (1UW9)
 DanielSchwabe: @YaronKoren (perhaps that's what you meant?)    (1UWA)
 SebastianSchaffert: adding the DBPedia-way of querying data to Wikipedia would make sense    (1UWB)
 YaronKoren: No, I'm talking about adding SMW (for instance  ) to Wikipedia.    (1UWC)
 YaronKoren: Wikipedia could then be queried directly.    (1UWD)
 SebastianSchaffert: same result, isn't it (or even better)    (1UWE)
 SebastianSchaffert: that's what I meant    (1UWF)
 DanielSchwabe: @sebastian - one of the advantages of dbpedia is having a sparql endpoint. 
                It enables powerful interfaces such as the Explorator I mentioned above    (1UWG)
 MarkusKroetzsch hears echo    (1UWH)
 SebastianSchaffert: yes, but Wikipedia could offer the SPARQL endpoint    (1UWI)
 DanielSchwabe: In addition, you could always have the (Semantic) Media Wiki interface, as you said    (1UWJ)
 SebastianSchaffert: instead of having it separate    (1UWK)
 SebastianSchaffert: I disagree with Mike - OWL must prove that it is useful or otherwise we dump it    (1UWL)
 SebastianSchaffert: (my challenge ...  )    (1UWM)
 ChristophLange: one more thought about namespaces: I think they are needed if links should remain 
                 easy to author. LinkByName actually requires one flat namespace, which is not practical 
                 for structuring knowledge, but full URIs are hard to author    (1UWN)
 DanielSchwabe: +1 to ChristophLange    (1UWO)
 SebastianSchaffert: @Christoph: link lookup can be done differently    (1UWP)
 HaroldSolbrig: @Markus (wrt namespaces) - indeed, namespaces have no semantic significance, which is 
                why they work out ok as a part of the name itself.  The key, however, is disambiguation
                - especially when you are referencing outside resources that have not coordinated their names.  
                The classic example is the NCI has a class called "Agent", which includes drugs and other 
                delivery mechanisms.  NCI_Agent is needed...    (1UWQ)
 SebastianSchaffert: I'll maybe discuss with you separately how we now do it in KiWi    (1UWR)
 MarkusKroetzsch: I agree with Sebastian, but I don't think OWL is just useful if it is useful in wikis; 
                  actually, we would have very advanced swikis indeed if they are able to leverage 
                  a technology as powerful as OWL. Maybe we are not there yet.    (1UWS)
 KeiCheung: Yaron, my chat room page was blocked by other windows so I didn't see your comment. 
            wikipedia started with free text, so it's not a natural fit to semantic web even dbpedia 
            addresses some of the issues. If we start right using semantic mediawiki (instead of mediawiki), 
            we might be able to create a better dbpedia (neurodbpedia in my case).    (1UWT)
 YaronKoren: Well, as far as I know DBPedia just uses Wikipedia's infobox data, which could be 
             relatively straightforwardly semantic-ized.    (1UWU)
 SebastianSchaffert: ... or create a flop because people are reluctant to use it    (1UWV)
 SebastianSchaffert: if it is too complex    (1UWW)
 SebastianSchaffert: difficult act of balancing    (1UWX)
 MarkusKroetzsch: @Harold: yes, I agree; I am not sure how well this is supported by current tools, though    (1UWY)
 HaroldSolbrig: @Markus I disagree.  OWL, while it may not appear directly, is an important component 
                when defining the intended meaning of the semantic components.  With OWL, RDF, ... 
                we have "Category" and "Property".  That said, OWL should be under the covers.    (1UWZ)
 DanielSchwabe: I think we can build special purpose interfaces to create, edit and navigate data 
                for which we KNOW the (meta) schema.    (1UX0)
 SebastianSchaffert: people absolutely don't care about semantics    (1UX1)
 SebastianSchaffert: they have to be added in a natural way    (1UX2)
 SebastianSchaffert: forms are one way    (1UX3)
 MarkusKroetzsch: in addition, people absolutely don't care about wikis    (1UX4)
 SebastianSchaffert: tagging might be one    (1UX5)
 SebastianSchaffert: exactly    (1UX6)
 YaronKoren:    (1UX7)
 YaronKoren: So what are we doing here?    (1UX8)
 KeiCheung: faviki?    (1UX9)
 DanielSchwabe: @MarkusKroetzsch, unless you are saying this "tongue in cheek", people DO care about wikis...    (1UXA)
 HaroldSolbrig: @MarkusKroetzsch:  We had to roll our own for the time being.  Not only do we have 
                the namespace issue, but, one way or another, we have to know 
                that "Wine" and "Wein" map to the same core resource, so we need a notion of identity.    (1UXB)
 KeiCheung: owl:sameAs?    (1UXC)
 SebastianSchaffert: @Yaron: we care about positioning semantic wikis as a tool that people really like 
                     to use without noticing that they are using a wiki or semantics    (1UXD)
 HaroldSolbrig: I want to get to the same page in the end.    (1UXE)
 SebastianSchaffert: @Harold: this becomes very difficult    (1UXF)
 SebastianSchaffert: think of "Snow"    (1UXG)
 MarkusKroetzsch: @Yaron: That is why I think we should step back and consider the goal we have. 
                  We gather valuable experience in supporting structured and unstructured content, 
                  for trained and untrained users, in groups or alone -- we can define "CMS" 
                  or at least contribute significantly to its future definition.    (1UXH)
 EdDodds: Folks don't care about "semantics" but they do care about "context" 
          -- they just don't realize they can be the same thing    (1UXI)
 SebastianSchaffert: in Bavaria, we have about 5-10 notions of snow, in Iceland they have about 15    (1UXJ)
 DanielSchwabe: Good user interface are crucial to ANY interactive application...    (1UXK)
 SebastianSchaffert: and in Saudi Arabia they probably have only 1    (1UXL)
 SebastianSchaffert: +1 to Daniel    (1UXM)
 SebastianSchaffert: user centred design    (1UXN)
 DanielSchwabe: @SebastianSchaffert (Ha, in Brazil we have may .5 notion of snow, none real! :-Q)    (1UXO)
 MarkusKroetzsch: @DanielSchwabe: The people from the street care about the label "wiki" as they care about "Web 2.0", 
                  but the cateogrization as one or the other type of CMS is not essential to them as long as it works    (1UXP)
 DanielSchwabe: @MarkusKroetzsch - ah, ok    (1UXQ)
 HaroldSolbrig: @SebastianSchaffert: What we've done is created a 3 part identifier (NS_designation(code)). 
                NS is namespace ID, designation is language specific and possibly changeable name and code is immutable. 
                Note that links don't just come from other wiki pages (!).  If we don't find NS_designation(code), 
                we look up NS(Code).  If found, we build a redirect page.    (1UXR)
 EdDodds: A simple case is job matching a la hr-xml. HR still refuses to use "context" to match "job description" 
          with "resume" -- job seekers, however, do wish they would    (1UXS)
 MarkusKroetzsch: @Harold: I think I understand what kind of problems you would encounter there. 
                  You want to work on syntax, when all SemWeb standards work on semantics 
                  (i.e. letting you identify the entities you model, but not the names that you use for them).    (1UXT)
 MarkusKroetzsch wonders how many parallel side chats one can have while still being an attentive listener ...    (1UXU)
 EdDodds: Another case is the White House Forum on Health Reform Event on now http://www.whitehouse.gov/live2/ 
          where about of the jawing is about differing definitions and cross talk    (1UXV)
 EdDodds: alot of    (1UXW)
 JohnMcClure: Special purpose interfaces (@Daniel) could be bound each to a namespace. 
              People 'get' that pretty easily, and understand that    (1UXX)
 SebastianSchaffert: @Harold: but how does it solve the problem of owl:sameAs redirecting to the same page?    (1UXY)
 JohnMcClure: place:White House is SURELY different than article:White House and talk:White House    (1UXZ)
 SebastianSchaffert: concepts are slightly different in different cultures    (1UY0)
 DanielSchwabe: @JohnMcClure - sure, that's one of the primitive mechanisms we use in HDEWiki (and more general in HyperDE tool)    (1UY1)
 JohnMcClure: each requiring a wholly different set of tools to make the goal (completing content) faster, better, cheaper    (1UY2)
 DanielSchwabe: @JohnMcClure - there is a builtin notion of "context", and a way to customize the interface depending on the context.    (1UY3)
 JoelNatividad: Following up on my point about word processors - has anybody looked into using 
                the new document formats - Open XML and ODF in particular as a jumping point    (1UY4)
 JoelNatividad: for capturing semantically annotated data when creating documents    (1UY5)
 JoelNatividad: ODF has a metadata Technical Comittee    (1UY6)
 smishra morphed into Sunil Mishra    (1UY7)
 SebastianSchaffert: yes, we even have an open bug tracker issue on this    (1UY8)
 SebastianSchaffert: still open    (1UY9)
 DanielSchwabe: @YaronK, can you post the URL to the website you mentioned?    (1UYA)
 YaronKoren: Sure - http://opencongress.org/wiki    (1UYB)
 anonymous1: How is the UI problem related to the non-specific spirit of the wiki paradigm? 
             For instance, from my experience working within the biomedical domain I have see that tools 
             such as WIKI-Proteins do not facilitate any specific tool for the kind of information 
             they are meant to support. How could having more specific UIs help solving the UI problem?    (1UYC)
 BobbinTeegarden: Has anyone tried to move the wiki ui from words and bullets to an interactive graph (with GIS overlay) 
                  more like Gelernter's Mirror World?    (1UYD)
 SebastianSchaffert: because specific is always better for the user than generic    (1UYE)
 MarkusKroetzsch:  anonymous1, you can use "Settings" at the top panel to get a name.    (1UYF)
 DanielSchwabe: @ anonymous1 - that's precisely the point I was making in my earlier interventions!    (1UYG)
 LarsLudwig: name space? -- I call it mind space    (1UYH)
 HaroldSolbrig: @Sebastian: Even with owl:sameAs, we still have to get folks from whatever historical or 
                language specific hyperlink they've got to the SMW page that defines the category or property. 
                The advantage of the identifier approach is we don't have to carry a history 
                of all names that have been used.    (1UYI)
 MarkusKroetzsch: oops, I misinterpreted the text field next to the hand button    (1UYJ)
 SebastianSchaffert: response:    (1UYK)
 SebastianSchaffert: namespaces are not for semantics    (1UYL)
 DanielSchwabe: @YaronKoren - is there some sort of schema underlying the "structured" portion of this website? 
                Is there a way to access the "raw" underlying data?    (1UYM)
 SebastianSchaffert: @Harold: that's fine - my concern is only that it is not so easy to use the same concept 
                     in multiple languages    (1UYN)
 SebastianSchaffert: we had this in IkeWiki    (1UYO)
 YaronKoren: @DanielSchwabe - not really, no.    (1UYP)
 SebastianSchaffert: but didn't to it in KiWi after a long discussion    (1UYQ)
 AlexGarcia: I suppose that also has to do with being able to define atomic components 
             of a wiki page, the page is the atomic unit of the wiki.    (1UYU)
 HaroldSolbrig: @Sebastion: agreed that it isn't.  There are attempts and claims to be able to do this, however, 
                in Medical "ontologies" such as Gene Ontology and SNOMED-CT.  Also, what of Dublin Core and good ol' RDF?    (1UYW)
 SebastianSchaffert: @ AlexGarcia: not necessarily, we also discussed heavily in the community how to annotate parts of pages    (1UYZ)
 SebastianSchaffert: take the Wikipedia page about the computer mouse    (1UZ0)
 SebastianSchaffert: it would be useful to annotate each section differently, because it is about many historical mice    (1UZ1)
 JoelNatividad: @Tim:  Great stuff! Would love to see what your team put together.    (1UZ2)
 JoelNatividad: @Tim: Great stuff!  Would love to check out the work that your team did    (1UZ3)
 AlexGarcia: can u track changes over anything else but pages?    (1UZ4)
 SebastianSchaffert: @ AlexGarcia: yes, in KiWi we implemented versioning and transactions for metadata    (1UZ5)
 SebastianSchaffert: not 100% solved, but mostly    (1UZ6)
 JoelNatividad: Actually, I'm currently working on embedding semantic metadata in the SVG XML files that SRF-Ploticus produces.    (1UZ7)
 AlexGarcia: is there any literature on that?    (1UZ8)
 JohnMcClure: Markus' concern is that an ns organization conflicts with 
              one's ability to 'categorize' things in multiple ways.
              There are several responses to this. First, don't overlook the
              impace of REDIRECTS. Second, consider closely whether the structure
              of the ontology is ill-fitting wrt the implemented namespaces.    (1UZ9)
 ChristophLange: @ AlexGarcia: the page can remain the atomic unit, but then we need good refactoring workflows 
                 in case a page grows more complex (and subconcepts emerge within a page)    (1UZA)
 SebastianSchaffert: on the versioning? we are working on an article    (1UZB)
 SebastianSchaffert: should be finished next week    (1UZC)
 YaronKoren: Sorry, what was the question? I couldn't hear it.    (1UZD)
 MarkusKroetzsch: @John: My point is: categories already do that, are well known, and have support 
                  by advanced UIs even for searching. So why try to use MW namespaces?    (1UZE)
 SebastianSchaffert: @John: never forget the user    (1UZF)
 SebastianSchaffert: who would find this useful? I would find it awkward    (1UZG)
 MarkusKroetzsch: @John: I agree that it could be conceived, even though it would not play well 
                  with the technical use of namespaces now (e.g. namespaces cannot be added 
                  from the wiki but only server-side)    (1UZH)
 DanielSchwabe: @ AlexGarcia - there is a whole series of work on model-based interface specification. 
                If you want to get a flavor of what's possible, some is exemplified in our HDEWiki demo: 
                http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/SemanticWiki/SWiki-02_Technology-1_20081120/HDEWiki--DanielSchwabe_20081120.html    (1UZI)
 JohnMcClure: I don't believe there is any ontology for defining a category.
              (Unless you wanna raise Topic Maps v Ontology debate)    (1UZJ)
 SebastianSchaffert: SKOS    (1UZK)
 MarkusKroetzsch: well, I think we are talking of different things here    (1UZL)
 JoelNatividad: In my ideal world, users will work on their documents using familiar interfaces and then 
                the knowledge is published on Semantic Wiki    (1UZM)
 SebastianSchaffert: +1 to Joel    (1UZN)
 SebastianSchaffert: intuitiveness means known patterns of use    (1UZO)
 JohnMcClure: yep, skos.
              Further, mw searching does understand ns's and categories. 
              Certainly I acknowledge that there's a break with categories in some sense.
              But this is called 'emerging ke' right    (1UZP)
 AlexGarcia: Hi Christoph, how could the re-factoring be done?    (1UZQ)
 JoelNatividad: and other users can further annotate on Wiki, and if it can be done, 
                the annotations are round-tripped down to the document    (1UZR)
 DanielSchwabe: +1 to Joel too    (1UZS)
 JoelNatividad:    (1UZT)
 GuoqianJiang: @Markus, We are using RDF output from SMW for processing proposals generated from LexWiki    (1UZU)
 PeterDolog: @Joel: And this is exactly also a big challenge for us as researchers    (1UZV)
 PeterDolog: i.e. how to make it simpler to make    (1UZW)
 JesseWang: We are doing something at Vulcan.    (1UZX)
 PeterDolog: because program we can always    (1UZY)
 JesseWang: Mark is talking on that.    (1UZZ)
 PeterDolog: but how everybody can do that?    (1V00)
 ChristophLange: @ AlexGarcia: in Wikipedia it is done manually. Whenever a subsection (e.g. history of Italy) 
                 grows too large, somebody first puts a warning there (this should be rolled out to 
                 an article of its own), then somebody else does that, and replaces the former section 
                 by a short summary, and fixes links on other pages pointing to the subtopic    (1V01)
 MarkusKroetzsch: we are also working on solutions for inter-wiki data exchange and integration 
                  -- I would like to collect input on what people need    (1V02)
 ChristophLange: @ AlexGarcia: Now assume semantic structures on pages (e.g. saying this paragraph 
                 is a subconcept of type T), then a semantic wiki could assist with that    (1V03)
 TimFinin: gotta go.  Thanks for all the fish    (1V04)
 JohnMcClure: @Sebastian - Users find it useful that [[place:White House]] involves its own set of tools    (1V05)
 MarkusKroetzsch: we plan to release software for exchanging data between wikis (instead of copying it 
                  from one wiki to the other by duplicating pages); use cases could affect our design choices    (1V06)
 GuoqianJiang: @Markus, we are really interested in the future plan for RDF/OWL backend of SMW    (1V07)
 MarkusKroetzsch: well, feel free to write an email    (1V08)
 MarkusKroetzsch: (I think the session stops rather soon)    (1V09)
 GuoqianJiang: @Markus, yes, talk to you later by email    (1V0A)
 SebastianSchaffert: @John: how about the page about the place which is called "White House" involving 
                     their own tools instead of placing it on the link?    (1V0B)
 MarkusKroetzsch: ok, just bear with me being slow processing mails; quite some of them these days ...    (1V0C)
 GuoqianJiang: OK, I see.    (1V0D)
 DanielSchwabe: @MarkusK - why not use LOD as the underlying basis to share content between wikis?    (1V0E)
 AlexGarcia: @ Joel: having a semantic structure supporting the generation of documents could 
             make it possible to produce scientific papers, for instance, fully annotated. 
             This could deliver an OLD environment over the paper. I think that when supporting 
             the generation of documents the annotation should happen naturally and without any effort, 
             the document being generated should be immerse in the web by means of relationships over 
             those data types contained in the paper.    (1V0F)
 MarkusKroetzsch thanks Mark and Rudi for chairing this session, and Peter for setting this up    (1V0G)
 JoelNatividad: plaudits to the all the conveners, Peter in particular!    (1V0H)
 SebastianSchaffert: @Daniel: done by KiWi and planned for extension    (1V0I)
 JohnMcClure: Users find it useful that [[place:*]] is in effect, a geo database 
              That [[:White House]] is an article ABOUT something (like the [[place:White House]]
              that [[place_talk:White House]] is an article ABOUT [[place:White House]], etc etc
              Of course, you can see metastatements abound    (1V0J)
 AlexGarcia: Thanks everybody    (1V0K)
 SebastianSchaffert: yes, thanks!    (1V0L)
 GuoqianJiang: Thanks all    (1V0M)
 PeterDolog: thanks everybody    (1V0N)
 DanielSchwabe: @SebastianS - great, will take a closer look!    (1V0O)
 DanielSchwabe: Thanks all!    (1V0P)
 ChristophLange thanks the organizers and all participants    (1V0Q)
 JoelNatividad: any news about 2nd User Group Meeting of SMW?    (1V0R)
 DanielSchwabe: Bye all, thanks for the interesting exchange!    (1V0S)
 MarkusKroetzsch: bye    (1V0T)
 PeterDolog: bye to all    (1V0U)
 SebastianSchaffert: @Daniel: essentially, if you access the KiWi system with a client that 
                     sends "Accepts: application/rdf" it redirects to 
                     http://showcase.kiwi-project.eu/KiWi/linkeddata.seam?http://showcase.kiwi-project.eu/KiWi/content/FrontPage    (1V0V)
 PeterYim: Great session ... Mark, Rudi and everyone! Thank you all for a most wonderful mini-series!    (1V0W)
 SebastianSchaffert: or something similar    (1V0X)
 YaronKoren: @Joel - I guess there's no news.    (1V0Y)
 YaronKoren: The plan was to have one in Germany in May or so...    (1V0Z)
 SebastianSchaffert: @Daniel: the key is to use URIs that are "local" to the server domain    (1V10)
 SebastianSchaffert: which can be problematic if you want at the same time use ontologies    (1V11)
 YaronKoren: We could have one instead in the U.S., if there's interest.    (1V12)
 JoelNatividad: Count me in, perhaps we can time it with SemTech    (1V13)
 YaronKoren: Yeah... although I'm not going to that one.    (1V14)
 YaronKoren: Is anyone from SMW presenting there, do you know?    (1V15)
 SebastianSchaffert: Markus apparently tried to submit a presentation    (1V16)
 YaronKoren: That was me. Unless Markus did too.    (1V17)
 JoelNatividad: I also submitted one but the passed on it as well    (1V18)
 YaronKoren: Oh. Maybe it's a trend.    (1V19)
 JoelNatividad: like Markus said    (1V1A)
 JoelNatividad: mail filters    (1V1B)
 YaronKoren: So, are you still planning to go?    (1V1C)
 JoelNatividad: I am.  Particularly since Mark said they were planning to host some SMW sessions    (1V1D)
 YaronKoren: Hm.    (1V1E)
 YaronKoren: Well, I guess that's where the 2nd SMW user meeting will be, then.    (1V1F)
 JoelNatividad: Great!  Maybe we should continue the planning on semediawiki-user mailing list    (1V1G)
 YaronKoren: Sure, feel free to send an email. I still don't think I'm going.    (1V1H)
 JoelNatividad: k. bye all!    (1V1I)
 PeterYim: bye everyone! a big THANK YOU to all, once again!    (1V1J)
 -- end of  chat transcript --    (1V1K)

ConferenceCall 2009 03 05

SemanticWiki mini-series Session-6 - Thu 5-Mar-2009 (1PLE)

Conference Call Details (1TKC)

Attendees (1TLD)

SemanticWiki mini-series Background (1TLU)

Agenda & Proceedings (1TLY)

Session Abstract: The Future of Semantic Wiki: Trends, Challenges and Outlook (1UHF)

Q & A and Open Discussion: (1UHI)

Transcript of the online chat (during the session): (1UHK)

Audio Recording of this Session (1UHO)

How To Join (while the session is in progress) (1UGU)

Your Visited Pages

View Backlinks

Wiki Search