OntologySummit2009 Panel Session - "Toward Ontology-based Standards" - Thu 26-Mar-2009    (1TSB)

Subject: Toward Ontology-based Standards - A Synthesis    (1VOG)

Session Chair: Dr. SteveRay (ISO 10303 STEP; ISO 18629 PSL) - Openning - [ slides ]    (1U77)

Confirmed Panelists:    (1VCD)

Archives    (1VOH)

Conference Call Details    (1UEX)

Attendees    (1UFX)

Agenda Ideas    (1UG4)

Resources    (1UG6)

Agenda & Proceedings    (1UGB)

Agenda    (1TSC)

Proceedings    (1VOM)

Q & A and Open Discussion:    (1VOO)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session: ... (lightly edited for clarity)    (1VOR)

 PeterYim: Welcome to the OntologySummit2009 Panel Session - "Toward Ontology-based Standards" - Thu 26-Mar-2009    (1VRW)
 Subject: Toward Ontology-based Standards - A Synthesis    (1VOG)    (1VRX)
 Session Chair: Dr. SteveRay (ISO 10303 STEP; ISO 18629 PSL) - Openning    (1VRY)
 Confirmed Panelists:    (1VCD)    (1VRZ)
    * Mr. HowardMason (Chair, ISO TC184/SC4, BAE Systems plc, UK) - "Summary of our Standards Community Panel Session"
    * Professor MichaelGruninger (University of Toronto, ISO 18629 PSL) - "Summary of our Ontology Community Panel Session" 
    * Mr. DavidConnelly (CEO, Open Applications Group, Inc. (OAGi)) - "Improving OAGIS with Ontologies" 
    * Dr. KatherineGoodier (OpenOntologyRepository Initiative) - "Introducing the Open Ontology Repository (OOR) Use Cases Forum"
    * Mr. DavidLeal (CAESAR Systems Limited) - "URI for quantities, units and scales" 
    * Mr. NicolasFigay (EADS) - "STEP APs Formalization Suggestions"
 .
 Please refer to session details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2009_03_26
 .    (1VS0)
 anonymous morphed into YildirayKabak    (1VS1)
 YildirayKabak: Hi Peter, this is Yildiray Kabak. I'm assistant of Prof. AsumanDogac    (1VS4)
 anonymous morphed into MichelleRaymond    (1VS5)
 anonymous1 morphed into KurtConrad    (1VS6)
 anonymous morphed into KatherineGoodier    (1VS7)
 k goodier morphed into KatherineGoodier    (1VS8)
 laurent morphed into laurent_oasis -> LaurentLiscia    (1VS9)
 NicolasFigay: Re engineer existing standards is a good idea, as it appears from analysis and mapping exercise 
               with ontology language that numerous ambiguities exist. Such exercise was done on AP224 and AP203 by EADS    (1VSA)
 JoelBender: EADS = European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company?    (1VSB)
 NicolasFigay: Good acronym for EADS    (1VSC)
 MikeBennett: Another good example is the various standards in the financial space - MDDL, FIX, ISO 20022, FpML, XBRL etc.    (1VSD)
 NicolasFigay: What about replacing "integration of standards" by "federation of standards"?    (1VSE)
 anonymous morphed into YildirayKabak    (1VSF)
 JoelBender: integration and federation mean different things to IT folks.    (1VSG)
 FrankChum: Energistics for Oil and Gas Industry standards    (1VSH)
 NicolasFigay: Integration and Federation is also different for system engineers - or for enterprise collaboration    (1VSI)
 NicolasFigay: Federation was here used for agregation of knowledge trunks formalized with heterogeneous language, at posteriori    (1VSJ)
 SteveRay: David - we lost your voice.    (1VSK)
 FrankChum: May need to call back in    (1VSL)
 SteveRay: OK. In the interests of time, I asked Katherine to talk about OOR, then I'll let you continue your talk.    (1VSM)
 DavidConnelly: I am back in now    (1VSN)
 FrankChum: The Society of Petroleum Engineers is starting an Open Oilfield Ontology Repository.    (1VSO)
 NicolasFigay: Is this repository related to Reference Data Libraries POSC CAESAR?    (1VSP)
 FrankChum: Not particularly. The POSC CAESAR RDL is related to ISO 15926.    (1VSQ)
 FrankChum: The SPE initiative is inviting O&G companies and industry standards bodies to submit oilfield related ontologies to the repository.    (1VSS)
 LaurentLiscia: What I'm gathering from these very educational presentations like a good bridge between ontologies and standards 
                are: the ability to use ontology technology to validate the consistency of standards -beyond test cases and assertions, 
                this might to a new kind of formal validation system.    (1VSR)
 NicolasFigay: Yes - it  can be imagine with ontology language base on some logic    (1VST)
 LaurentLiscia: I'm very intrigued with Open Oilfield    (1VSU)
 LaurentLiscia: Frank, we are creating at OASIS a member section called OASIS Blue    (1VSV)
 LaurentLiscia: Which is all about energy and sustainability    (1VSW)
 FrankChum: Laurent, good to know that. I'll look into it.    (1VSX)
 LaurentLiscia: http://www.oasis-open.org/resources/white-papers/blue/    (1VSY)
 LaurentLiscia: The Member Section is forming and we definitely need ontology experts to make some of those future standards work.    (1VSZ)
 LaurentLiscia: We also have the Conservation Commons on Board.    (1VT0)
 LaurentLiscia: Is there a link for Open OIlfield?    (1VT1)
 FrankChum: Maybe SPE initiative can join forces with what OASIS Blue    (1VT2)
 FrankChum: http://o4oil.org/o4oil.html    (1VT3)
 YildirayKabak: In OASIS SET TC we represented OAGIS Components and Fields through OWL. 
                 We also represented UBL and GS1 BIEs through OWL. With these ontologies and with the help of description logic reasoners 
                 and rule engines, we can find the relations among the semantically equivalent components, automatically.    (1VT4)
 HowardMason: You probably need to look at the Open O&M consortium and MIMOSA who are also active in operation of 
              oil and gas plants through ISO TC 184/SC 5 (not SC 4)    (1VT5)
 DavidConnelly: Wow, that is interesting    (1VT6)
 DavidConnelly: maybe we should connect    (1VT7)
 FrankChum: Yes.  Refineries are connected to MIMOSA.    (1VT8)
 MikeBennett: Good point about equations and MathML. There are also equations in financial securities but somewhat different to engineering equations.    (1VT9)
 FrankChum: Upper ontology for financial securities?    (1VTA)
 YildirayKabak: Hi David, I will send you more details about our work tommorrow.    (1VTB)
 MikeBennett: Indeed. For financial securities I have had to create temporary upper ontology stuff for math, geog, 
              business, accounting, risk etc. all of which I would hope to find a more stable upper ontology to draw on.    (1VTD)
 DavidConnelly: Thanks    (1VTF)
 YildirayKabak: Ok. Thank you.    (1VTG)
 HowardMason: You also need to note that the basic business transactions covering finance, order/invoice/pay, shipping are ALL becoming based on 
              the ebXML Core Components - OASIS, SWIFT and OAGi are all involved alongside industry and regional initiatives    (1VTH)
 FrankChum: Using upper ontologies can be a challenge. Good best practices are needed to be shared.    (1VTI)
 MikeBennett: @ Howard - agreed.    (1VTJ)
 LaurentLiscia: I resonate with Howard. Then again I would note that Nicolas has uttered one word (or rather a phrase): intelligent agent, 
                that I think we are dancing around a bit. Is machine intelligence a can of worms?    (1VTK)
 LaurentLiscia: Let me qualify: "reasoning engine" is probably less contentious - thank you Nicolas.    (1VTL)
 NicolasFigay: Laurent is true, it is more reasoning engine. But some were also calling it intelligent agents - even if not appropriate.    (1VTM)
 FrankChum: Semantic is the key for machine intelligence    (1VTN)
 MichelleRaymond: The agent's intelligence is not of issue. Focus should be on: 1) identification of 'input' available to the agent/engine 
                  and 'output' from the agent/engine, 2) the formal representation of the structure and content for 'input' and 'output' 
                  and 3) the place of the agent/engine in the "world".    (1VTO)
 PeterYim: I am glad DavidConnelly brought up UN/CEFACT UCM in his presentation ... Scott Hinkelman (Acting Vice-chair of UN/CEFACT TMG 
           and Chair for their Unified Context Methodology (UCM) Project) was presenting at the OASIS SET TC just yesterday. 
           While "context" is, indeed, not a low-hanging fruit in what we are trying to do here, we should definitely try to start a dialog 
           with their working group in earnest.
           ... (I did suggest that to Scott, but maybe David could be our liaison, if you are already involved in that work)    (1VTP)
 DavidConnelly: Peter, I am on that UCM Working Group with Scott, and would be glad to be a liaison    (1VTQ)
 PeterYim: great! Thanks, David    (1VTR)
 PeterYim: Just to provide the url to the OOR work that MichaelGruninger and  KatherineGoodier brought up earlier 
           - please see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository    (1VTS)
 PeterYim: what's relevant is that the first public sandbox instance of the OOR is now online - see: http://oor-01.cim3.net/    (1VTU)
 PeterYim: (further, re the OOR sandbox) if the eventuality is a federated repository of standards that are persistently 
           available (on the web, probably) ... this could be one of the sandboxes that we can play around with those ideas 
           ... the OOR team will be maintaining at least a sandbox instance and a production instance of the OOR ... and is 
           hoping to federate with any other organizations that are planning to host ontology repositories    (1VTW)
 NicolasFigay: The link of the experimental semantic repository, with extended AP as OWL resources: http://www.plm-interop.net/web/plminterop/semanticRepository    (1VTT)
 anonymous morphed into  RaphaelBarbau    (1VTV)
 StuartTurner: The licensing comment is an extremely important one and although "open source" is gaining traction, it applies 
               to source code, not content. Encouraging use of open content licensure for creative works, including models, 
               ontologies, documentation is so important (e.g. Creative Commons, Non-Commerical, Attribution, Share-Alike Unported). 
               Fortunately, recent moves by NIH, and MIT and even PloS to not only encourage, but require this for academic research 
               and publication is encouraging.    (1VTX)
 SteveRay: Thanks for attending.    (1VTY)
 MichelleRaymond: My desire is to see standards represented in formats that are machine interpretable and formats that facilitate human understanding.    (1VTZ)
 LaurentLiscia: Terribly sorry, I have to drop off the call ... Urgent call from OASIS staff ...    (1VU0)
 LaurentLiscia: Thanks all!    (1VU1)
 JoelBender: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt    (1VU2)
 FrankChum: Is the IEEE UOM upper ontology the same way?    (1VU3)
 PeterYim: @ FrankChum - quite a few of the IEEE SUO players are involved 
           - the OOR scope covers *not only* upper ontologies, but also domain ontologies - see some earlier thougths in regard to 
           moving "Toward An Open Ontology Repository" at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008    (1VU4)
 FrankChum: @Peter Thanks!    (1VU8)
 DavidLeal: Some work on the use of terms such as "should" in engineering has been done in Gellish - http://sourceforge.net/projects/gellish    (1VU5)
 HowardMason: While ISO seems to be fairly flexible in looking at new business models, the national standards bodies 
              - ANSI, BSI, AFNOR, DIN are still wedded to publishing paper.  So even the new standards as databases approach 
              offers different levels of access, with different models.  So definitions may be freely available, 
              but other information may be subject to payment.  We need to ensure national bodies respond to the opportunity    (1VU6)
 MikeBennett: EDM council semantics repository project, aligns with the ones i mentioned    (1VU7)
 DavidConnelly: OAGIS is doing the implementation verification for CCTS 3.0    (1VU9)
 PeterYim: some work on "ontologizing" the UN/CEFACT CCTS by Ontolog members can be seen at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CctRepresentation    (1VUA)
 DavidConnelly: Interesting Peter, have you started to look at CCTS 3.0    (1VUB)
 DavidConnelly: btw, Peter, OAGIS uses CCTS 2.01 in the standard now    (1VUC)
 PeterYim: @DavidConnelly - not quite ... that pilot project has (sort of) ended a long time ago ... with a response 
           to the request for comments on CCTS v2.01 and suggested a dialog (which we haven't yet had)    (1VUD)
 DavidConnelly: ok, thanks Peter    (1VUE)
 JoelBender: Thank you.    (1VUF)
 FrankChum: Thank you all!    (1VUG)
 RaphaelBarbau: thank you!    (1VUH)
 PeterYim: great session ... thank you!    (1VUI)
 DavidLeal: Very interesting, thank you.    (1VUJ)
 MikeBennett: To clarify on EDM Council, we took the existing XML and UML standards ISO 20022/ISO19312, MDDL, etc. as a start point 
              to try and reverse engineer into some representation of semantics. We use a UML based OWL model (with some 
              additional extensions) to provide somerhing for business experts to validate. We are talking closely 
              with the above mentioned existing standards folks to try to reverse engineer rather than reinvent. 
              This is all mid-way through happening now.    (1VUK)
 -- end of transcript --    (1VUL)

Audio Recording of this Session    (1VOT)

For the record ...    (1VUM)

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