OntologySummit2010: Community Session-6 - "Final Sync-up (before the Symposium)" - Thu 11-Mar-2010    (2A8V)

OntologySummit2010 Theme: "Creating the Ontologists of the Future"    (2A8W)

Conference Call Details    (2A99)

Attendees:    (2AA9)

Resources    (2AAQ)

Theme: OntologySummit2010 - Creating the Ontologists of the Future    (2ABE)

This is our 5th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by NIST, Ontolog, NCOR, NCBO and IAOA with the support of our co-sponsors. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit is: "Creating the Ontologists of the Future" and was launched on 10-Dec-2009. Like previous years, this Ontology Summit will comprise of three months of virtual discourse, over our archived mailing lists, wiki, and virtual panel sessions (like this one), and will culminate in a 2-day face-to-face workshop/symposium to be held on Mon & Tue, 15 & 16-March-2010 at NIST (Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.)    (2ABF)

As we are only less than a week from the Mar. 15 & 16 Symposium, this session will be devoted to getting the community ready for that. This session will start with the co-lead editors of our summit communique presenting a draft of that Communique. It will be followed by commentaries from the panel of co-editors, made up of all the Summit Track co-champions.    (2ABI)

The session will then open up to general Q&A and discussion, which will revolve around:    (2ACN)

Agenda & Proceedings:    (2ABJ)

OntologySummit2010 - virtual panel-6 - Topic: "Syntheses on Community Input"    (2ABK)

Getting Ready for the Symposium:    (2BHF)

Transcript of the online chat during the session:    (2ABR)

 see raw transcript here.    (2ABS)
 (for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)
 Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.    (2ABT)
    -- begin of chat session --    (2ABU)
	PeterYim: .    (2BWF)
	Welcome to the OntologySummit2010: Community Session-6 - "Final Sync-up (before the Symposium)" - Thu 11-Mar-2010    (2BWG)
	OntologySummit2010 Theme: "Creating the Ontologists of the Future"    (2BWH)
	* Community Session-6 Topic: "Review and Alignment of Draft Deliverables and Final sync-up prior to the symposium"    (2BWI)
	* Co-chair: Dr. FabianNeuhaus & Professor BarrySmith    (2BWJ)
	* Panelists: (All Track Co-champions)
	  o Present Ontologist Education: ArturoSanchez & AntonyGalton
	  o Education & Training Content: LeoObrst & MichaelGruninger
	  o Training Requirements: AmandaVizedom
	  o Future of Ontology Discipline: ElizabethFlorescu & PeterYim
	  o Assuring Quality in Education & Training: BarrySmith, NicolaGuarino & FabianNeuhaus
	  o Symposium: SteveRay, BarrySmith
	  o Communique: BarrySmith, FabianNeuhaus
	.    (2BWK)
	Please refer to dial-in, agenda and other details on the session page 
	at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_03_11    (2BWL)
	.    (2BWM)
	anonymous morphed into Simon Spero    (2BWN)
	anonymous morphed into AmandaVizedom    (2BWO)
	Simon Spero: No slides = no need for VNC?    (2BWP)
	PeterYim: please refer to: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_Communique/Draft ... which is being 
	discussed    (2BWQ)
	PeterYim: suggested change .... Barry & Peter ... ref. 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_Communique/Draft#nid2B95 where it says: 
	the ontolog community ... we should be more inclusive - all organizers, those who endorse the 
	communique, etc. ...    (2BWR)
	PeterYim: how about something like: "As next steps, the undersigned (individuals who endorse this 
	Communique), along with the co-organizers of this Summit, recommend ..."    (2BWS)
	SteveRay: For the record - recognize that we have explicit endorsement of recommendations documented 
	already as "Sponsors" of the Ontology Summit. We can also collect a list of "Communique Endorsers" 
	as in past years (Peter's suggestion).    (2BWT)
	Simon Spero: Usual code phrase is "affiliation presented for identification only"    (2BWU)
	ToddSchneider: General Comment: 0) I think the summary and introduction need to make reference to 
	the larger area of semantic technologies and how ontology is the vital link.    (2BWV)
	ToddSchneider: General Comment: 1) Need to include the terms systems, and not just projects.    (2BWW)
	SteveRay: Suggest we limit the communique text to interpretations and findings from the surveys, 
	with links to supplemental pages that will include detailed numbers.    (2BWX)
	MichelleRaymond: Sentence structure modification - last sentence of paragraph: The 2010 Ontology 
	Summit community is in general agreement that the most valuable and urgently needed training will be 
	informed not only by theoretical considerations but also, and centrally, by the needs of ontologists 
	seeking employment and employers seeking quality, useful ontologists. Our understanding of those 
	needs, however, has been scattered and divergent. With the aim of improving this understanding, 
	several discussions, a Panel session, and a survey were undertaken.    (2BWY)
	MichelleRaymond: Grammar modifications: We wanted to develop a richer and more clear picture of the 
	requirements of ontologist employability (that is, those trained should be well-prepared for the 
	available jobs) and deployability (that is, those who hire trained ontologists find them ready and 
	able to perform the needed work). To that end, we aimed to bring a strong "end-user" voice to the 
	conversation. Each of our panelists embodied one or more end-user perspectives. Most had some 
	combination of experience as a working ontologist, an employer, a manager, an evaluator or 
	on-the-job trainer of ontologists, and a gatherer of lessons learned from full life-cycle ontology 
	projects.    (2BWZ)
	Simon Spero: a separate methodology section    (2BX0)
	ToddSchneider: I will provide comments to the editors by Monday. I need to join another meeting. See 
	you next week.    (2BX1)
	SteveRay: Suggest we change the heading "What are the requirements for ontologists?" to "What are 
	the skill requirements for ontologists?" This is to avoid the interpretation of the heading as 
	meaning something like "Does society have a need for ontologists?"    (2BX2)
	RexBrooks: I think that the two paragraphs after 2BLD could be dropped in favor of a link to a 
	subreport that can focus more on the results of the surveys.    (2BX3)
	SteveRay: @Rex: I agree.    (2BX4)
	RexBrooks: @Steve: I agree with your previous point as well.    (2BX5)
	Simon Spero: This is possible cf: http://www.ils.unc.edu/digccurr/    (2BX6)
	MichelleRaymond: @Amanda: I agree with you statement that noting the state of education available 
	and the identified education need should be highlighted.    (2BX7)
	Simon Spero: @Amanda: or... what sort of questions should one ask faculty candidates who would be 
	teaching in this area    (2BX8)
	MichelleRaymond: @Amanda: I think it very interesting to note what educators, what those who hire, 
	and what those who want education desire in training. I don't know that details belong in the 
	communnique, but do think they should be noted in the summit wiki pages.    (2BX9)
	PeterYim: Fabian going into the section about Arturo & Antony's section on the communique now ...    (2BXA)
	SteveRay: Recommend we add a link to the ACM/IEEE curriculum model, within paragraph (2AXU)    (2BXB)
	MichelleRaymond: I agree with less detail, more policy in communique. Provide links to other Summit 
	material.    (2BXC)
	PeterYim: On the section "What are the expected developments of the future?" I'd like to draw 
	people's attention to: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_Survey#nid28DS ... 
	and in particular the "Study Results" section at the end of that section The links for reference are 
	available there; I would defer to the lead editors to pare down this whole section    (2BXD)
	PeterYim: the section (as written now) is also available, and can be linked to at: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_FutureDevelopments_Synthesis#nid25HK    (2BXE)
	AmandaVizedom: @Simon - I'm glad you mentioned this. I wanted to make the recommendation, following 
	the description of how the survey was distributed (abbreviated here, will be extended on the 
	Requirements Synthesis page - 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_PresentRequirements_Synthesis), that a 
	new, long-running survey (or other collection mechanism) be stood up...    (2BXF)
	Simon Spero: @Steve - the DigCCur program is IMLS funded research to develop a curriculum for 
	digital curation    (2BXG)
	Simon Spero: Ontology could be similar    (2BXH)
	RexBrooks: I think the summary is fine as it is. I do think we need some conclusions, such as saying 
	that education budgets for ontologist need to be increased because there are needs going wanting 
	now.    (2BXI)
	Simon Spero: Should be something suitable for Chronicle/THES    (2BXJ)
	AmandaVizedom: ... It's clear that the short time of the survey, along with the trial & error method 
	of soliciting input more broadly, limited the quantity and diversity of input. We got great input, 
	including some from outside the current Ontolog community, but it has clear limitations. You point 
	to an example: there are clearly activities and organizations that are relevant but not represented. 
	A longer-running survey would have a better chance of making its way into more and other 
	communities, and to draw input from them. In addition, the Survey Monkey mechanism was very useful 
	but also limited. We might look to Digcurr for ideas and tools, and we certainly could use the first 
	round findings and lessons to improve the content.    (2BXK)
	RexBrooks: It would be acceptable to me if we gave the chart as an example of the survey results we 
	link to.    (2BXL)
	Simon Spero: "What do Digital Curators do and What do They Need to Know?" -- feel free to substitute 
	into quotation    (2BXM)
	SteveRay: @Simon: I'm confused by your references to digital curators, and your earlier link to 
	digccurr. How is this related to training of ontologists?    (2BXN)
	Simon Spero: @SteveRay: it's an IMLS funded study of how to develop a curriculum for the digital 
	archivists on the future; this is similar    (2BXO)
	RexBrooks: @Simon: is this related to the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model-an RDFSchema that could 
	and should eventually be upgraded to a full-blown ontology?    (2BXP)
	Simon Spero: @Rex: it's a bit more meta    (2BXQ)
	Simon Spero: (though I did owl an earlier CIDOC)    (2BXR)
	RexBrooks: @Simon: thanks. I'll look at it.    (2BXS)
	Simon Spero: There's been a split between Computer Science and Information/Library Science that a 
	lot of this falls into the middle zone    (2BXT)
	RexBrooks: @Simon: Do you have a url to your earlier OWL CIDOC?    (2BXU)
	Simon Spero: @Rex: I can't remember where I stashed it. It was during a very boring conference 
	session, with no wireless. They did have one online    (2BXV)
	RexBrooks: @Simon: I'll look for it.    (2BXW)
	SteveRay: @Simon: OK, the similarity is that the IMLS study was to develop a curriculum (in a 
	different domain)?    (2BXX)
	Simon Spero: @SteveRay: Right    (2BXY)
	Simon Spero: @SteveRay: just as digital curation has links to the past of archiving and other 
	curation    (2BXZ)
	Simon Spero: @SteveRay: ontology has links to the past of information & knowledge organization    (2BY0)
	Simon Spero: @Pavithra they're two related things    (2BY1)
	Simon Spero: There are some core skills    (2BY2)
	Simon Spero: There are some skills that are core to some subareas    (2BY3)
	Simon Spero: I think you need some logic    (2BY4)
	Simon Spero: Information organization    (2BY5)
	Simon Spero: iSchool stuff    (2BY6)
	Simon Spero: To implement a peta-scale triple store, you need one set of skills    (2BY7)
	Simon Spero: To design a cognitively useful organization of knowledge you need another    (2BY8)
	AmandaVizedom: @Fabian: I suggest a third track - a kind of knowledge manager, perhaps (in normative 
	and non-normative flavors).    (2BY9)
	AmandaVizedom: To document some of what I just said: I think that there is a third identifiable 
	cluster, to which I belong. It isn't traditional software engineering, in that its practitioners may 
	not have traditional IT interests or primary skills (though we have to develop some of them) and are 
	focused on the human belief and decision systems of which the IT is a part. It doesn't fit the 
	community-focused cluster, as described, because it need not be domain-specific. In fact, to me the 
	good stuff is cross-domain, and (adding to what I said) it may be the case that much of the demand 
	is going to be cross-domain, in that it is driven by interoperability, transparency, and such (be it 
	cross-functional or Linked Open Data!).    (2BYA)
	Simon Spero: Right    (2BYB)
	Simon Spero: A core and a small number of specialty tracks    (2BYC)
	MichelleRaymond: @Amanda: I wonder if the important characteristics of cross-domain ontologist, are 
	intrinsic to being a "good"-ontologist. I'm not coming up with a unique skill I use in cross-domain 
	ontology development/analysis that aren't a part of "good"-ontology development/analysis. The beyond 
	ontology skills are the same: software engineering and human relations skills. I think I would pull 
	out domain knowledge all together.    (2BYD)
	Simon Spero: @Michelle: We've had debates about this within my cohort; what is it useful for 
	non-tologists to know about ontology    (2BYE)
	MichelleRaymond: OK, I recind my domain knowledge comment. Domain knowledge is relevant as 
	understanding terminology within a domain. Domain knowledge is relevant as understanding how 
	information is commonly structured within a domain. These are value-adds.    (2BYF)
	RexBrooks: @Amanda: Yes, we need to understand the cross-domain applications/training is important. 
	It's not an absolute requirement like the core, but it is very important when we need ontologists 
	who understand formal logic and can apply it to making ontologically accurate calculations for 
	policy enforcement points in routing, for instance. That crosses the human-machine communities since 
	it is human social structures that define policies and need to put them in storage systems that can 
	be accessed for policy enforcement.    (2BYG)
	Simon Spero: @Amanda: what's not being taught ?    (2BYH)
	Simon Spero: cf: http://ils.unc.edu/digccurr/digccurr-matrix.html    (2BYI)
	Simon Spero: also: http://ils.unc.edu/digccurr/digccurr-funct-categories.pdf    (2BYJ)
	AmandaVizedom: Another observation (made on phone): The survey did produce unexpected results, and 
	these are helpful to curriculum developers. To the extent that we want to refine our understanding 
	of needs and clusters thereof, and to keep that current as the field develops, it would be useful to 
	have a long-running, more sophisticated collection mechanism.    (2BYK)
	Simon Spero: @Amanda good point    (2BYL)
	PeterYim: @Fabian & Barry - we still need an ending - ref. 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008_Communique#nid1GY0 or 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009_Communique#nid1WNA    (2BYM)
	Simon Spero: Should there be a list of what you need to know to do certain jobs    (2BYN)
	Simon Spero: that are classes as onto    (2BYO)
	AmandaVizedom: @Simon - I don't think we're that far along as a field. But that is something toward 
	which we should move. Ontologists should be able to assess what training they need. And, with great 
	emphasis, if those with positions to fill had something to work with, such that they might be able 
	to actually identify some of the job requirements and hire appropriate people, that would be a major 
	advancement.    (2BYP)
	AmandaVizedom: Noting action item for me: Move detail to Requirements Synthesis page. Cover only 
	interesting, interpreted results.    (2BYQ)
	RexBrooks: I have to sign off now, and I just want to thank you all for the great effort!    (2BYR)
	Simon Spero: Note: the registration according to NIST closes today, not tuesday    (2BYS)
	Simon Spero: expectations?    (2BYT)
	MichelleRaymond: I've got to sign off. All - enjoy the face-to-face meeting.    (2BYU)
	SteveRay: Steve: amend Monday morning agenda    (2BYV)
	Simon Spero: I want a full set of syllabi ready    (2BYW)
	PeterYim: suggestions for F2F discussion: Michael, Barry / Peter et al. ... (a) strategic action and 
	follow-ups, (b) next level of details in curricula, (c) what can we do at FOIS to continue the 
	effort,    (2BYX)
	PeterYim: -- session ended 12:21pm PST --    (2BYY)
    -- end of chat session --    (2ABV)

An Open Invitation    (2ABY)

If you do find this initiative interesting or useful, we cordially invite you to join us in the "Ontology Summit 2010" 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 15 & 16-March-2010 as part of the NIST Interoperability Week in Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.    (2ABZ)

Audio Recording of this Session    (2AC2)

For the record ...    (2ACA)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (2ACB)