OntologySummit2010 review and follow-up action planning ("postmortem") session - Thu 15-Apr-2010    (2D7Q)

Conference Call Details    (2D7Y)

Attendees:    (2D8X)

Resources    (2D95)

Abstracts:    (2D99)

The goal of this session is to revisit the last Ontology Summit and plan ahead for the future. We will discuss what worked and what did not work during the 3~4 months of OntologySummit2010, and get ideas on how to make next year's Ontology Summit even better. This meeting is also an opportunity to suggest topics for next year's Ontology Summit. Further, this meeting gives us an opportunity to revisit the action items listed at the end of the Communique and to identify members of the community who would be interested in participating in projects to address them.    (2D9B)

Agenda Ideas:    (2D9C)

Agenda & Proceedings:    (2D9I)

Transcript of the online chat during the session:    (2D9P)

 see raw transcript here.    (2D9Q)
 (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.    (2D9R)
    -- begin of chat session --    (2D9S)
	PeterYim: .    (2IO8)
	Welcome to the OntologySummit2010 review and follow-up action planning session - Thu 15-Apr-2010    (2IO9)
	* Chair: Dr. SteveRay and Dr. FabianNeuhaus    (2IOA)
	The goal of this session is to revisit the last Ontology Summit and plan ahead for the future. We 
	will discuss what worked and what did not work during the 3~4 months of OntologySummit2010, and get 
	ideas on how to make next year's Ontology Summit even better. This meeting is also an opportunity to 
	suggest topics for next year's Ontology Summit. Further, this meeting gives us an opportunity to 
	revisit the action items listed at the end of the Communique and to identify members of the 
	community who would be interested in participating in projects to address them.    (2IOB)
	. Please refer to details on the session page at: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_04_15 .    (2IOC)
	anonymous morphed into KurtConrad    (2IOD)
	anonymous1 morphed into DougFoxvog    (2IOE)
	anonymous morphed into BobbinTeegarden    (2IOF)
	PeterYim: For OntologySummit2010 - What went right? ... please type them in    (2IOG)
	PeterYim: Full 3-month period ... from the Launch in Dec-2009 to the Symposium in Mar-2010    (2IOH)
	RexBrooks: I think the survey needed a bit more work to get more focused results.    (2IOI)
	FabianNeuhaus: Rex: which survey are you referring to?    (2IOJ)
	RexBrooks: I think that having the surveys was a great improvement, though.    (2IOK)
	RexBrooks: I didn't take the real time delphi, but the other two needed to focus in on specific 
	questions.    (2IOL)
	AmandaVizedom: I think surveys added a lot, *and* along Rex's line, would have added even more if 
	planned and launched further ahead of time.    (2IOM)
	RexBrooks: @Amanda, I agree that working on the surveys perhaps a month ahead of when it started 
	this year would give those creating the surveys more time to get feedback on focus.    (2ION)
	ArturoSanchez: @SteveRay: I enjoyed very much the F2F meeting. We all had the opportunity to share 
	our perspectives as part of collaboratively composing the communique. It was also great I was able 
	to meet in person some of the folks I interacted with via conference calls before the F2F.    (2IOO)
	AmandaVizedom: I think we improved outreach, *and* have a lot more room for improvement there.    (2IOP)
	PeterYim: I guess we are doing "What needs improvements?" too now ...    (2IOQ)
	AntonyGalton: There was quite a lot of uncertainty at the beginning about the different track and 
	what they meant - but I think we more or less sorted that out eventually.    (2IOR)
	FabianNeuhaus: @Antony: I agree, this was very difficult this year to slice up the discussion in 
	tracks.    (2IOS)
	ArturoSanchez: @RexBrooks: please bear in mind some of us are not trained in preparing surveys ... 
	Surveys are great tools for mining information from communities and it would be great if people with 
	experience in preparing surveys could volunteer    (2IOT)
	RexBrooks: @Arturo: I agree. I think that searching for contacts in survey management and perhaps 
	market research would pay big benefits.    (2IOU)
	RexBrooks: We could trade benefits to the surveyors since ontological-semantic questions could be 
	helpful to advancing the state of their art, especially if we can educate them about Linked Open 
	Data for instance.    (2IOV)
	RexBrooks: @Steve, that's why I suggested a benefit for the professional surveyors.    (2IOW)
	EricLindahl: While I've loosely followed the development, it would be nice to have an ongoing 
	developing 'Getting Started' artifact providing link lists and glossary/overview for people new to 
	ontology development. E.g. http://www.google.com/search?q=ontology+training+site%3Acim3.net    (2IOX)
	EricLindahl: A concrete environment, ontology sandbox would be good. Rather just downloading 
	Protege. Example texts gathered to act as ontology exemplars (like the wine ontology)    (2IOY)
	EricLindahl: What site will provide these materials? Are there copyright problems?    (2IOZ)
	anonymous2 morphed into JulitaBermejoAlonso    (2IP0)
	anonymous1 morphed into PierreGrenon    (2IP1)
	ArturoSanchez: Did we hear an UK-style ambulance passing by?    (2IP2)
	JulitaBermejoAlonso: @Arturo: French ambulance, sorry, I did not unmute the phone. Running late with my kids    (2IP3)
	ArturoSanchez: @Julita: ahh! No worries ... I think it is great we can hear street noises from 
	far-away places in real time. De dónde eres, Julita?    (2IP4)
	JulitaBermejoAlonso: @Arturo: Spanish, but living in France after the States. University in Madrid, 
	though. A long story.    (2IP5)
	ArturoSanchez: @Julita: nice meeting you    (2IP6)
	EricLindahl: I wonder how closely the goal of this communique is being obviated, to some extent, by 
	the evolution and adoption of modeling frameworks, like Eclipse Modeling Framework. EMF will likely 
	be the de facto toolset for 'domain interoperation', one of the main factors for ontology 
	development.    (2IP7)
	EricLindahl: Or should I say, tree rewriting.    (2IP8)
	AmandaVizedom: FYSA, as the committee knows, I submitted a proposal to present the summit findings 
	at SemTech, but have not heard back and don't know whether that's likely to happen. 
	I think that such presentations could offer an opportunity to do some more of the bridge-building I 
	was talking about. I can also imagine working it in as part of a larger session or workshop 
	involving folks from some of the stakeholder communities, tailored perhaps to other audiences. Do 
	others have thoughts about particularly good venues for something like this? Next year's ISWC, for 
	example? Other?    (2IP9)
	anonymous1 morphed into PierreGrenon    (2IPA)
	EricLindahl: It would seem that 'ontologists' learn something from the fact that Google is rather 
	ontology hostile'. Tools have a way of treating ontology as a rewrite problem. Concept-net, 
	BigTable, HBase, etc.    (2IPB)
	PierreGrenon: It would be useful to have something between the communique and the futurist paper, 
	perhaps minus the particulars account of the Delphi experiment. For example, in order to approach 
	course production teams at the Open University, I could use a write up that explains the findings of 
	the summit and has enough context...    (2IPC)
	AmandaVizedom: @Pierre - I agree, we should have this. A not-incidental side effect, if the 
	SemTech proposal were accepted, would be that we'd have to create one!    (2IPD)
	PeterYim: @Steve: ref. the whitepaper for "State of the Future 2010" ... (while that book is not an 
	open publication) I will work with the Millennium Project people about allowing the open publication 
	of our paper (on the Ontolog website, for example)    (2IPE)
	SteveRay: @Peter: I think that would be a good thing to pursue, in the spirit of the Ontolog Forum.    (2IPF)
	PeterYim: @Steve - agree totally    (2IPG)
	RexBrooks: @Arturo: [ref. your presentation, Arturo] I would be happy to help with a Service 
	Interface to the Registry because I am active in the OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee, 
	the Reference Architecture Subcommittee and the efforts to align OASIS, Open Group and OMG SOA 
	efforts. So I can socialize the Registry in those venues.    (2IPH)
	EricLindahl: What happened to the ontology of measures? Measures seems prima facie for building 
	working systems. e.g. http://jscience.org/api/javax/measure/unit/package-summary.html    (2IPI)
	PeterYim: @Eric - that project has now moved on and has morphed into the OASIS QUOMOS TC - see: 
	http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=quomos    (2IPJ)
	PierreGrenon: @amanda -- re. submissions; perhaps some knowledge management and/or business 
	informatics conference?    (2IPK)
	RexBrooks: @Amanda: I am speaking at SemTech, and I believe I can work a mention of 
	the Ontology Summit and these various follow-up efforts as part of the context in which Semantic 
	Technology tools are developing.    (2IPL)
	RexBrooks: @Amanda: I don't think specifically mentioning the results is a good connection, unless 
	you are actually presenting the results.    (2IPM)
	AmandaVizedom: @Rex: Good to know. There are a few others from the Summit who will be speaking as 
	well, and if the proposal is accepted, the plan is to draw from that presences/support. It was a 
	late submission, however, and I really have no idea whether it is likely to be selected. But I think 
	it would be good to make such a presentation - between the communique and the gory details, as 
	Pierre suggests. So, I think it's worth thinking about other gatherings of potentially interested people.    (2IPN)
	PierreGrenon: @amanda -- re. propaganda paper - happy to read any draft whenever they come if that helps    (2IPO)
	AmandaVizedom: @Pierre - Count on being held to that!    (2IPP)
	EricLindahl: @PeterYim Thanks! @RexBrooks The market is moving more towards RESTful systems (which 
	subsume many web services) which is design by *convention* NOT by *contract*. This is opposed to 
	proving or even negotiating metadata by ontology    (2IPQ)
	RexBrooks: @Eric: A lot of RESTful applicatons are gaining traction but I wouldn't put all my eggs 
	in any one basket. It's a horses for courses world.    (2IPR)
	RexBrooks: In a world of emergency management and law enforcement information exchange by contract 
	only will remain the case where necessary.    (2IPS)
	EricLindahl: @RexBrooks Having just read a 'large' government RFP, it was pushing towards RESTful. 
	EMF is essentially a RESTful technology. However, I do agree.    (2IPT)
	RexBrooks: I suspect RESTful will find a receptive audience in the cloud computing world that is 
	developing, and we need it in the portion of the information spectrum that allows public input and 
	can aid immensely in emergency response.    (2IPU)
	EricLindahl: @RexBrooks I have some experience with HBase and Cassandra, which require little to 
	*no* pre-designed schema. Need a new attribute for 1 specific row, add it. No ontology required.    (2IPV)
	[ref. Arturo's suggestion of putting together a ontology education resources repository]    (2IPW)
	EricLindahl: This opencourseware idea is excellent.    (2IPX)
	PierreGrenon: re. 'open source': nice if that happens, everybody should be encouraged to put their 
	material out. very useful from the community would be a public domain template curricular structure 
	against which institution specific outputs may be checked    (2IPY)
	RexBrooks: @Arturo: Linked Open Data between registry participants could be very valuable.    (2IPZ)
	EricLindahl: I would like to see a code.google.com project where we can check in these artifacts, 
	as Rex suggests.    (2IQ0)
	PeterYim: @Arturo ... please consider using OOR as part of your infrastructure for the "Ontology 
	Education and Training Registry" initiative    (2IQ1)
	RexBrooks: @Peter: I agree, combining OOR with Linked Open Data could be extremely valuable.    (2IQ2)
	ArturoSanchez: @RexBrooks: Thanks for the suggestion    (2IQ3)
	ArturoSanchez: @PeterYim: thanks, Peter ... Noted!    (2IQ4)
	SteveRay: Can someone provide a reference to SCORM (?) or other metadata?    (2IQ5)
	[ ref.: Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharable_Content_Object_Reference_Model ]    (2IQ6)
	EricLindahl: @SteveRay the first 5 google links are fairly good. US government uses SCORM quite a 
	bit (I've found Moodle a huge PITA, IMHO)    (2IQ7)
	EricLindahl: Perhaps I will take it upon my self in May to create a code.google.com project (or 
	equivalent) where I'll check in whatever artifacts come across the 'Ontolog' desk.    (2IQ8)
	RexBrooks: @Eric: I'd be happy to check it out and use whatever I can and suggest it to the groups I work with.    (2IQ9)
	EricLindahl: by sandbox, what is Peter referring to? Not Protege?    (2IQA)
	RexBrooks: @Eric: I missed that. There's a sandbox in the wiki where people new to using the Ontolog 
	wiki can learn how to use it, but he may have been referring to something more generic.    (2IQB)
	PeterYim: @Eric - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository ... the OOR 
	sandbox is (currently) based on the NCBO BioPortal codebase - see: http://oor-01.cim3.net/ontologies    (2IQC)
	RexBrooks: @Peter: Ahh, yes!    (2IQD)
	PeterYim: @Eric - not Protege (which is an ontology development platform) BioPortal is more of a 
	repository for users to "share" their ontologies (after they are developed)    (2IQE)
	EricLindahl: @PeterYim Thanks. I'm hoping for something like 'hg clone 
	http://code.google.com/p/boot-ontolog/' I'll see what I can do. Thanks again.    (2IQF)
	anonymous3 morphed into DagobertSoergel    (2IQG)
	DagobertSoergel: Metadata for educational materials    (2IQH)
	* Learning objects (instructional materials):    (2IQI)
	** The Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM) - 
	http://www.thegateway.org/about/documentation/metadataElements    (2IQJ)
	** Learning Technology Standards Committee of the IEEE - 
	http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf    (2IQK)
	** IMS Global: IMS learning resource meta-data information model. (September 2001) - 
	httP;//www.imsproject.org/metadata/    (2IQL)
	** Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. DCMI Education Working Group - 
	http://dublincore.org/groups/education/ (not much concrete to see there)    (2IQM)
	** CRP Henri Tudor-CITI: Training Exchange Definition: TED. - 
	http://www.xml.org/xml/schema/8dbca03a/trainingExchangeDefinition.pdf (July 2002)    (2IQN)
	AntonyGalton: I'm afraid I have to go now. Hope to see some of you at FOIS!    (2IQO)
	PeterYim: Thank you Antony ... see you at FOIS!    (2IQP)
	ArturoSanchez: @AntonyGalton: me too    (2IQQ)
	PierreGrenon: Could there be a notion that the programmes contemplated could perhaps become pilots 
	for the summit or the IAOA? This could drive the definition of programmes but also could serve as 
	references when trying to achieve similar things in places that are less aware of ontology at the 
	moment.    (2IQR)
	PeterYim: Now brainstorming on "suggestions for 2011 Ontology Summit" ... please make sure you 
	document ALL suggestions into this chat-board (as we will need to look through these suggestions 
	again later in the year when we actually start organizing OntologySummit-2011    (2IQS)
	EricLindahl: My suggestion: Tools & Technologies. This is where the 'rubber meets the road'. IOW 
	where I work everyday.    (2IQT)
	EricLindahl: I second 'OntologyFest'    (2IQU)
	RexBrooks: I would suggest "Applications and Tools for Practical Ontology" or "Ontology in the 
	Enterprise"?    (2IQV)
	EricLindahl: With EMF you can use the 'Ontology' right away.    (2IQW)
	RexBrooks: I think Case Studies and a Hackathon at the face-to-face might be helpful.    (2IQX)
	MichaelGruninger: Address the question -- how are the methodologies, tools, and environments for 
	ontological engineering different from those for software engineering?    (2IQY)
	EricLindahl: In support of Arturo, I suggest systems like QVT or ATL    (2IQZ)
	PeterYim: please propose some "Themes" worthy of a *Summit*    (2IR0)
	PeterYim: question we should ask ... by end this year ... what would be the *most* strategic issue 
	that this field (of ontology) should be addressing?    (2IR1)
	RexBrooks: My thinking is that it naturally follows training new ontologists, that we look at what 
	they would actually be doing at work?    (2IR2)
	ArturoSanchez: For the record. The two recommendations I voiced are: (1) Examples of systems for 
	which the use of ontology technology was successful and otherwise; (2) Sessions similar to 
	design-fest and "code-fest" from OOPSLA, which in our case would be hands-on sessions on the 
	design/use/testing/integration/etc of ontologies. I think this can be combined with the 
	MichaelGruninger suggestion.    (2IR3)
	FabianNeuhaus: suggesting the topic: "Ontology Modularity"    (2IR4)
	PierreGrenon: theme: good ontology    (2IR5)
	EricLindahl: @PierreGrenon implied 'Ontology of Utility'    (2IR6)
	PierreGrenon: @eric: not sure I follow    (2IR7)
	AmandaVizedom: "Ontology Practices in Context" or something, meaning: collecting info on, and 
	developing some collective understanding of, how ontology practices (both actual and best) vary with 
	elements of context such as application type, developer community, user community, large goals 
	(monetization vs. decision support, reuse vs. one-time-need)...    (2IR8)
	EricLindahl: Good is a utility function. Applies to decision support, marketing etc.    (2IR9)
	RexBrooks: the problem with word "good" is the difference between useful (utility) versus 
	effectiveness (value to user for achieving objectives).    (2IRA)
	EricLindahl: To say 'good(Ontology) range [0..1)' (assuming it's unit). I prefer DS or rational    (2IRB)
	RexBrooks: That's actually a valid question for an ontology of meanings.    (2IRC)
	PeterYim: please also think of "involving another community" - like OntologySummit2009 when we got 
	the ontology and the standards communities to get together    (2IRD)
	MichaelGruninger: @Peter -- yes, bringing the ontological engineering and software engineering 
	together -- that is in the direction that I was thinking    (2IRE)
	ArturoSanchez: @Peter-and-Michael: I like very much the idea!    (2IRF)
	RexBrooks: @Michael & Peter: Me, too.    (2IRG)
	PeterYim: something that is important for the two communities, as Michael suggested, bringing 
	together the ontology community and the software engineering community    (2IRH)
	MichaelGruninger: Ontological engineering can learn about methodologies and best practices from 
	Software Engineering, while Software Engineering can learn about how software integration and 
	model-directed architectures can be supported by the application of high quality ontologies    (2IRI)
	RexBrooks: I think using Case Studies: successful and not is very useful for engaging other 
	communities like software engineering, but I wouldn't focus on SE alone. The domains that SE deals 
	with are equally important as end users.    (2IRJ)
	AmandaVizedom: In a way, my suggestion could integrate Pierre's (good ontology) and Arturo's (what 
	has worked where? & design-fest) and would have to incorporate draw from evaluation / standards.    (2IRK)
	PierreGrenon: @Fabian: I agree this is a topic that could cause troubles    (2IRL)
	RexBrooks: @Peter: that's what I was aiming for, combining standards for ontology and standards that 
	use ontologies as representations in the practical world: Case Studies.    (2IRM)
	EricLindahl: I submit that Utility is a better and more tractable subject, than whether a given 
	ontology is better than another. That presumes too much, IMHO.    (2IRN)
	RexBrooks: @Eric: agreed!    (2IRO)
	AmandaVizedom: @Peter - I also think the "practice in context" idea inherently brings in other communities.    (2IRP)
	anonymous morphed into JulitaBermejoAlonso    (2IRQ)
	PierreGrenon: well it could be purpose / context oriented. No absolute norms of q    (2IRR)
	PierreGrenon: but good for a purpose. We could then include application and tool developers    (2IRS)
	EricLindahl: Specifically, perhaps, SizeOf is a better quality measure than Good. E.g. Equivalence 
	partition on KolmogorovComplexity(Ontology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity    (2IRT)
	EricLindahl: I disagree    (2IRU)
	PierreGrenon: @amanda: yep, that sounds very good, but hard    (2IRV)
	AmandaVizedom: To put my suggestion differently: We know that we have differences in views on 
	Methodology. Can we discover relationships between methodologies used, application/community, and 
	success? I think so, and it gives a way to make headway on quality & best practices without 
	searching for universally agreed upon, context-free principles.    (2IRW)
	AmandaVizedom: @Pierre: Does it? It seems moderately hard but doable to me, because we could again 
	develop questions to elicit information to ground the discussion in. Harder to have nothing 
	empirical, I think, and more likely to degrade into ideological battles.    (2IRX)
	PierreGrenon: it will be tricky to define a specific domain and less appealing to a general audience. 
	Amand's suggestion allows people from different domains to relate to the summit on the same level    (2IRY)
	PierreGrenon: @amanda: I think the difficulty is primarily in diversity    (2IRZ)
	ArturoSanchez: All, I need to go now. Good session. Thank you for the feedback offered!    (2IS0)
	DagobertSoergel: I suggest "making sense out of data" as a topic    (2IS1)
	PeterYim: other possibilities is to bring together the "library science community and the ontology 
	community" ... another one, "enterprise architecture and ontology"    (2IS2)
	EricLindahl: Library science is a KR problem, right?    (2IS3)
	RexBrooks: I wouldn't focus on any one other community, library science, software engineering, et al. 
	But I do think that if we did it well, it would be an opportunity to refine our skills at survey management.    (2IS4)
	AmandaVizedom: @Peter - I guess I'm thinking about each of the cases you've suggested, plus a few -- 
	but I'm either up a level or too impatient. Instead of delving deep into one of those pairings, I'd 
	like to look at the patterns. It would be natural for folks to do some deeper delving within the 
	pairings that might run parallel and beyond.    (2IS5)
	PeterYim: @Amanda - not really - take a look at the case of OntologySummit2009 "Toward Ontology-based Standards" 
	(maybe we can't craft such a theme when putting other communities together with ontologists    (2IS6)
	EricLindahl: (aside, a scientist I worked with responded to my suggestion of ontology in software 
	with 'so you believe God is enumerable?')    (2IS7)
	RexBrooks: @Eric: did you offer him an ontology of religiosity?    (2IS8)
	RexBrooks: religiosity in software?    (2IS9)
	EricLindahl: @Rex we're just sorting bits in a finite string, is his point I believe.    (2ISA)
	RexBrooks: @Eric: Ahh...    (2ISB)
	AmandaVizedom: Perhaps one reason I think this is not harder is that I think the specific pairings 
	may assume uniformity that isn't there. It seems very probable to me that when you dig into any one 
	of these pairs, you find complexity that reflects the broader diversity.    (2ISC)
	PierreGrenon: @amanda: yes, the risk is getting into fights, my proposal was too confrontational in 
	that respect, obviously people will disagree. If we start from what people do and what are their 
	requirements, we can perhaps have different answers of the practical utility of an ontological 
	approach.    (2ISD)
	EricLindahl: (everyone is shy all of a sudden)    (2ISE)
	AmandaVizedom: Example: ontologies and libraries includes distinct activity- and interest- based 
	groups around search and retrieval, metadata and digital curation, text processing, ... more I think.    (2ISF)
	EricLindahl: And maybe get sponsors    (2ISG)
	RexBrooks: @Eric: I think none of us is fond of saying things twice? Once written, twice shy.    (2ISH)
	PierreGrenon: @amanda: too abstract, can you explain 'pairs'or give an example? (I'll be reading 
	upward meanwhile in case I missed something)    (2ISI)
	PierreGrenon: oh nevermind    (2ISJ)
	EricLindahl: I second Amanda's real world complexity POV    (2ISK)
	EricLindahl: General ontology design patterns for dealing with real world complexity in ontology development?    (2ISL)
	PierreGrenon: @amanda: yes, "where can there be trade-offs" could be the theme    (2ISM)
	EricLindahl: Ontology design heuristics    (2ISN)
	EricLindahl: Does anyone use CLIPS or Flora-2 in ontology research?    (2ISO)
	EricLindahl: But actually they have sub-minimal ontological intersection?    (2ISP)
	RexBrooks: I think Amanda's points can be addressed in the context of Ontology Applications and Tools: 
	(the domain considerations for best practices and methodologies can go in this explanatory passage.)    (2ISQ)
	DougFoxvog: The issue of people from different fields arguing, is often that they use the same terms 
	in different ways.    (2ISR)
	DougFoxvog: This does not mean that either is wrong, they are labeling different concepts with the 
	same term.    (2ISS)
	EricLindahl: Semiotics (just had to say it)    (2IST)
	JulitaBermejoAlonso: the ontology-based or ontology-driven label: what does it really mean?    (2ISU)
	EricLindahl: Thank you all!    (2ISV)
	AmandaVizedom: I will try to make a clearer proposal offline.    (2ISW)
	PeterYim: Thanks everyone    (2ISX)
	EricLindahl: So, that's the end of our Ontology party. Anyone need a ride home?    (2ISY)
	PeterYim: One last time ... please endorse the Communique if you haven't already done so - 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_Communique and 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_Communique#nid2CUN    (2ISZ)
	PeterYim: -- session ended: 2010.04.15-12:15pm PDT --    (2IT0)
    -- end of chat session --    (2D9T)

Audio Recording of this Session    (2D9X)

For the record ...    (2DA5)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (2DA6)