OntologySummit2011 Launch Event - Thu 2011-01-20    (2L7N)

Abstract: Goals & Objectives    (2L8Z)

OntologySummit2011 Theme: "Making the Case for Ontology"    (2L90)

This is our 6th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by NIST, Ontolog, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD with the support of our co-sponsors. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit is: "Making the Case for Ontology." In an earlier planning session last month, the community brainstormed on this initiative and how best to frame the issues. That and subsequent input were carefully reviewed and synthesized by the Summit Organizing Committee, and it is this plan and program that we will be discussing with everyone during this launch event.    (2L91)

While the field of ontology, in the information science sense, has blossomed since the late 1980s, the use of ontology in commercial applications still has not been fully exploited, much less recognized by the mainstream technical community. Many in the ontology community are asked for good examples where using an ontology brings clear benefits to addressing a commercial need - indeed the quest continues for the "killer app" for ontologies. This year's Ontology Summit seeks to address this need to provide concrete evidence of successful deployment of ontologies by examining several application domains for such examples, and in better articulating where different "strengths" of ontological representation are best applied. The goal of the summit is to clearly document some of these examples with solid, quantitative benefits, to indicate promising application areas and research challenges for the future, and to capture the consensus of the community in the form of a communique intended for public consumption.    (2L92)

The 2011 Ontology Summit officially begins with today's launch event. We are initiating a series of topical online discussions, virtual panel sessions, studies, synthesis, etc. which will take place, virtually, in the next 3 months. All of these will come together with a face-to-face meeting on April 18 & 19 in Gaithersburg, MD, USA at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).    (2L93)

See developing details at: OntologySummit2011 (home page for this summit)    (2L94)

Agenda:    (2L95)

Ontology Summit 2011 Launch    (2L96)

Proceedings:    (2L9F)

Please refer to the above    (2L9G)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:    (2L9H)

 see raw transcript here.    (2L9I)
 (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.    (2L9J)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (2L9K)
	SteveRay: Welcome to the OntologySummit2011 Launch Event - Thu 2011-01-20 
	Topic: OntologySummit2011: "Making the Case for Ontology" 
	Co-chairs: Dr. SteveRay & Dr. NicolaGuarino    (2LSU)
	anonymous morphed into YuLin    (2LSV)
	anonymous morphed into David Price    (2LSW)
	David Price morphed into DavidPrice    (2LSX)
	SteveRay: Early birds!    (2LSY)
	SteveRay: See details on the session page at 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_01_20#nid2L7T    (2LSZ)
	anonymous morphed into DavidEddy    (2LT0)
	anonymous1 morphed into JulitaBermejoAlonso    (2LT1)
	anonymous morphed into PierreGrenon    (2LT2)
	anonymous morphed into MichelleRaymond    (2LT3)
	anonymous1 morphed into AlStevens    (2LT4)
	anonymous morphed into LaurentLiscia OASIS    (2LT5)
	MikeDean1 morphed into MikeDean    (2LT6)
	LaurentLiscia OASIS: I'm delighted to be here (albeit lurking in the wings)    (2LT7)
	LaurentLiscia OASIS: Congratulations to you all as you launch into your new summit.    (2LT8)
	anonymous1 morphed into EdDodds    (2LT9)
	anonymous2 morphed into BobbinTeegarden    (2LTA)
	LaurentLiscia OASIS: And let me state that the case for ontology does not actually need to be made: 
	anyone in standards knows that ontology is the way to go.    (2LTB)
	anonymous morphed into ElizabethFlorescu    (2LTC)
	NicolaGuarino: *3 to unmute, right?    (2LTD)
	FabianNeuhaus: Yes you are right    (2LTE)
	MikeBennett: Did Peter just mute himself?    (2LTF)
	PeterYim: got disconnected just now ... I'm back in    (2LTG)
	Ramdsriram: Steve: How do you un-mute here.    (2LTH)
	FabianNeuhaus: @Ram: *3    (2LTI)
	Ramdsriram: @Fabian: Thanks    (2LTJ)
	anonymous1 morphed into AliHashemi    (2LTK)
	EdDodds: Would folks mind listing any of their Twitter or Identica IDs on the chat? @ed_dodds 
	@conmergence fwiw    (2LTL)
	MikeBennett: Twitter ID: @MikeHypercube    (2LTM)
	AmandaVizedom: Twitter ID: ajvizedom    (2LTN)
	Gary Berg-Cross: Twitter ID garybcross    (2LTO)
	AlStevens: Twitter ID astevens    (2LTP)
	SteveRay: My Twitter id: steveraysteve    (2LTQ)
	DavidPrice: Twitter ID : davidpricenet    (2LTR)
	AmandaVizedom: Relatedly, last year we regretted not having selected a nice, short #hashtag for the 
	conference. Anything for this year, organizers, or is the door open for suggestions?    (2LTS)
	EdDodds: #ontologysummit2011 works for me    (2LTT)
	AmandaVizedom: @Ed complaints last year about using 19 char for a hashtag    (2LTU)
	EdDodds: #ontsum2011    (2LTV)
	SteveRay: Understand the long hashtag problem, and yet we benefit from the tweets showing up under 
	general searches if we don't abbreviate.    (2LTW)
	anonymous1 morphed into JohnSowa    (2LTX)
	anonymous2 morphed into JVermeer    (2LTY)
	EdDodds: We could target the creation of open courseware for ontology related matter (DSPACE 
	, Open Courseware , curriki , etc.) 
	since this kind of material could prosper in the distance education world.    (2LTZ)
	EdDodds: RE: Education - James H. Shelton III, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 
	Improvement http://www2.ed.gov/news/staff/bios/shelton.html might be enlisted as an ontology ally    (2LU0)
	anonymous1 morphed into JeffreyAbbott    (2LU1)
	anonymous2 morphed into ArturoSanchez    (2LU2)
	ToddSchneider: @Nicola, is the IAOA web site using https yet?    (2LU3)
	JohnBateman: @ToddSchneider: Nicola, is the IAOA web site using https yet? An SSL-based layer will 
	soon be brought online for membership registration.    (2LU4)
	ToddSchneider: @John, excellent. I've been waiting to join.    (2LU5)
	anonymous2 morphed into TaraAthan    (2LU6)
	EdDodds: FWIW Real-time user case example: Drupal 7 - http://groups.drupal.org/node/120684 Semantic 
	Web: RDF instance data (and ontology) management on a Sesame Triple-Store    (2LU7)
	MikeBennett: Thanks Ed.    (2LU8)
	SteveRay: JohnSowa said: Steve Jobs doesn't use metrics. We can't measure where we want to go. This 
	is a problem.    (2LU9)
	ToddSchneider: @John, developing a 'wow factor' for infrastructure has always been a challenge.    (2LUA)
	anonymous1 morphed into Mary Parmelee    (2LUB)
	ArturoSanchez: @SteveRay and @Nicola: second that! -- Peter is instrumental!    (2LUC)
	ArturoSanchez: @MichaelGruninger: Re: Track 2: I suggest to use "Ontology-Driven Software 
	Engineering", in lieu of "Ontology-Driven Software Design" ...    (2LUD)
	ToddSchneider: @Arturo, @Michael, suggest replacing 'software' with 'system'.    (2LUE)
	ToddSchneider: @Michael, it sounds like you'll be able to develop architectural patterns for the 
	uses of ontologies/semantic technologies.    (2LUF)
	ArturoSanchez: @ToddSchneider: "O-D Systems" >> Refers to a class of software systems (I presume); 
	O-D Software Engineering >> Refers to the practices associated with building "O-D Systems". So, it 
	seems we want to discuss both concepts ...    (2LUG)
	NicolaGuarino: I support Todd very much. We should not be limited to software systems. Indeed, the 
	general perspective concerning the future use of ontologies is much broader: from information 
	systems to socio-technical systems.    (2LUH)
	MichaelGruninger: @Arturo -- I agree, we should refer to "Ontology-driven Software Engineering"    (2LUI)
	NicolaGuarino: AlanRector said: we should clarify relationship between ontologies vs.data models and 
	data structures    (2LUJ)
	PeterYim: @Alan and all ... if you can capture your main points on this chat board before or after 
	your verbal remarks, that would be great (as the chat-transcript will be captured and become 
	searchable later)    (2LUK)
	EdDodds: Is OMG.org represented here by anyone -- model driven is their thing    (2LUL)
	MikeBennett: We are liaising closely with OMG in our work at the EDM Council and are using their ODM 
	metamodel.    (2LUM)
	ArturoSanchez: @EdDodds: I am not from OMG, but have been associated with "Domain-Specific Software 
	Development" (e.g., ongoing workshop at OOPSLA)    (2LUN)
	ToddSchneider: @Ed, OMG's model-driven == UML    (2LUO)
	Ramdsriram: @Todd Not sure I understand that what you mean by model-driven == UML. I believe UML is 
	used as a scheme to represent the model-driven architecture concepts.    (2LUP)
	EdDodds: @ToddSchneider True but do a quick search on UML & Ontology; quite a little material out 
	there    (2LUQ)
	ToddSchneider: OMG's model-driven approaches are based on UML.    (2LUR)
	EdDodds: Yes    (2LUS)
	MikeBennett: For now    (2LUT)
	AlanRector: Agree that UML is a poor way to develop ontologies; but many of the ontologies we 
	develop have to have, as at least one of their outcomes, UML models / data models or at least 
	provide constraints on them. Furthermore, thre are far more people trained in UML/MDA than 
	ontologies. I look forward to a longer discussion on 3 Feb.    (2LUU)
	DavidPrice: @MichaelGruninger : Seems slide 3 is 'What roles do ontologies play in applications?'and 
	suggest adding'What are the advantages of the use of ontologies in those roles?'    (2LUV)
	JulitaBermejoAlonso: There has been some developments on ontologies and UML (even suggesting to move 
	forward to OMG's SysML), mostly for agent-based systems and software engineering    (2LUW)
	RexBrooks: Just to let you know I'm listening, The Open Group attempted to use a form of UML for a 
	SOA Ontology and the result was neither especially useful, understandable or successful for a number 
	of reasons, but UML is not a great fit for ontologies unless one is very, very careful.    (2LUX)
	EdDodds: @RexBrooks Thanks    (2LUY)
	RexBrooks: @Ed Dodds You're welcome.    (2LUZ)
	RexBrooks: Provided we provide an adequate disclaimer, it would be interesting to see how well an 
	application based on the TOG SOA Ontology performs according to the criteria being discussed.    (2LV0)
	DavidPrice: @ToddSchneider Another core technology behind OMG MDA is QVT ... what's MDA without a 
	transformation engine. Ontology-driven should/could drive a similar need.    (2LV1)
	ToddSchneider: David, What does QVT stand for?    (2LV2)
	DavidPrice: Query / View / Transform    (2LV3)
	Gary Berg-Cross: Mike G makes a point (in passing) the Ontologies provide value (the beef) for 
	something like model-based development.    (2LV4)
	MichaelGruninger: @Todd: interesting idea to think of the framework as providing architectural 
	patterns; perhaps this will guide us in how detailed we need to make the framework    (2LV5)
	ToddSchneider: Michael G., Alan's point suggests a decomposition of 'uses' of ontologies in systems 
	development.    (2LV6)
	AlanRector: On applications: a) Important to clarify relationship between ontologies and data 
	structures / data models.    (2LV7)
	AlanRector: b) Links to standard software engineering methodologies, UML, MDA, etc    (2LV8)
	AlanRector: c) To be specific on the added value of "ontology driven architectures"    (2LV9)
	Ramdsriram: @MichaelGruninger: There is a framework called Zachman Framework. Have you hear of that. 
	May be useful in organizing your track.    (2LVA)
	MichaelGruninger: @DavidPrice: I saw the discussion of the advantages of ontologies being the focus 
	of Track 3; the framework would be used to help understand how different applications can be 
	compared to each other.    (2LVB)
	DavidPrice: @MichaelGruninger OK, makes sense there.    (2LVC)
	JimRhyne: It is hard to argue that something computational can only be done with an ontology. Almost 
	anything I can do with, e.g. OWL / Pellet I can also do with Java and a database. The real difference 
	is how easy it is to create and maintain the behavioral rules for an application in an ontology. A 
	similar argument has been made for rule systems. The problem with rule systems is the difficulty of 
	debugging without some kind of consistency checker.    (2LVD)
	DavidPrice: @JimRhyne I doesn't have to be about 'can only be done', can simply be 'can be done 
	better, faster, cheaper'    (2LVE)
	JimRhyne: @DavidPrice - yes, Mike retracted his earlier remarks on slide 2    (2LVF)
	NicolaGuarino: @MikeBennett: not just "the best that they have", but perhaps also "the worst that 
	they have"... Learning from failures in applying ontologies might be very useful...    (2LVG)
	MikeBennett: @Nicola that is a good idea. I think what we want for the summation at the Face to Face 
	would be what people did that worked and what they would do differently next time. I'm not sure 
	we'll attract people to present on their failures though    (2LVH)
	PeterYim: @Nicola ... that said, we still want to build a repertoire of "Best" cases that people can 
	point others to when they are "making a case for ontology"    (2LVI)
	DavidEddy: ...we're 60+ years into software & haven't quantified it or applied metrics. Why bother 
	with Ontology?    (2LVJ)
	DavidPrice: @MikeBennett slide 5 : Why only business case for ontology as a whole? Why not allow 
	ontology in combination with other technologies or aspects of technologies? Don't understand what 
	that limitation is included.    (2LVK)
	MikeBennett: @DavidPrice that was weak phrasing on my part. Ontology as a whole range of formal 
	models of reality, not just one type like OWL or RDF. Not ontology in isolation. Will look at how 
	these delivered some value, which is almost always in connection with some application.    (2LVL)
	BrandNiemann (Semantic Community)1: Re "While the field of ontology, in the information science 
	sense, ... I suggest we consider ontology, in the data science sense, - see 
	http://semanticommunity.info/Data_Science    (2LVM)
	BrandNiemann (Semantic Community)1: Mills will probably speak to the value proposition next week, 
	which suggests we broaden out to building knowledge-centric systems, not IT centric systems, in 
	which ontology may or may not be needed - see Knowledge-Centric Paradigm: A New World of IT 
	Solutions @ http://semanticommunity.info/@api/deki/files/8282/=BrandNiemann01112011.ppt    (2LVN)
	PeterYim: @Todd - slide#3 ... [ref. Todd's remark about concentrating only on monetary value] sure 
	we will focus on "value" wrt to ROI (return on investment), but thought we will *also* address other 
	intangible values as well, like quality improvement, strategic impact, and others that have been 
	brought up on the [ontology-summit] list earlier    (2LVO)
	Brian Haugh: The proposed metrics focus appears to neglect key metrics used in evaluating the 
	quality of results, such as precision and recall in search.    (2LVP)
	SteveRay: I agree with Peter's point, and Brian's suggestion. The metrics can be monetary, or other 
	types like quality, performance, capability...    (2LVQ)
	BillHogan: I would say that how ontologies facilitate/improve/affect all these aspects of your 
	overall architecture are more important than these things as attributes of the ontology itself.    (2LVR)
	ToddSchneider: Brain, The metrics I suggested are needed to to bolster the case to decision makers. 
	They need to be simple and related to the primary interests of the decision makers. Your example 
	suggests a particular usage and the metrics for that case may need to stress performance metrics.    (2LVS)
	ToddSchneider: @Peter, intangible values rarely are of interest to 'decision makers'. However, there 
	may be a useful way to connect these to more base ROI metrics. I leave to the community to help 
	solve this.    (2LVT)
	PeterYim: [subsequently added] @Todd: for C-level executives and Policy makers, strategic value 
	(mostly intangible) would be very pertinent    (2LVU)
	NicolaGuarino: @Todd: To understand value metrics and value models, maybe it would be useful to 
	develop an ontology of value and value models... See 
	http://www.vmbo2011.ugent.be/VMBO2011/Welcome.html    (2LVV)
	ToddSchneider: @Nicola, Yes that occurred to me, but was hesitant to introduce that notion due to 
	the required work and constrained time line. In principal whatever is developed for track 3 will 
	provide a basis for such an ontology.    (2LVW)
	AlanRector: @RexBrooks & ToddSchneider: How does the argument for ontology in general relate to the 
	ontology spectrum in slide 4 ?    (2LVX)
	ToddSchneider: @Alan, Slide 3, Ontology Spectrum, was only to suggest that there may need to be 
	either multiple metrics or value sets for the metrics.    (2LVY)
	RexBrooks: @Todd We should contact Kurt Conrad on the value ontology (ontology of value types) 
	and/or value model ontology (ontology of models associated with various value types). This is, of 
	course, directly related to architectural models, too, hence an NCOIC connection.    (2LVZ)
	AmandaVizedom: Must drop off. Thanks to presenters; looking forward to continuing sessions.    (2LW0)
	DavidPrice: @ToddSchneider I find it hard to make sense of 'ROI for an ontology'. I understand ROI 
	for an application as that's what affects an organization, but not for particular components of that 
	application. I hope the track can help answer this question.    (2LW1)
	MikeBennett: @DavidPrice re ROI for an ontology. If someone tried to solve some problem using 
	technical means alone and spent a lot of time and money, and then spent some time creating some 
	ontology and addressed the same problem in less time, there's an ROI.    (2LW2)
	ToddSchneider: @David, You're correct about 'ROI of ontology'. Hence the focus on system. Systems 
	use ontologies and semantic technologies; Systems have an understandable ROI.    (2LW3)
	DavidPrice: @ToddSchneider OK - I'll be interested in seeing how it goes. Getting ROI info is 
	notoriously difficult.    (2LW4)
	ToddSchneider: @David, I also interested in seeing how this goes. Lots of questions, confusion.    (2LW5)
	RexBrooks: Also, since I am directly involved with using UML is SOA, specifically for the OASIS SOA 
	Reference Architecture Foundation (SOA_RAF), I will be creating an ontology from the SOA-RAF and 
	ensuring that it works, but I will inevitably restrict/qualify it as specific to the SOA-RAF and not 
	SOA at large.    (2LW6)
	BrianLucas: Another aspect to consider is that to be truly interoperable, I believe the ontologies 
	must themselves be re-usable and cross-referenced (and, ideally, reconciled into upper-level 
	ontologies). I have recently come to the conclusion that upper-level ontologies are very necessary 
	to interoperating lower-level ontologies, if we wish to have any hope of reconciling the 
	separately-developed, domain-specific ontologies. And the connection of these "non-IT" ontologies 
	may help drive the actual IT implementations (UML or otherwise). Perhaps the Grand Challenge track 
	is the place for this thinking?    (2LW7)
	YuLin: agree with Brian    (2LW8)
	MikeBennett: +1 agree with Brian    (2LW9)
	SteveRay: +2 on Brian's remark. I am arguing this very point in integrating the 70+ standards being 
	developed to support the smart grid interoperability in the US.    (2LWA)
	DavidPrice: @BrianLucas : Upper-or-not is a huge debate and I'd be concerned about it being a on 
	the critical path wrt a good way to 'Make the Case for Ontology' in the larger world. I've worked in 
	both worlds and find strong advocates that disagree completely.    (2LWB)
	BrianLucas: @DavidPrice : I do not believe it should be on the critical path either. It is a 
	personal interest of mine in the organization space, and I'm launching a non-profit in this domain, 
	but I'll continue the conversation in one or more of the tracks.    (2LWC)
	DavidPrice: @BrianLucas, I'll be interested in following up on that with as part of the Summit.    (2LWD)
	JimRhyne: @Nicola - unfortunately VMBO is a workshop format with unpublished proceedings. One has to 
	commit to attending in order to benefit from the discussions.    (2LWE)
	NicolaGuarino: @Jim: Yes, VMBO is just an informal workshop, but if you look at the organizers and 
	the previous attendants publications you will find a lot of interesting material....    (2LWF)
	JimRhyne: @Nicola - agreed, been down this path. Not planning to attend this year. How can we get 
	cooperation from the VMBO attendees to work on this problem?    (2LWG)
	NicolaGuarino: @Jim: I'll talk with the VMBO organizers and let you know. I'll try to involve at 
	least some of them (indeed I am one of them)    (2LWH)
	RexBrooks: @Todd I sent you an email on my availability, just a heads up.    (2LWI)
	ToddSchneider: @Rex, Thanks. I'll be in touch.    (2LWJ)
	DavidPrice: @SteveRay at al : Excellent topic for the Summit!    (2LWK)
	MikeBennett: And I hope everyone will mark their diaries for next Thursday for the first in the 
	Track 2 Applications and Case Studies with Mills Davis.    (2LWL)
	PeterYim: Great session!    (2LWM)
	LeoObrst: Thanks, folks, goodbye!    (2LWN)
	JimRhyne: @Nicola - great - will follow up with you.    (2LWO)
	MikeBennett: Thanks Peter and everyone. Looking forward to it all.    (2LWP)
	PavithraKenjige: thank you!    (2LWQ)
	EdDodds: thank you all!    (2LWR)
	PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:27 am PST --    (2LWS)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (2L9L)

Audio Recording of this Session    (2L9R)

Additional Resources:    (2LA0)

For the record ...    (2LA6)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (2LA7)

Conference Call Details    (2L7W)

Attendees:    (2L8T)