OntologySummit2011: Panel Session-9 - All Hands: "Synthesis and Reports" - Thu 2011_03_31    (2QMP)

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology    (2QMQ)

Session Title: All Hands: Synthesis and Reports    (2QMR)

Session Co-chairs: Dr. SteveRay & Dr. NicolaGuarino    (2QMS)

Panelists: Summit Co-chairs, Track Co-champions and Communique Co-Lead Editors (* = presenting today)    (2QMT)

Abstract:    (2QUN)

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

This is our 6th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by NIST, Ontolog, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit is: "Making the Case for Ontology."    (2QUQ)

This year's Ontology Summit seeks to address the 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. To support that, the summit also aims to classify the categories of applications where ontology has been, and could be, successfully applied; to identify distinct types of metrics that might be used in evaluating the return on investment in an ontology application (cost, capability, performance, etc.); to lay out some strategies for articulating a case for ontological applications; and to identify remaining challenges and roadblocks to a wider deployment of such applications that represent promising application areas and research challenges for the future. The findings of the summit will be documented in the form of a communiqué intended for public consumption.    (2QUR)

In our "All Hands" session today we will be pulling things together. The general co-chairs, all track champions and the communique lead editors will be reporting their respective synthesis of the discourse and work that has transpired to date.    (2QUS)

See developing details on this Summit series of events at: OntologySummit2011 (home page for this summit)    (2QUT)

Agenda:    (2QUU)

Ontology Summit 2011 - Panel Session-9    (2QUV)

Proceedings:    (2QV1)

Please refer to the above    (2QV2)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:    (2QV3)

 see raw transcript here.    (2QV4)
 (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.    (2QV5)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (2QV6)
	PeterYim: Welcome to the ...    (2RA1)
	OntologySummit2011: Panel Session-9 - All Hands: "Synthesis and Reports" - Thu 2011_03_31    (2RA2)
	Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology    (2RA3)
	Session Title: All Hands: Synthesis and Reports    (2RA4)
	Session Co-chairs: Dr. SteveRay & Dr. NicolaGuarino    (2RA5)
	Panelists: Summit Co-chairs, Track Co-champions and Communique Co-Lead Editors (* = presenting today)    (2RA6)
	* OntologySummit2011 General Co-chairs ... SteveRay* & NicolaGuarino
	* Track-1: Ontology Application Framework ... MichaelGruninger* & MichaelUschold & NicolaGuarino
	* Track-2: Applications and Case Studies ... MillsDavis & MikeBennett*
	* Track-3: Value Metrics, Value Models and the Value Proposition ... ToddSchneider* & RexBrooks
	* Track-4: Strategies for "making the case" ... MatthewWest* & PeterYim
	* Track-5: Grand Challenges ... RamSriram* & ErnieLucier & AldenDima
	* Communique Co-Lead Editors ... MichaelUschold*, JohnSowa, MillsDavis & JohnBateman    (2RA7)
	Please refer to details on the session page
	at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_03_31    (2RA8)
	anonymous morphed into BrianHaugh    (2RA9)
	anonymous morphed into MatthewWest    (2RAA)
	anonymous morphed into ChristopherSpottiswoode    (2RAB)
	RexBrooks: I'm stil getting "incorrect conference id" I use Vonage and this is the first time this 
	has happened. ... I even rebooted the device. But no change.    (2RAC)
	MikeBennett: @Rex w some phones, have to hold down keys for 1 sec each.    (2RAD)
	JohnBateman: I got the incorrect conference id a couple of times, then it worked    (2RAE)
	RexBrooks: Finally got through!    (2RAF)
	PeterYim: @RexBrooks, MikeBennett, JohnBateman, MichaelGruninger et al. - the conference bridge is a 
	bit tricky ... you almost has to space out the keystrokes evenly (especially with the # sign at the 
	end) to have it work well - see: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?VirtualSpeakerSessionTips#nid2OR0    (2RAG)
	MikeBennett: OK, I'm going to have to redial in    (2RAH)
	PeterYim: MichaelGruninger is on line now    (2RAI)
	MichaelGruninger: I'm online, but I cannot unmute    (2RAJ)
	PeterYim: @MichaelGruninger - let me unmute you, please try your voice when you have a chance    (2RAK)
	anonymous morphed into DavidLeal    (2RAL)
	SteveRay: Standard cheat sheet: *2 to mute, *3 to unmute    (2RAM)
	PeterYim: MichaelGruninger: additionally, will also incorporate the ontology classifications that OMV 
	has provided    (2RAN)
	NicolaGuarino: Anyway, I'll state my question on the chat: my problem is related to the very name 
	"ontology application framework"    (2RAO)
	PeterYim: discussion below is in reference to a possible change of the Track-1 label to disambiguate 
	the possibility that the audience may misinterpret us (as in the case of StefanoBertolo, who thought 
	we were trying to find out if something like that would be a good candidate for research funding)    (2RAP)
	ToddSchneider: @Nicola, the Ontology Spplication Framework (OAF) may be at too low a level for 
	stakeholders/decision makers.    (2RAQ)
	MichaelGruninger: Would "Taxonomy of Ontology Applications" be better    (2RAR)
	JohnBateman: but taxonomy is bad!    (2RAS)
	AmandaVizedom: I think "taxonomy" makes certain commitments about the structure/relationship of the 
	feature, and should be avoided    (2RAT)
	NicolaGuarino: I agree it is not a taxonomy    (2RAU)
	SimonSpero: "What Can Ontologies Do For You?"    (2RAV)
	JohnSowa: How about a very short title: Applications.    (2RAW)
	ToddSchneider: John, simple is hard.    (2RAX)
	JohnSowa: The word 'ontology' can be deleted, because that's the overall title.    (2RAY)
	JohnSowa: The word 'usage' can be deleted, because every application is used.    (2RAZ)
	JohnSowa: When you delete all the problematical words, the only one left is 'application'.    (2RB0)
	TimWilson: Is that a directive from the Department of Redundancy Department?    (2RB1)
	RexBrooks: I think that Ontology USE Framework captures it more succinctly.    (2RB2)
	MikeBennett: @Rex +1    (2RB3)
	TimWilson: @Rex +2    (2RB4)
	ToddSchneider: Michael, the 'application' level may still be too low level, at least for an 
	elevator' pitch.    (2RB5)
	NicolaGuarino: Ontology applications comparison framework?    (2RB6)
	MichaelRiben: Is the group familiar with the caBIG's effort to develop a similar ontology app 
	framework which they call the Ontology "representation": 
	https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/display/VCDE/Ontology+Representation+WG    (2RB7)
	SimonSpero: Applications, or Problems?    (2RB8)
	AmandaVizedom: Using the language of the Wiki page: Ontology Applications Description Framework    (2RB9)
	MichaelUschold: ON ambiguity of the term "ontology application framework" I agree that application 
	is ambiguous here. How about ontology deployment framework?    (2RBA)
	NicolaGuarino: @MichaelUschold: +1    (2RBB)
	ChristopherSpottiswoode: Ontology Application Typology?    (2RBC)
	SimonSpero: "What kind of problems can ontologies solve?"    (2RBD)
	TimWilson: There appears to be little consideration for the use of ontology to augment search, 
	particularly in the enterprise.    (2RBE)
	MikeBennett: Application has 2 meanings    (2RBF)
	MikeBennett: Crux of the problem is "Application" as a kind of program v. Application as "how 
	something is applied"    (2RBG)
	SimonSpero: MikeBennett+    (2RBH)
	RexBrooks: Perhaps Ontology Usage Framework?    (2RBI)
	MikeBennett: Better    (2RBJ)
	RexBrooks: We're capturing the kinds of uses to which ontology can be put.    (2RBK)
	MatthewWest: Most of the ambiguity comes from missing prepositions. Framework for the Application of 
	Ontologies would (for example) get over that.    (2RBL)
	RexBrooks: @Matthew: yes.    (2RBM)
	JohnSowa: Long titles require more explanation than they clarify.    (2RBN)
	AmandaVizedom: "Framework for Understanding Ontology Applications?"    (2RBO)
	MichaelRiben: is the purpose for "discovery" in order to know if the person can apply it to their 
	use case?    (2RBP)
	ToddSchneider: +1 for 'Guide'    (2RBQ)
	NicolaGuarino: Let's delegate to the champions to choose the final title on the basis of the input 
	received    (2RBR)
	PeterYim: I agree with Nicola ... let's defer to the Track-1 champions    (2RBS)
	AmandaVizedom: @NicolaGuarino: +1 ... and it's then most useful for the rest of us to comment/throw 
	out idea in this chat for them to consider later.    (2RBT)
	SimonSpero: (past half hour. Now afraid)    (2RBU)
	SimonSpero: [Changed Mikes - Now on track 2 - Use Cases]    (2RBV)
	MichaelRiben: I think a good healthcare/public health example would be to look at Parsa Mirhaji's 
	Sapphire system for the CDC that performs surveillance in the Houston area...see 
	http://knowmed.com/Solutions.html    (2RBW)
	MichaelGruninger: Should we think of the Ontology Application Framework as really being "Ontology 
	Use Case Metadata"? The idea is that all of the dimensions provide the terminology for describing a 
	use case from a technical and (eventually) business perspective.    (2RBX)
	SteveRay: I think using the word "metadata" is just going to confuse things.    (2RBY)
	MichaelUschold: In discussing benefits of an ontology application, it is critically important to 
	link back to how the ontology makes that possible. Saying 'customer retention' gets people's 
	attention, but you need to explain how the ontology helped to do this.    (2RBZ)
	AmandaVizedom: @MikeBennett: +1 for adding the dimension of What's Modeled. Not only do people 
	differ on this, but a lack of understanding of that difference has caused noticeable confusion and 
	disagreement on list during this summit. It's surely a dimension of difference that affects best 
	practices and measures of quality!    (2RC0)
	MikeBennett: @Amanda +1    (2RC1)
	SimonSpero: MikeBennett: were the metrics that you hadn't heard of internal to the use case 
	presenter?    (2RC2)
	MikeBennett: @Simon yes, it was some CRM acronym    (2RC3)
	MikeBennett: So, what does AHT stand for? (in CRM / call center context)?    (2RC4)
	MikeBennett: @Simon - AHT was my unexplained metric from CRM case study, as now noted in Track 3.    (2RC5)
	SimonSpero: @MikeBennett: Either Average Hold Time or Average Handling Time 
	(http://www.kellen.net/crm_mf.pdf)    (2RC6)
	MikeBennett: @Simon, thanks. Not my guess, so worth defining (terminology!).    (2RC7)
	SteveRay: @MikeBennett: I want to ensure we are going to have pointers to as many actual cases as 
	possible. Is that your intention?    (2RC8)
	MikeBennett: @MichaelUschold @SteveRay yes, I need to take the assertions in these slides and link 
	to the relevant case study. On the Wiki.    (2RC9)
	TimWilson: I was hoping to stay on the call for Matthew and Peter's presentation, however I must get 
	back to work. I will be presenting to my superiors next week for the creation of a knowledge 
	initiative using ontology.    (2RCA)
	TimWilson: This summit has been invaluable to me in that effort.    (2RCB)
	RexBrooks: It just dawned on me that one area where we haven't seen specific Use-Cases is internal 
	corporate governance and management both IT Management and Business Intelligence Management.    (2RCC)
	MichaelRiben: need to go..sorry    (2RCD)
	PeterYim: @MichaelRiben - thanks for joining, and for the contribution    (2RCE)
	SimonSpero: @MikeBennett: Do you have the data coded in a way that it could be fed into Multi 
	Dimensional Scaling for graphing?    (2RCF)
	MikeBennett: @Simon re feeding graphing:no. not many numeric measures were asserted.    (2RCG)
	RexBrooks: JohnSowa noted the connection between people using terms in human interoperability and 
	the improvements that come about due to that.    (2RCH)
	NicolaGuarino: Excellent question, John a crucial one!    (2RCI)
	SteveRay: @John: Fascinating point about getting humans to be interoperable, a la common 
	terminology. I am definitely running into that in the world of disaster management interoperability, 
	where "interoperability" is commonly interpreted as "interchangeability of emergency personnel"    (2RCJ)
	ToddSchneider: Steve, look at the NCOIC SCOPE model to get a better understanding of 
	interoperability'.    (2RCK)
	ToddSchneider: One perspective of interoperability is crossing boundaries (that didn't need crossing 
	in the past or haven't been considered explicitly in the past)    (2RCL)
	SimonSpero: [summary of discussion: labels/words are for people ; MikeBennett points out that 
	business users are concerned about definitions]    (2RCM)
	AmandaVizedom: @JohnSowa: But even in a case that appears to be as you say, nailing down and 
	tracking the relationship between the different concepts *independently of the local terminology* or 
	*across local terminologies* is typically critical to the getting the benefit. That is, the 
	advantage is in being able to keep *both* local-human-interpretable presentation/usability *and* 
	machine usability.    (2RCN)
	MichaelUschold: @JohnSowa - there is a lot of ambiguity in natural language definitions, because we 
	all use terms in different ways. There is also a lot of ambiguity in formal logic definitions 
	because they miss so much of the intended meaning, which is more easily expressed in natural 
	language.    (2RCO)
	NicolaGuarino: @JohnSowa (I repeat it because there was a typo): there is a (huge) benefit related 
	to the terminology used, ONE related to the way the formalization of the intended meanind is done 
	(independently from computational aspects), and finally one related to the computational use of the 
	terminology (typically for taxonomic reasoning)    (2RCP)
	NicolaGuarino: @MichaelGruninger & MichaelUschold: maybe JohnSowa's point on distinguishing between 
	different uses of ontologies (terminological clarification vs. formal clarification vs. automated 
	reasoning) can be made explicit in the "application framework"...    (2RCQ)
	MichaelGruninger: @Nicola: Yes    (2RCR)
	MichaelUschold: Re: @Nicola's comment about incorporating @JohnSowa's distinction. Agree, this 
	should be incorporated. To some extent it is there already.    (2RCS)
	SimonSpero: [My diss. topic is on interface between controlled vocabularies and ontologies. It's 
	been misunderstood by people on both sides since before Aristotle was a gleam in his father's eye]    (2RCT)
	BartGajderowicz: Regarding controlled vocabularies, there is a survey out about this. Perhaps 
	beneficial to check back on the results: 
	http://semanticweb.com/finding-out-whether-controlled-vocabularies-matter_b18740    (2RCU)
	MichaelUschold: On Value metrics: if a value model is a subset or subtype of another one, maybe a 
	good idea is to show this in a venn diagram or tree structure.    (2RCV)
	SimonSpero: [Now moving to track 3 - Value Models, Value Metrics and Value Proposition]    (2RCW)
	PeterYim: ALL: please identify clearly who you are addressing with "@" before your message (like 
	@MichaelGruninger or @MichaelUschold, @JohnSowa or @JohnBateman, so that it will not be ambiguous) - 
	I need that help because in the post-processing of the chat transcript, I will reshuffle the dialog 
	so that Questions and Answers, and related discussion are placed adjacent to one another    (2RCX)
	RexBrooks: @ToddSchneider, I believe you were referring to the granularity matching between use case 
	and metrics.    (2RCY)
	MichaelUschold: Some of @ToddSchneider's material on value models and metrics could be integrated 
	into the ontology application framework, rather than standing alone.    (2RCZ)
	RexBrooks: Yes!    (2RD0)
	SimonSpero: [track change - track 4 - Strategies for "Making the Case"]    (2RD1)
	SimonSpero: [weren't FFC's actors often drunk, on LSD, or both?]    (2RD2)
	AlanRector: The speaker keeps fading out    (2RD3)
	RexBrooks: Yes, we need Matthew to speak a little louder.    (2RD4)
	RexBrooks: The granularity issue applies to the strategy, too. If we narrow our focus to specific 
	use-cases or the most generic use cases, we stand a better chance of scoring well.    (2RD5)
	RexBrooks: The notion of which values count most is a good consideration.    (2RD6)
	BartGajderowicz: Is there any benefit to talking about sub-ontologies, micro-theories (Cyc term) or 
	axioms in repositories (COLORE) vs. full ontologies? Full ontologies may be overkill for most 
	applications?    (2RD7)
	MikeBennett: @Bart one or 2 of the case studies showed benefit in reuse of existing, common ontology 
	concepts    (2RD8)
	RexBrooks: @Bart: Not sure I would use those kinds of arguments to any audience other than other 
	ontologists or folks with an interest in ontology. For the end users I would focus on solving their 
	problems and only bring up HOW if asked.    (2RD9)
	SimonSpero: It turns out that Data Quality has to have a case made for it too, alas. [ 
	http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1534235 ]    (2RDA)
	JohnBateman: @BartGajderowicz: definitely, but only when the audience has got out of the elevator, 
	into the meeting room and then onto the details... so a question of granularity in what level of 
	pitch when I'd guess. Part of the methodology for engineering things properly (so it is a selling 
	point that there *is* a methodology).    (2RDB)
	NicolaGuarino: @Matthew: speaking of the role of ontology on data quality, it occurs to me that in 
	many cases just "ontology awareness" is enough to produce good data (e.g., choosing good, 
	non-ambiguous names for the entities we talk of), without necessarily using ontologies as artefacts. 
	This means that a certain ontology education is necessary for building the controlled vocabularies 
	JohnSowa mentions...    (2RDC)
	MatthewWest: @Nicola: Yes. You have relatively little chance of success without an ontological 
	approach, even if that is not what it is called.    (2RDD)
	AmandaVizedom: @Bart - this touches another angle, of great interest to me, from which the framework 
	can be used: the need to better understand ontology best practices and principles of good ontology 
	design. There is very little work done that reflects or addresses the way good practices depend, in 
	many ways, on the application context. Seeing how this framework might help us understand those 
	dependencies is a direction of great promise, I think!    (2RDE)
	BartGajderowicz: @AmandaVizedom: Yes. I've notices some work on analyzing adoption of Semantic Web 
	technologies, now that there is enough information. There's a few reports I ran across. I need to 
	dig them up and can forward.    (2RDF)
	BartGajderowicz: @MikeBennett: Thanks, I saw the slides on reuse. I was referring more to the size 
	of the ontologies. For example, FOAF and GoodRelations are relatively small but very specific in 
	their scope, which (assuming) helped with their adoption.    (2RDG)
	MikeBennett: @Bart there is definitely a case to be made for a set of common, granular ontologies 
	that people can refer to (time, geog, accounting, legal etc.).    (2RDH)
	BartGajderowicz: @RexBrooks: same answer. Smaller ontologies are specific to a particular problem, 
	so more relatable to the end user.    (2RDI)
	RexBrooks: @Bart: agreed.    (2RDJ)
	MikeBennett: @Bart the audience to whom to make that case is the Linked Data folks I think    (2RDK)
	BartGajderowicz: @MikeBennett: Agreed. But I view sub-ontologies as being used in analyzing data, 
	not just linking it. When I look at the Dataset Publishing Language (DSPL) project, "Slices" look 
	like different combinations of relationships between "Concepts". These "Slices" resemble 
	sub-ontologies to me. http://code.google.com/apis/publicdata/docs/tutorial.html    (2RDL)
	MikeBennett: @Bart interesting. thanks for the pointer. One thing we have done in the EDM Council 
	work is identify common terms and commit to trying to find the most appropriate standard for each 
	(e.g. ISO 3166 for countries).    (2RDM)
	BartGajderowicz: @MikeBennett: Thanks. I will take a look at this work.    (2RDN)
	MikeBennett: MatthewWest's Slide 10 is a better list of the kinds of people we should make the case 
	to, than what I had in the Case Studies similar slide.    (2RDO)
	MatthewWest: @MikeBennett: I notice there is considerable crosstalk between the tracks. Ours in 
	particular, since it is so general. You might want to pick up MDM as a case study too.    (2RDP)
	PeterYim: [track change - track 5 - Grand Challenges]    (2RDQ)
	MichaelUschold: I agree with @JohnSowa's voice comment that the grand challenge problems are more 
	general AI problems than ontology problems per se.    (2RDR)
	RexBrooks: @JohnSowa: Agreed. A Grand Challenge would be to "Make the Cases for Ontology" 
	highlighting the "Cases".    (2RDS)
	MichaelUschold: On the Grand Challenge track. While it is useful and interesting overall, I do not 
	see a clear connection to how to make a case for ontology. What has been learned in this track that 
	can be distilled into a tip, hint or guideline that helps make a case for ontology?    (2RDT)
	SteveRay: @MikeUschold: I think this track simply provides a pointer to future opportunity areas 
	where one could apply the methods we are articulating.    (2RDU)
	PeterYim: @JohnSowa @MichaelUschold - as Matthew pointed out (slide#3) there is effective, NO CASE 
	for Ontology (as was pointed out analogously during the Track-4 session, that there is no case for 
	calculus) ... but the Grand Challenges will be able to focus our energy    (2RDV)
	JohnBateman: @MichaelUschold: I guess this is along the lines: these applications are fantastic, to 
	do them ontologies are a must, therefore this is the case for ontology... But I wonder if we can 
	find applications which really are completely irresistable.    (2RDW)
	NicolaGuarino: John: +1    (2RDX)
	MatthewWest: @JohnBateman: The things you are mentioning are research goals we need to identify.    (2RDY)
	NicolaGuarino: @RamSriram: Speaking of great challenges, I would like to point to 
	http://www.futurict.ethz.ch/FuturICT. FuturICT is a proposal for a 10-years European "Flagship" 
	project, which scored first in a recent call, aiming at world-wide simulation, data interpretation, 
	crisis management, etc. Great opportunities for ontologies, especially for ontology of large scale 
	socio-technical systems    (2RDZ)
	MatthewWest: The thing about grand challenges is that they have some objective, you know when you 
	have succeeded. I think an important prequel to grand challenges are research goals. What are the 
	current gaps? A useful Grand Challenge would then depend on the achievement of some of those 
	research goals.    (2RE0)
	JohnBateman: I doubt there is going to be a grand challenge for *ontology* that is of interest to 
	outsiders; the only challenges will *have* to be specific problems where ontologies can be argued to 
	provide an important part of the work: as in FuturICT.    (2RE1)
	BartGajderowicz: @JohnBateman: Yes. The granularity is much more relatable to end-users. You 
	basically speak their language. The pitch woudl be something like " sub-ontology A is about geo, 
	sub-ontology B is about time, etc. One of these may fit you domain.    (2RE2)
	AldenDima: @JohnBateman I would also agree with you. We are asking potential "customers" for grand 
	challenges and they don't per se care about ontologies. So I think we are running the risk of asking 
	for challenges and then saying "Sorry not what we were looking for". But perhaps we should look for 
	multidisciplinary challenges in which we can play a significant role and then partner with the other 
	disciplines.    (2RE3)
	Ramdsriram: @John: The purpose of the track is to identify a few grand challenges computational 
	problems and identify opportunities for ontologies. For example, can we achieve the "kind of things" 
	that Eliot, Ramesh, and Nabil talked about without using any ontologies (or related technology).    (2RE4)
	SimonSpero: Is there an elevator in the NIST building?    (2RE5)
	AldenDima: @Simon - we do have elevators in our buildings. I believe that the room for the Summit is 
	on the ground floor.    (2RE6)
	SimonSpero: AldenDima: I think that testing an elevator speech in an NIST elevator is pretty good 
	metric    (2RE7)
	AldenDima: @Simon - we can start with the elevator in the tall admin building and work our way to 
	the shorter ones...    (2RE8)
	ToddSchneider: All, I have to go.    (2RE9)
	RexBrooks: Bye Todd. You gave a fine presentation, Todd.    (2REA)
	PeterYim: [track change - Communique]    (2REB)
	MichaelUschold: I'm getting on my cell, two seconds, hang on    (2REC)
	MikeBennett: @MichaelUschold (re slide 4) but does "the Ontology community" have one understanding 
	of what it means and what it's used for?    (2RED)
	RexBrooks: @MichaelUschold: I think this is a terrific way to go and I look forward to the interim 
	and final versions.    (2REE)
	MikeBennett: @Matthew indeed. Master data management (as distinct from metadata management - had me 
	going!) is a feature of some of our case studies e.g. industry standard terms across an industry 
	gets deployed in a number of ways within firms including master data (golden source), metadata 
	repositories and other application areas.    (2REF)
	PeterYim: @MichaelUschold - just to make sure nothing falls through the crack, can you identify 
	exactly who has promised you text by end-of-day Monday, please?    (2REG)
	NicolaGuarino: MichaelUschold's scheme is GREAT, I am just a little bit concerned about its level of 
	ambition...    (2REH)
	MikeBennett: I promised text my end of Monday    (2REI)
	MatthewWest: I did    (2REJ)
	Ramdsriram: @Peter: We should have a rough draft (hopefully).    (2REK)
	RexBrooks: I'm pretty sure Todd has promised Track 3 by end of Monday. If not I will speak with him.    (2REL)
	TerryLongstreth: Put the email address on the chat    (2REM)
	PeterYim: @Steve - ref. the dinner, the way you did it last year (a email to the list with a link 
	someone can click on to provide you the response, offline) that would be great!    (2REN)
	PeterYim: great session ... very productive!    (2REO)
	JoelBender: thank you!    (2REP)
	NicolaGuarino: I agree, very productive and promising!    (2REQ)
	PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:36am PDT --    (2RER)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (2QV7)

Audio Recording of this Session    (2QVD)

Additional Resources:    (2QVM)

For the record ...    (2QW0)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (2QW1)

Note that we will start promptly; if you are new to this setting, please dial-in to the conference call 5~10 minutes before the scheduled start time!    (2QW2)

Conference Call Details    (2QT7)

Attendees:    (2QU6)