OntologySummit2011 review and follow-up action planning ("postmortem") session - Thu 19-May-2011    (2T7K)

Conference Call Details    (2T7P)

Attendees    (2T7Q)

Resources    (2TRQ)

Abstracts:    (2TUU)

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 can be improved during the 3~4 months of OntologySummit2011, and get ideas on how to make next year's Ontology Summit even better. This meeting gives us an opportunity to develop some plans and initiatives for action that will move what we have achieved beyond the 3-month Summit itself. Further, this meeting is also an opportunity to suggest topics and themes for next year's Ontology Summit.    (2TUW)

Agenda Ideas:    (2TUX)

Agenda & Proceedings:    (2TV6)

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

 see raw transcript here.    (2TVG)
 (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.    (2TVH)
    -- begin of chat session --    (2TVI)
	PeterYim: Welcome to the    (2TVJ)
	OntologySummit2011 review and follow-up action planning ("postmortem") session - Thu 19-May-2011    (2XTX)
	* Chair: Dr. SteveRay and Dr. NicolaGuarino    (2XTY)
	Please refer to details on session page at: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_05_19    (2XTZ)
	.    (2XU0)
	anonymous morphed into vnc2    (2XU1)
	Ali Hashemi: Does vnc work for anyone?    (2XU2)
	PeterYim: @Ali - no ... you will have to call out the advance, and I will advance the slides for you    (2XU3)
	PeterYim: session starts ... How did OntologySummit2011 go?    (2XU4)
	SteveRay: Matthew: Went well - maturity of how participants approached the topic    (2XU5)
	Michael Uschold: Was it anyone's job to get media coverage? IF not, that is the explanation.    (2XU6)
	anonymous morphed into FabianNeuhaus    (2XU7)
	SteveRay: In the future, need a publicity chair (Uschold, Obrst)    (2XU8)
	PeterYim: +1 on Gruninger's point about the panel at the Symposium - I agree it went real well and 
	provided a good range of perspectives    (2XU9)
	SteveRay: Gruninger: could have done better on the challenge problems    (2XUA)
	PeterYim: @Steve - vnc still working properly here    (2XUB)
	SteveRay: VNC is back for me - it hiccuped and required me to log in again.    (2XUC)
	FabianNeuhaus: I am basking    (2XUD)
	PeterYim: presentations continued - [ 1-Ray ] (slide#8 now)    (2XUE)
	SteveRay: Michael: Can't help observing that we're really in an Epilogue, rather than a Prologue as 
	noted on your slide. (Shocking misuse of a term for an ontologist!    (2XUF)
	PeterYim: == MichaelUschold presenting == [ 2-Uschold ]    (2XUG)
	LeoObrst: I think that Michael's Ontology Usage Catalog could also become part of the Open Ontology 
	Repository, at some point, since the points on his slide 2 are largely also addressed by the OOR.    (2XUH)
	SteveRay: Michael: What is the relationship between your work and the Open Ontology Repository?    (2XUI)
	RexBrooks: Sorry I'm late folks-conflicting telecon, about an emergency management ontology.    (2XUJ)
	PeterYim: NicolaGuarino: in favor of Michael's proposal ... cataloging is good, but qualifying it as 
	"exemplary" could be dangerous    (2XUK)
	AliHashemi: With respect to the summit, it is also an issue of how suitable the example ontology is 
	for making a case.    (2XUL)
	The OOR encompasses a broader range of ontologies    (2XUM)
	NicolaGuarino: According to the authors, "An exemplary ontology is one that can serve as a model 
	that can be imitated or leveraged by ontology engineers in the future. The most fundamental property 
	of an exemplary ontology is being well designed for its intended purpose". This is risky.    (2XUN)
	MichaelUschold: Agree with Nicola about having a way to enter things into a repository, without 
	having to commit to it being exemplary. I agree. The exemplary ontology catalog is just an example 
	of a semantic-form based catalog. An ontology usage framework could use a similar approach. Whether 
	or not we choose to rate the quality of ontology uses is a discussion about just one attribute of 
	the ontology usage, not a big issue per se.    (2XUO)
	MatthewWest: Apologies, but I have to leave now.    (2XUP)
	PeterYim: bye, Matthew    (2XUQ)
	MichaelUschold: @Nicola: can you comment on the publication of ontology usages in AOJ (the "Applied 
	Ontology" Journal) according to some kind of standard format?    (2XUR)
	RexBrooks: I'll give the standing use-case library some thought. I promised other groups that I 
	would catch up on work that took a lower priority before the summit, so I can't commit now, but I 
	may commit after those projects are up to date.    (2XUS)
	LeoObrst: Maybe AOJ could institute a kind of New Ontologies of Interest section? Brief descriptions 
	of ontologies and their use cases?    (2XUT)
	NicolaGuarino: @Michael: definitely we are open to publish ontology usages on the AOJ, but honestly 
	I have no idea of the proper format (there was some discussion with MichaelGruninger at the summit)    (2XUU)
	MichaelUschold: I could not agree more with AliHashemi that there needs to be a better way to show 
	off the results of our work. I do not like sending people to our working wiki site.    (2XUV)
	NicolaGuarino: @Ali: I definetly support the idea of a nice (non wiki-based) website, certainly it 
	would be great to point at it from the IAOA.org web site (and from MANY different places).    (2XUW)
	PeterYim: == Brainstorm on possible theme for next year's Ontology Summit ==    (2XUX)
	LeoObrst: Jumping ahead a bit, Potential Topics for Ontology Summit 2012: 1) Ontology Best 
	Practices, Methodologies, Evaluation, 2) Ontology Self-Correction, Automated Growth, Ontology 
	Learning. To some extent both of these were mentioned at the Symposium.    (2XUY)
	NicolaGuarino: (of course we need some way of quality evaluation, of course)    (2XUZ)
	RexBrooks: Thought for next year's Summit: How do we make people aware of ontology by saying "Did 
	you know that YOU have an ontology?    (2XV0)
	RexBrooks: The point is showing how there are implicit ontologies everywhere, and making people 
	aware of it. What are the consequences of willy nilly ontological practices?    (2XV1)
	RexBrooks: How to put that into a a Summit Theme is a good question.    (2XV2)
	MichaelUschold: I propose "Ontology Engineering best practice"    (2XV3)
	MichaelUschold: I think that Ontology best practice is too big.    (2XV4)
	MichaelUschold: I think ontology learning is too small a topic, very important, but represents small 
	part of the community    (2XV5)
	MichaelGruninger: Rather than ontology learning the topic can be broadened to ontology acquisition 
	e.g. extracting ontologies from unstructured knowledge    (2XV6)
	PeterYim: it was suggested before (in previous years) the theme of "Ontology and Software 
	Engineering" - and create a platform to pull together these two communities    (2XV7)
	SteveRay: @Peter: or..."Ontology and Systems Engineering"    (2XV8)
	LeoObrst: Perhaps related to "Ontology and Software / Systems Engineering" is "Developing Ontology 
	Applications".    (2XV9)
	RexBrooks: "Solving Problems with Ontology"?    (2XVA)
	MichaelGruninger: Challenge Problems for Ontology Design and Applications    (2XVB)
	LeoObrst: I agree that Evaluation is a potentially big topic, as that NIST workshop made clear: many 
	approaches.    (2XVC)
	FabianNeuhaus: I agree with Nicola, when I said "Best Practices" I should have said "Best Practices 
	& Methodologies"    (2XVD)
	PeterYim: a possible theme that came across (when Matthew and I were doing "Strategies") is "Making 
	the Case for Ontology Research"    (2XVE)
	NicolaGuarino: @Peter: BTW, "Making the case for ontology research" is a GREAT topic, although 
	perhaps less popular than best practices & methodology    (2XVF)
	NicolaGuarino: Also: research challenges for ontologies    (2XVG)
	AliHashemi: Ontologies as Part of Knowledge Systems (how it fits into other technologies)    (2XVH)
	PeterYim: +1 on Ali's "Ontologies as Part of Knowledge Systems"    (2XVI)
	YuriyMilov: alternatives ... "challenges for ontologies" I agreed    (2XVJ)
	RexBrooks: Similar to Best Practices and Software Engineering, and building on this year's topic, I 
	would suggest something along the lines of "What is Ontology Good For? it breaks down into Tracks 
	for things like performance, collateral benefits, etc.    (2XVK)
	FabianNeuhaus: For the record, I suggested to distinguish "Ontology Best Practices, Methodologies" 
	and "Evaluation of Ontologies" as separate topics    (2XVL)
	AliHashemi: Ontology acquisition might also resonate broadly, as it would help communicate how 
	people who didn't realize they could use ontologies, could.    (2XVM)
	TerryLongstreth: Back to its roots: Ontology usage for Philosophy and the Humanities    (2XVN)
	PeterYim: Nicola / Steve: ask people to continue to contribute ideas (brainstorm on topics) - 
	conversation can and should continue on the [ontology-summit] list    (2XVO)
	PeterYim: Home page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit    (2XVP)
	LeoObrst: Adios!    (2XVQ)
	PeterYim: Steve suggest adding a link on that page to a place where people can suggest "future 
	themes"    (2XVR)
	PeterYim: sure ... send us your suggestions here - 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions    (2XVS)
	NicolaGuarino: @MichaelUschold: once the communique is ready (with endorsement), submit it to 
	Applied Ontology so we can publish it soon    (2XVT)
	AliHashemi: Thank you all.    (2XVU)
	PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:00am PDT --    (2XVV)
    -- end of chat session --    (2TVK)

Audio Recording of this Session    (2TVO)

For the record ...    (2TVW)

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