ConferenceCall 2011 12 08

(if size of participants is manageable)

 [ 1:27:51 ; mp3 ; 10.06 MB ]
 [ slides ]
 see raw transcript here.    (3086)
 (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.    (3087)
    -- begin of chat session --    (3088)
	PeterYim: Welcome to the    (30K7)
	 = OntologySummit2012 (Pre-launch) Community Input and Planning Session - Thu 2011-12-08 =    (30K8)
	Topic: Refining the ideas around the theme and program for OntologySummit2012    (30K9)
	Co-chairs: SteveRay & PeterYim    (30KA)
	Session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_12_08    (30KB)
	Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute    (30KC)
	Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu, select "Show Dial Pad" there    (30KD)
	 == Proceedings: ==    (30KE)
	anonymous morphed into TimWilson    (30KF)
	anonymous morphed into ChristopherSpottiswoode    (30KG)
	anonymous morphed into PatCassidy    (30KH)
	AliHashemi: Is there someone in charge of the Skype "joinconference" id? It appears offline for me.    (30KI)
	SteveRay: Did you type in the PIN? 141184#    (30KJ)
	AliHashemi: I'm restarting Skype, but i didn't have an option of connecting to joinconference 
	because the contact appeared offline.    (30KK)
	AliHashemi: Contact appeared online after restart    (30KL)
	SteveRay: Good news. Hope to hear your voice.    (30KM)
	PeterYim [added subsequently]: one can actually skype "joinconference" even when it appears to be 
	off-line; at least that works for me every time    (30KN)
	AliHashemi: 1) Click on the "Call" dropdown menu; 2) Click on "Show Dial Pad"; 3) Enter the pin from 
	the "dial pad"    (30KO)
	MikeBennett: By the way on the joiconference Skype, at least in one version of Skype it does not 
	display a numeric keypad, thereby making it impossible to type in the conference ID!    (30KP)
	MikeBennett: Yes, I also failed to read Peter's instructions above.    (30KQ)
	AliHashemi: Ah    (30KR)
	anonymous morphed into AmandaVizedom    (30KS)
	anonymous morphed into ElisaKendall    (30KT)
	anonymous morphed into BoNewman    (30KU)
	anonymous1 morphed into MartinSerrano    (30KV)
	anonymous morphed into KenAllgood    (30KW)
	anonymous morphed into MichaelRiben    (30KX)
	anonymous morphed into NikolayBorgest    (30KY)
	anonymous morphed into MichaelRiben    (30KZ)
	JoanneLuciano: Should I be looking/downloading some slides - or is that later. Please post the link 
	here:    (30L0)
	AliHashemi: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/2011-12-08_OntologySummit2012-pre-launch/OntologySummit2012-pre-launch-brainstorm--SteveRay-PeterYim_20111208.pdf    (30L1)
	JoanneLuciano: thanks!    (30L2)
	PeterYim: when in doubt, check the session page - 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_12_08 - brief instructions are at the 
	very top now - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_12_08#nid308P    (30L3)
	JackRing: Six facets of ontology - system engineering.    (30L4)
	JoanneLuciano: So, how can you know if ontology is helping if there are no metrics in place to 
	evaluate that?    (30L5)
	JoanneLuciano: by "you" I mean "we"    (30L6)
	MikeBennett: @Joanne we looked at that for last year's Summit.    (30L7)
	JoanneLuciano: @Mike -- and? (BTW, I do like addressing Big Data)    (30L8)
	JackRing: 10X Better, Faster Systems Engineering.    (30L9)
	AliHashemi: @Joanne - 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ValueMetrics_CommunityInput    (30LA)
	TimWilson: I have to leave the call soon, but I am very interested in the System Engineering aspects 
	of Ontology as well as Ontology Acquisition, including text analytics.    (30LB)
	JackRing: Ontology --- Relief from complexity    (30LC)
	MatthewWest: Sorry I'm late. Struggled to get Skype working.    (30LD)
	AmandaVizedom: Can someone address how the proposed "Big Data" theme relates to other items on the 
	suggestions page? E.g., is it approximate to Cory's suggestion?    (30LE)
	BoNewman: as part of either topic I would like to see something that focuses on working with 
	multi-perspective semantics    (30LF)
	PatCassidy: Ontology in complex systems fits in with my interest in the ability of ontology to 
	support interoperability. Perhaps we may somehow mention the "cloud" as being a place where complex 
	systems may reside or interact?    (30LG)
	AmandaVizedom: Yup    (30LH)
	AliHashemi: I think Amanda means this: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions ?    (30LI)
	JoanneLuciano: @Ali -- thanks for the link!    (30LJ)
	AmandaVizedom: I'm trying to get a better sense of what is meant by this theme.    (30LK)
	ChristopherSpottiswoode: @Steve: I would like to congratulate you on both the themes chosen. Each is 
	good, the combination excellent.    (30LL)
	SteveRay: @Christopher: Thank you.    (30LM)
	anonymous morphed into HasanSayani    (30LN)
	BoNewman: Unifying topic - pros and cons of multi-perspective semantics    (30LO)
	BoNewman: Or simply multi-perspective semantics    (30LP)
	BoNewman: Background on multi-perspective semantics: Dealing with differences in meaning (semantics) 
	based on individual perspectives can be addressed by either moving to a single shared perspective 
	(ontology) or by expanding the collective ontology to encompass the full richness of the concept. 
	Each has challenges: Developing a shared ontology needs to avoid the pitfalls of reductionism. 
	Expanded or collective ontologies face the challenge of incorporating implicit/tacit aspects that 
	define the individual perspectives.    (30LQ)
	AmandaVizedom: +1 for BoNewman's suggestion. Addressing multiple perspectives is essential for 
	large-scale federation, applications with localization, and anything that involves sharing 
	information across user communities, over time, etc.    (30LR)
	MikeBennett: +1 here also for multiple perspective semantics. We've been looking at some of this 
	within our efforts but would like to see a broader effort and consensus. Defines archetypal of 
	"simplest possible" concepts which by definition are not local to most of our individual industries. 
	Lots of good ontologies to leverage for such an effort, just show consensus way of using these 
	together e.g. in linked data.    (30LS)
	KenAllgood: Agree with Bo's topic. The work I'm doing right now in the electronic health record 
	arena is directly dependent upon multiple perspective harmonization within big data federation.    (30LT)
	AmandaVizedom: What Bo is talking about is critical to federation and to web-like environments - you 
	need to capture rich contextual elements and provenance info also, to be able to preserve meaning of 
	data when crossing context lines.    (30LU)
	BoNewman: Multi-perspective semantics track application: (1) Big Data, especially when working with 
	aggregates of, and usability across multiple domains is logically subject to the issues associated 
	with multi-perspective semantics. (2) System engineering, especially when dealing a broad spectrum 
	of customers, developers, and stakeholders each with their own perspective, has also experienced 
	problems that could be directly related to issues generated by misaligned multi-perspective 
	semantics.    (30LV)
	JackRing: A joint Working Group of the International Council on Systems Engineering and 
	International Society for Systems Sciences is pursuing the development of a Unified Ontology for 
	Systems Engineering. This effort is mostly practitioners getting ready for interaction with 
	ontologists.    (30LW)
	LeoObrst: Per Jack's note: see 
	http://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/projects/unified-ontology-of-science-systems.    (30LX)
	PatCassidy: Jack - are the online references to these efforts toward a "unified ontology"    (30LY)
	PatCassidy: The ability to have a common unifying ontology and multiple perspectives are not mutually 
	exclusive. My conclusions from the past 15 years of ontology discussions is that a common basic 
	ontology can be used to **translate** among all the diverse terminologies, perspectives, belief 
	systems, and applications. The basic ontology should be able to be small enough to be mastered by at 
	least one data developer in each group, who can then serve as the bilingual translator between the 
	local system and the broader group.    (30LZ)
	KenAllgood: @Pat, excellent point, and one which is often missed in discussions around "big, scary, 
	ontologies" in actual system design and engineering.    (30M0)
	EricChan: I suggest to reach out to "The Society for Design and process Science" 
	http://www.sdpsnet.org/sdps/ as a "partnering community" for the theme on "application of ontology" 
	... "in transdisciplinary system engineering."    (30M1)
	MichaelGruninger: do we want to distinguish "systems engineering" from "software engineering"?    (30M2)
	KenAllgood: How Ontology can address big data issues in federation, harmonization, etc??    (30M3)
	AmandaVizedom: I'm still not sure what the two main themes are supposed to be; they are so open to 
	multiple interpretations.    (30M4)
	AliHashemi: +1 Amanda    (30M5)
	AmandaVizedom: Depending on how the themes are defined, I can easily see both "semantics from, and 
	across multiple perspectives" and "ontology quality in context" (which we mean specifically to 
	indicate metrics and methods for evaluating fitness for purpose) as tracks under either of the two 
	major themes. But again, each still feels too underspecified for shared understanding and intention, 
	here.    (30M6)
	AliHashemi: I concur with Amanda. A lot of the "content" items we're discussing could easily fit 
	into both of the themes. Big data _requires_ systems engineering, and the major focus of many system 
	engineering projects these days will be Big Data. The latter (i.e. "Big Data") will have greater 
	cachet with a broader audience though.    (30M7)
	SteveRay: If we went with "systems engineering", we could break it down into the major components, 
	to include design, validation, testing... and how ontology plays a role in each.    (30M8)
	JackRing: Ontology, the missing link in systems engineering.    (30M9)
	ChristopherSpottiswoode: @Jack: yes, that's it!    (30MA)
	MatthewWest: Systems Engineering and big data meet in big engineering systems. Think of the quantity 
	and complexity of data for e.g. an offshore oilrig, or an aircraft carrier.    (30MB)
	MatthewWest: @Ali. [@Michael ?] I'm assuming Systems Engineering means hardware systems, or systems 
	with embedded software. What do you mean?    (30MC)
	AliHashemi: @Matthew, that's one source of confusion for me. Is it restricted to hardware systems, 
	or the more general systems which would encompass applications that will rely on Big Data (say 
	sensor fields), or epidemic tracking etc... It's unclear to me from the theme names.    (30MD)
	PeterYim: @MatthewWest - I trust we are *not* equating Systems Engineering with hardware systems or 
	embedded system, but rather taking the broader "Systems" definition ... which should include 
	man-machine systems, system-of-systems, etc.    (30ME)
	ElisaKendall: At the OMG, there have been a number of discussions and some work in the past year for 
	aligning ontology with SysML, which is a UML profile for systems engineering modeling support in 
	UML. JPL, for example, has developed an ontology that allows transformation of SysML models such 
	that they can be reasoned over to identify problems in those models. Given that JPL gets "one shot" 
	at sending systems into space, any capability that can assist in eliminating problems in systems 
	models is incredibly important. If we are talking about ontological support for systems engineering, 
	rather than the engineering of systems supported by ontologies, this is one area we could piggyback 
	on and we could reach out to that community to get their input.    (30MF)
	PatCassidy: I'm somewhat reluctant to match "systems engineering" with "ontology". Either term may 
	be mysterious to a lot of people, and the combination of specialized terms in a title might well 
	convince all but a few hard-core ontolog participants that it is not relevant to their purposes.    (30MG)
	JackRing: Ontology enables big data + big function = big valuable societal benefits.    (30MH)
	ChristopherSpottiswoode: @Jack: Yes, keep it up!    (30MI)
	PeterYim: personally, I am in favor of using this summit to team ontologists up with system 
	engineers, so "together" this team will be in a much better position to address "big data" problems    (30MJ)
	AliHashemi: +1 to PeterYim's point. On its own, the use of the term Big Data entails greater 
	relevance to the broader technology conversation.    (30MK)
	KenAllgood: @Peter.. Agree.. That's exactly the direction we might wish to consider to increase the 
	recognition and perceived benefit of an ontology-driven solution    (30ML)
	BoNewman: I agree with Peter: Ontology as a component of a solution is a much more extendable 
	position than ontology as the solution.    (30MM)
	KenAllgood: Big Data opportunities are dependent upon the contextual clarity ontologies provide.    (30MN)
	ToddSchneider: I concur with Peter's approach - Systems Engineering first, then use this to 
	understand how to work with big data.    (30MO)
	SteveRay: My own personal concerns and opinions: Big Data is a bit more focused, and thus possibly 
	amenable to yield some concrete contribution. One other potential pitfall is that systems 
	engineering as a field of study might come across as an overly academic discussion (although, of 
	course, many industries use systems engineering regularly).    (30MP)
	JackRing: Ontologies unify general systems thinking and general semantics thereby bridging a 
	long-standing, deep divide in human endeavors.    (30MQ)
	MatthewWest: @Ali My understanding is that those who consider themselves systems engineers in the 
	broadest sense are concerned with the integration of multiple components where those components may 
	include but are not restricted to hardware, software, and people. The main restriction in Systems 
	Engineering is that it is man made. There is an even broader view of systems that would include e.g. 
	ecosystems, but these are not engineered, but are naturally occurring.    (30MR)
	AliHashemi: One vote for the broader Systems Engineering -- I think a lot of people don't quite 
	wholly understand how ontologies fit into the bigger picture of the actual applications that people 
	are developing. It would be tremendously useful to demonstrate what roles ontologies can play in 
	bigger systems.    (30MS)
	MatthewWest: We could go for big data with Systems Engineering as a thread, since there is often big 
	data involved in big systems.    (30MT)
	AmandaVizedom: Following @MatthewWest's comment: Given that understanding of systems engineering, 
	I'm more comfortable that we actually have a focused topic. I also think the inclusion of human 
	components (and therefore factors) is worth emphasizing.    (30MU)
	ChristopherSpottiswoode: @Leo: But the basis of managing and exploiting Big Data has to reside in 
	system and data architecture, organization and management - all Systems Engineering!    (30MV)
	ChristopherSpottiswoode: @Leo: ... and Systems Engineering has to cater for Big Data.    (30MW)
	JackRing: We need a track, if not a theme, on the impact of forthcoming massively parallel hardware 
	on the design of ontologies. The era of full duplex semantic data management is here.    (30MX)
	ToddSchneider: Fabian, Have you ever had to try to develop a 'big' system? There many problems.    (30MY)
	ToddSchneider: Fabian, your argument would suggest that there's a bigger payoff for addressing 
	systems engineering.    (30MZ)
	AmandaVizedom: @ToddSchneider -- I think we need more along that line; it wasn't clear to me until 
	Steve's earlier comment that Systems Engineering was being positioned as a problem space here.    (30N0)
	FabianNeuhaus: @Todd. Hmmm? I tried to argue that a problem driven Summit is more interesting than a 
	discussion about technology    (30N1)
	ToddSchneider: Fabian, how about the problem of requirements elicitation?    (30N2)
	JackRing: How about just Big, Evolving Systems    (30N3)
	EricChan: One caveat: "systems engineering" may not be inclusive enough for scientific disciplines 
	which are not engineering the system but understanding natural phenomenon    (30N4)
	MatthewWest: There is also the role of ontologies in the engineering of systems.    (30N5)
	JackRing: The problem of requirements elicitation is the presumption of requirements elicitation.    (30N6)
	FabianNeuhaus: @Todd. Do you suggest "The problem of requirements elicitation" as a subject for the 
	Summit?    (30N7)
	ToddSchneider: Fabian, it could be. It's part of systems engineering.    (30N8)
	FabianNeuhaus: @ Todd. The majority of the organizing committee likes bigger themes. But I 
	personally would have liked a problem on that scale.    (30N9)
	AmandaVizedom: Following @FabianNeuhaus's comment: I can see "Systems Engineering" as either tool 
	kit or problem space, in contrast to Fabian's view of it as a tool. But I think that the theme isn't 
	focused enough, and is confusing, unless we get very clear on whether we mean SE as tool kit, SE as 
	problem space, or SE as both, possibly paired with ontology as both in a variety of mutually 
	supportive relationships. I think the latter is what Peter is suggesting. But can we scope and focus 
	that well enough?    (30NA)
	JackRing: let's do "Big Systems" or "Big Intelligent Systems"    (30NB)
	AliHashemi: @Jack -- do we have the wherewithal to push this term? I agree with the ambiguity around 
	Systems Engineering... It seems like these novel phrases would suffer from the same problem, 
	especially since this summit doesn't exactly have the highest profile.    (30NC)
	ToddSchneider: +1 for 'Big Systems' (it has a good spin)    (30ND)
	EricChan: +1 Big Data Systems    (30NE)
	PeterYim: +1 for "Big Intelligent Systems" ... (and we do BOTH "System Engineering" and "Big Data" 
	under that umbrella)    (30NF)
	BoNewman: One of the strengths of the ontology domain is that its meaning has not been diluted by an 
	array of alternate terms. The way we name our themes and topics needs to re-enforce who we are 
	rather than dilute the concept    (30NG)
	AmandaVizedom: Same point about Big data, though -- we would need to focus in more than that. Big 
	data usability? Big data management? It's Big!    (30NH)
	MartinSerrano: what about as theme Proposal --> Applied Ontologies: Towards bridging the gap between 
	Big Data Services and Systems Engineering    (30NI)
	BarrySmith: Ontology is already making serious contributions to Big Data on many fronts -- above all 
	genomics, intelligence analysis, ...    (30NJ)
	BarrySmith: Suggested titles: Ontology and Big Data; Ontology and Big Data Systems; Ontology and Big 
	Intelligent Systems    (30NK)
	AliHashemi: +1 - Ontology and Big Data Systems    (30NL)
	AmandaVizedom: Please give the choices before asking for votes on each.    (30NM)
	FabianNeuhaus: @ AmandaVizedom: I agree that scoping would help a lot    (30NN)
	BoNewman: Suggest those with their "hand up" clear that first before the vote (click on the hand 
	button)    (30NO)
	JackRing: Intelllgent, scalable systems vs. Big Data vs. Systems Engineering    (30NP)
	SteveRay: == Please vote for: #1 Systems engineering ... #2 Big systems ... #3 Big data    (30NQ)
	AmandaVizedom: @SteveRay: are these all "Ontology & ## ?"    (30NR)
	SteveRay: @Amanda: Yes    (30NS)
	AliHashemi: it show the number beside the Queue    (30NT)
	ToddSchneider: Current thinking would suggest that solutions to 'big data' requires intelligent 
	systems. Intelligent systems need to be develop in an intelligent fashion.    (30NU)
	AmandaVizedom: I still am not sure what it ("Big Data") means! I might have voted for it, otherwise.    (30NV)
	MichaelRiben: @amanda +1    (30NW)
	FabianNeuhaus: @ amanda +1    (30NX)
	AliHashemi: +1 Amanda    (30NY)
	MikeBennett: I'm sort of assuming that the stuff we talked about re semantics sharing comes under 
	Big Data but not sure.    (30NZ)
	AmandaVizedom: +1 MikeBennett    (30O0)
	AliHashemi: can we vote twice? ... [ to which Steve verbally answered: "No" ]    (30O1)
	AmandaVizedom: But again, my choice between 2 and 3 might flip if I understood them better.    (30O2)
	MartinSerrano: I can't see a big difference between 2 and 3    (30O3)
	PeterYim: == straw votes received: #1 Systems engineering - 3 ... #2 Big systems - 12 ... #3 Big 
	data - 8    (30O4)
	JackRing: Please do not use complex. Intelligent or autonomous will attract more attention.    (30O5)
	ChristopherSpottiswoode: Yes, autonomous - "intelligent" is easily misconstrued.    (30O6)
	MartinSerrano: I support the idea of Open Linked Data (Big Data) however Does Big systems come up as 
	a bridging gap ?    (30O7)
	AliHashemi: That was my understanding for #2... (Big Data Systems)    (30O8)
	JackRing: Society needs big decisions not just more data    (30O9)
	MatthewWest: Big Systems is supposed to be something more than just software.    (30OA)
	MartinSerrano: I understood same, I hope that is the common and general agreement    (30OB)
	BarrySmith: how about something like "Big Data Systems" or "Ontology-based Systems for Big Data"    (30OC)
	AliHashemi: +1 to Barry's suggestion.    (30OD)
	MichaelRiben: I like Barry's Suggestion +1    (30OE)
	AmandaVizedom: Some of the ambiguity, in either case, will probably turn into tracks addressing the 
	variant interpretations. But that increases the risk of being to big/unfocused.    (30OF)
	BoNewman: good    (30OG)
	JackRing: Are you selecting themes for what needs to be said or what you all want to say?    (30OH)
	AmandaVizedom: Big Data -> Big Information    (30OI)
	AmandaVizedom: Semantically-enabled Big Data Systems    (30OJ)
	FabianNeuhaus: We are now just juggling words. This is not helping to get a focused topic.    (30OK)
	MatthewWest: In big systems a major use of ontology is in data quality. That is not particularly 
	"smart".    (30OL)
	AmandaVizedom: A little bird is telling me that "exascale" is the buzzword for "big" now.    (30OM)
	AmandaVizedom: Semantically-Enabled Exascale Data Systems --> SEEDS    (30ON)
	MartinSerrano: yeah in +1 in that comment    (30OO)
	ToddSchneider: There are (too) many examples of 'big' systems that failed to be realized (i.e., that 
	were canceled after too much waste and intermediate failures) due to the complexity involved. The 
	use of ontological practices and ontologies may have helped avoid some of these failures.    (30OP)
	JackRing: @Todd, quite so. And what made them complex, therefore not viable, was the use of 
	taxonomies, schema and data modeling.    (30OQ)
	MatthewWest: Just stick with Ontology for Big Systems    (30OR)
	SteveRay: == Please vote now for: #1 Ontology for big ___ systems ... #2 No, to the above    (30OS)
	MartinSerrano: Ontologies more make sense    (30OT)
	AmandaVizedom: too undefined for me to vote for either.    (30OU)
	AmandaVizedom: @Peter: sure, but what's in the "___"?    (30OV)
	PeterYim: == straw votes received: #1 Ontology for big ___ systems - 17 ... #2 No, to the above - 0 
	(no serious objections)    (30OW)
	BoNewman: Good discussion .... need to drop off for another call ... thanks.    (30OX)
	PeterYim: bye, Bo    (30OY)
	JackRing: Big Responsive Systems    (30OZ)
	JackRing: Can we address the point of forthcoming, massively parallel hardware?    (30P0)
	ToddSchneider: Amanda, how about a simple ontology for the possible tracks discussed today? That 
	would then suggest what should be addressed.    (30P1)
	SteveRay: == Please vote now for: #1: Ontology for Big Systems; #2 Ontology for Big ... Systems    (30P2)
	SteveRay: #2 Ontology for Big ... Systems reads: "Ontology for Big ..(something).. Systems" - we 
	will have to deal with the "something" in the organizing committee (if this is voted in.)    (30P3)
	AmandaVizedom: Sounds like a job for Survey Monkey or a Doodle Poll with rapid iterations.    (30P4)
	JackRing: The Vote button above does that.    (30P5)
	AmandaVizedom: Ooh, vote button does multiple or order votes. Could do quick paste of all 
	suggestions and vote.    (30P6)
	PeterYim: we've tried the "vote" button mechanism before, and were a bit challenged, let's just 
	(continue to) use a show of hands (with the "hand" button.)    (30P7)
	PeterYim: == straw votes received: #1 Ontology for big systems - 10 ... #2 Ontology for Big 
	..(something).. Systems - 5    (30P8)
	PeterYim: == We have a Theme for OntologySummit2012 - "Ontology for Big Systems"    (30P9)
	JackRing: There will be a track for each 'dot"    (30PA)
	MikeBennett: Hard to get an idea of what goes in among the dots though.    (30PB)
	JackRing: Let the tracks nominate the dots    (30PC)
	MatthewWest: Please suggest something for the dots if you think we should go that way.    (30PD)
	AliHashemi: "Ontology for Big Data Systems"    (30PE)
	MichaelRiben: Ali +1    (30PF)
	MatthewWest: @Ali, well that could easily be a thread anyway.    (30PG)
	PeterYim: == Please volunteer: name and facet under the theme that you want to help tackle ==    (30PH)
	JackRing: Track: Implications of forthcoming massively parallel hardware.    (30PI)
	PeterYim: == please suggest track titles and make any other pertinent suggestions ==    (30PJ)
	AmandaVizedom: I will volunteer for a Quality in Context Track (fitness for purpose, evaluation, 
	metrics and metrics) under whichever theme.    (30PK)
	JackRing: @Amanda, are you including the quality of an ontology?    (30PL)
	AmandaVizedom: Yes, that's what I mean, thanks for asking. The track I'm suggesting is the 
	theme-focused variant of the topic Joanne and I suggested 
	here:http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions#nid30E4. A better title 
	might be "Ontology Quality in Big System applications" or something like that. Or, "Evaluating 
	Ontologies for Use in Big [X] Systems Applications"    (30PM)
	KenAllgood: I will volunteer for Ontology in electronic health record/bioinformatics    (30PN)
	MichaelRiben: idea for track- NoSQL infrastructure and Ontology for Big Data and Cloud systems    (30PO)
	PatCassidy: I would be willing to champion a track on exploring the use of a common foundation 
	ontology as a translation mechanism (interlingua) among multiple databases or multiple systems - 
	large or small. But if there are no others to make a "track" out of this, I can just present a paper 
	with my views.    (30PP)
	MikeBennett: I'd like to suggest ontology sharing etc. but don't have the bandwidth to head this up.    (30PQ)
	MatthewWest: If there is interest in a thread on ontology of big engineering systems, I'm happy to 
	contribute.    (30PR)
	ToddSchneider: How about 'Ontological Analysis in Systems Engineering'?    (30PS)
	MatthewWest: @Todd That sounds close to what I was suggesting. Happy to merge.    (30PT)
	ToddSchneider: Matthew, sound good to merge.    (30PU)
	JackRing: I was volunteering to organize a track on the hardware implications.    (30PV)
	EricChan: + for aligning dots to tracks, I have Data, Process, Engineered, Multi-disciplinary,    (30PW)
	MichaelRiben: tract title: Enhancing Big Data Analytics with Ontologies    (30PX)
	KenAllgood: I'd recommend "information interoperability across federated data"    (30PY)
	PeterYim: == please suggest: what do we want to see as an outcome of this Summit ... (in particular, 
	what can we say on the Communique)? ==    (30PZ)
	JackRing: @Peter, I hope the outcome will be an ontology!!    (30Q0)
	ToddSchneider: Jack, Excellent thought, but an ontology of what?    (30Q1)
	MatthewWest: @Todd - an ontology of systems (broad sense) might be a possibility.    (30Q2)
	JackRing: @Todd, An ontology of benefits of ontology-based systems and decisions.    (30Q3)
	ToddSchneider: Jack, Brilliant!    (30Q4)
	JackRing: RalphHodgson produced an ontology-based user interface for Semantic Technology Conference 
	in 2008 or thereabouts.    (30Q5)
	KenAllgood: @Jack.. we could certainly leverage Ralph's work.    (30Q6)
	JackRing: @Ken, suggest you contact him at www.topquadrant.com    (30QL)
	KenAllgood: @Jack.. Already on it. Might also catch him at the next DC Semantic meetup    (30QM)
	KenAllgood: "Ontology-driven user experience in big data"    (30Q7)
	AliHashemi: @Steve -- at the end of the last summit, there was a consideration to alongside a 
	Communique, explicitly commit to creating a website for the summit?    (30Q8)
	AliHashemi: I can volunteer, but I definitely won't be able to do it alone.    (30Q9)
	KenAllgood: I could assist Ali in the website    (30QA)
	AmandaVizedom: I'd like to see a track refining "Big Systems," either focusing down or presenting 
	some branches/subtopics.    (30QB)
	AmandaVizedom: Track proposal: Use cases / examples? "Use Cases for Ontologies in Big Systems"    (30QC)
	AmandaVizedom: For that use cases suggestion, I'd imagine that as a track under which we bring in 
	some folks in various domains and/or projects to describe particular cases where ontologies are 
	being brought in to support big systems.    (30QD)
	PeterYim: @JackRing & AliHashemi ... good point! -- the "tradition" so far is to have a Communique 
	... therefore additional outcomes (a survey/study; a website; an ontology, etc.) need, first and 
	foremost, leadership and volunteered resources (i.e. people's time and effort)    (30QE)
	PeterYim: I am in favor of adding "a website" or "an ontology" as the deliverable ... please step up 
	to the plate - we need leadership and volunteers!    (30QF)
	ToddSchneider: Have to go. Cheers.    (30QG)
	JackRing: FWIW, I am greatly encouraged by all this. Thank you all for your ideas and energy. Gotta go.    (30QH)
	TimDarr: I have to go as well ...    (30QI)
	PeterYim: == Please suggest who else (communities / individuals) we should engage ==    (30QJ)
	MikeBennett: I'm also working with the OMG though not as much of an expert as Elisa. Happy to make 
	connections.    (30QK)
	MatthewWest: There is a well known international institute of Systems Engineering INCOSE    (30QN)
	PeterYim: @Matthew or anyone - can you help engage INCOSE?    (30QO)
	SteveRay: I could approach some of the NIST folks for an INCOSE connection - no guarantees.    (30QP)
	KenAllgood: Peter & Steve.. Thanks for bringing this together.    (30QQ)
	AliHashemi: Thanks all.    (30QR)
	PeterYim: great session ... thanks everyone!    (30QS)
	AmandaVizedom: Thanks, Peter and Steve!    (30QT)
	SteveRay: Take care all, and happy holidays.    (30QU)
	PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:10am PST --    (30QV)
 - end of in-session chat-transcript -    (3089)
(long distance cost may apply)
(generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer)

ConferenceCall 2011 12 08

OntologySummit2012 (Pre-launch) Community Input and Planning Session - Thu 2011-12-08 (2Z1E)

Abstract: (307F)

Agenda & Proceedings: (307T)

Proceedings: (3083)

Resources: (308X)

Audio Recording of this Session (308F)

How To Join (while the session is in progress) (308P)

Conference Call Details (2ZUV)

Attendees (2ZVM)

Your Visited Pages

View Backlinks

Wiki Search