ConferenceCall 2012 01 19

For the record ...

[ 1:31:20 ; mp3 ; 10.46 MB ]
[ slides ]
-- please refer to process above
 see raw transcript here.    (31JD)
 (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.    (31JE)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (31JF)
	PeterYim: Welcome to the    (32OC)
	 = OntologySummit2012: Session-02 - Thu 2012-01-19 =    (32OD)
	Summit Theme: OntologySummit2012: "Ontology for Big Systems"    (32OE)
	Session Topic: Ontology for Big Systems - What's In Scope?    (32OF)
	Session Co-chairs: Dr. LeoObrst & Dr. NicolaGuarino    (32OG)
	Panelists:    (32OH)
	    Track-1: Large-scale systems engineering - Co-Champions: Dr. HensonGraves, Mr. CoryCasanave 
	    Track-2: Large-scale engineered systems - Co-Champions: Dr. MatthewWest, Dr. HensonGraves 
	    Track-3: Challenge: ontology and big data - Co-Champions: Mr. ErnieLucier, Ms. MaryBrady 
	    Track-4: Large-scale domain applications - Co-Champions: Dr. SteveRay, Dr. TrishWhetzel, Mr. CoryCasanave  
	    X-Track-A1: Ontology Quality and Large-Scale Systems - Co-champions: Dr. AmandaVizedom 
	    Communiqué Co-Lead Editors - Dr. ToddSchneider (in absentia), Mr. AliHashemi
	    Public Relations - champion: Mr. AliHashemi    (32OI)
	Session page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_01_19    (32OJ)
	Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute    (32OK)
	Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"    (32OL)
	 == Proceedings: ==    (32OM)
	anonymous morphed into MikeRiben    (32ON)
	NicolaGuarino: Hi everybody    (32OO)
	LeoObrst: Hi, Nicola.    (32OP)
	anonymous morphed into ChristopherSpottiswoode    (32OQ)
	anonymous morphed into KenAllgood    (32OR)
	anonymous morphed into DougFoxvog    (32OS)
	JoelBender: getting "please continue to hold while we locate this subscriber" message and music    (32OT)
	AliHashemi: Hi Joel, are you sure you are dialing into the correct room? We're in the call right 
	now.    (32OU)
	JoelBender: redialed - all set    (32OV)
	anonymous morphed into ElizabethFlorescu    (32OW)
	anonymous morphed into IAM <--[ppy: not sure who this is; please use real name (in WikiWord format) 
	in the future. thanks.]    (32OX)
	anonymous1 morphed into AndreaWesterinen    (32OY)
	anonymous morphed into MaryBrady    (32OZ)
	anonymous morphed into RamGouripeddi    (32P0)
	anonymous morphed into KenAllgood    (32P1)
	DuaneNickull: Good Morning all!    (32P2)
	anonymous morphed into GaryBergCross    (32P3)
	PeterYim: @DougFoxvog - thank you for helping post the (chat-room) attendees roster to the wiki 
	session page last week    (32P4)
	RamSriram: I will be leaving early, but we need to decide on the date. We have two options: April 
	12-13 and April 23-24.    (32P5)
	PeterYim: @RamSriram - we will let you and MichaelGruninger decide on the symposium date. Just tell 
	us.    (32P6)
	RamSriram: @MichaelGruninger: Is April 12-13 fine with you.    (32P7)
	AliHashemi: @RamSriram, MichaelGruninger is not in the chat.    (32P8)
	PeterYim: @RamSriram - let's decide at the organizing committee meeting tomorrow, and then announce 
	the decision to the community    (32P9)
	RosarioUcedaSosa: Good day to everyone. A comment. Given that we all have different backgrounds and 
	interests, it would be a good idea for the track leaders to post a reading list of papers/materials 
	that they think are foundational/relevant/thought provoking. The track leaders could 'filter' the 
	references if the lists become unmanageable.    (32PA)
	NicolaGuarino: @Rosario: excellent idea    (32PB)
	AliHashemi: +1 to Rosario's idea as well, it would be very helpful.    (32PC)
	ErnieLucier: RosarioUcedaSosa requested a reading list. One reference I like is Ultra-Large-Scale 
	Systems: The Software Challenge of the Future 2006, 
	http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/assets/ULS_Book20062.pdf    (32PD)
	KenAllgood: Could definitely use resources for the group around Automatic Programming if that will 
	remain a focus of Track 3 discussions.    (32PE)
	RosarioUcedaSosa: I can't access the slides anymore. Get 'Connection to the server was reset' 
	Anybody else has the same problem?    (32PF)
	PeterYim: whoever it is who typed in the box next to the hand, the chat input box is further to the 
	left, please re-type your input, thanks    (32PG)
	LarryLefkowitz: I was hoping that Track 4 would include -- as part of "large-scale" systems -- those 
	that require large/complex ontologies, not just large data. Is that the case? I didn't see that 
	aspect described in the slides just shown.    (32PH)
	SteveRay: Yes, we hope to cover that as well. That is what was meant by "very complex data sets".    (32PI)
	LarryLefkowitz: @Steve: Great. Let's talk more because I think the complexity of the required 
	ontology is (or can be) distinct from the complexity of the data. That is, I agree that semantic 
	systems need to model the data, but IMHO also need to model the "domain". Either or both of these 
	models can be large/complex.    (32PJ)
	SimonSpero: @Steve @Larry - there's also different degrees of "very" (large and/or complex).    (32PK)
	JamesOdell: There is also a different between complicated and complex.    (32PL)
	RosarioUcedaSosa: @Steve @Larry -- If that's the case, the comment I made to the 3d track really 
	applies to track 4. Large data sets (instance-level) and large models/metadata (class-level). If 
	track 4 is explicitly tackling the two dimensions and their different assumptions 
	(storing/streaming/caching data in the instance-level and integrating/prescribing/describing at the 
	class level) it should be a very interesting discussion.    (32PM)
	LarryLefkowitz: Wow, and I thought Clinton was a tough English sentence parser in his "what is is" 
	days Yes, I agree with each of those distinctions.    (32PN)
	AndreaWesterinen: There are multiple issues with complex ontologies - both defining (understanding) 
	and storing them, and then reasoning over them. We might want to separate these issues.    (32PO)
	JamesOdell: --as well as executing over some part of an ontology (particularly process ontologies)    (32PP)
	AndreaWesterinen: Has anyone looked at the DQM vocabulary for some aspects of the quality work?    (32PQ)
	SimonSpero: @andrea the RPI LODQ ?    (32PR)
	AndreaWesterinen: I do not believe that DQM is related to the LODQ, but they might be. Info on DQM 
	is available at http://semwebquality.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=DQM-Vocabulary_Primer.    (32PS)
	ChristopherSpottiswoode: @AmandaVizedom, (ref. the X-Track-A1 focus) Are you distinguishing between 
	ontology quality and ontology-based application quality?    (32PT)
	ChristopherSpottiswoode: @Amanda. Thank you! (to Amanda's verbal response.)    (32PU)
	AmandaVizedom: Capturing here my response to @Christopher on the call, for record: Yes, I am making 
	that distinction, and I am talking about ontology quality specifically. However, the door is open to 
	discuss way in which ontology-based application quality may depend on ontology quality, and how 
	ontology quality in a big systems context can be defined. Additionally, I briefly took off my 
	Champion hat and put on my experienced practitioner hat and stated my view that (applied) ontology 
	quality cannot be evaluated in full without considering (aspects of) the performance of the system 
	of which it is a part.    (32PV)
	ChristopherSpottiswoode: Thanks Amanda - your answer, now also on the chat, was good.    (32PW)
	ChristopherSpottiswoode: @Amanda, here's another distinction: between functional quality and 
	non-functional quality.    (32PX)
	KenAllgood: Excellent discussion Amanda.. Thanks for offering it up as a track!    (32PY)
	LinePouchard: I looked at some 2005 work by Stuart Madnick at MIT business school. Also an 
	interesting paper "Data Quality- What can ontological ananlysis contribute?" by Andrew Frank. 
	Interesting. Not related to LOD I believe    (32PZ)
	GaryBergCross: One might argue that an ontology may have logical quality and/or formal 
	representation quality and/or domain relevance/faithfulness quality...and of course some quality of 
	how these are related in an ontology.    (32Q0)
	MatthewWest: @Gary: I like those distinctions.    (32Q1)
	AndreaWesterinen: @Gary: +1    (32Q2)
	LarryLefkowitz: @Gary: To your list, I'd add an efficiency/utility/effectiveness dimension. Although 
	it might bother the purists who might think that the ontological model should be independent of its 
	use, there is definitely an impact of the design of the ontology and its usefulness.    (32Q3)
	KenAllgood: @Larry: would second your proposition..    (32Q4)
	GaryBergCross: @Larry, I guess I was folding efficiency/utility/effectiveness into the Domain part, 
	but is is worth having these considered as part of pragmatic application of an ontology.    (32Q5)
	MikeBennett: Another aspect of ontology quality I think is ientifying what are the appropriate 
	requirements to be met in a business conceptual ontology versus an operational ontology 
	(representing overall business meaning versus decidable ontologies for semantic apps). I don't know 
	if that's a distinction that's widely shared.    (32Q6)
	NicolaGuarino: @MikeBennett: your distinction between ontology quality wrt conceptual understanding 
	and ontology quality wrt operational efficiency is very important, in my opinion    (32Q7)
	AndreaWesterinen: @Mike: DQM is related to requirements.    (32Q8)
	MatthewWest: @Nicola and @Mike: Indeed this has been a key concern in my area of interest.    (32Q9)
	MikeBennett: @Nicola and @Matthew glad to hear I'm not alone. We are starting to articulate some of 
	these distinctions in some of our ongoing proof of concept work. It's a bit new to some of the 
	SemTech folks    (32QA)
	AmandaVizedom: Thanks to everyone who is making comments related to quality, and suggesting 
	references.    (32QB)
	AmandaVizedom: @Gary: regarding your suggestion of different types of quality: In the Unscoped 
	Wilds, there is (as you know) a spectrum of views regarding the universality of standards of 
	ontology quality. At the poles of this spectrum are, roughly, (1) those who see ontology quality as 
	context independent (purely formal, specifiable without reference to application or acctivity, and 
	(2) those who see ontology quality as entirely context-specific, locally-definable, and expedient. 
	Most practitioners fall between these poles, but there is a relatively continuous disagreement on 
	the matter. One reason I think that there is hope for this discussion is that we are not in the 
	Unscoped Wilds; we are explicitly looking at ontology quality and Large-scale systems. Letting the 
	systems discussion shape the quality discussion gives us a way to skip the most intractable parts 
	and focus on quality *as it relates to large-scale systems*, that is, as it affects such systems 
	and/or the engineering of them, and as it can be measured and so made useful within these contexts. 
	In this scope, Quality can be operationally defined as ~~ fitness for purpose, where more and less 
	formal criteria can be identified as characteristics contributing (variably) to ontology quality. 
	So, with that in mind, I'd suggest re-casting these distinctions from "kinds of quality" to features 
	relevant to quality, and then asking when and how those features matter, and whether and how we can 
	measure and evaluate them.    (32QC)
	GaryBergCross: What is the twitter handle for the 2012 Summit again?    (32QD)
	AmandaVizedom: @GaryBergCross (and all): twitter hashtag is #ontologysummit2012    (32QE)
	GaryBergCross: #ontologysummit2012 seems to be the twitter handle    (32QF)
	anonymous morphed into RexBrooks    (32QG)
	anonymous morphed into KathyEllis    (32QH)
	anonymous1 morphed into JosephSimpson    (32QI)
	anonymous morphed into NancyWiegand    (32QJ)
	LinePouchard: Hi Nancy    (32QK)
	ChrisWelty: This all seems, in contrast to previous years, highly fragmented and unfocused. Will 
	there be a higher level effort to focus the outcome of the summit?    (32QL)
	SteveRay: @Chris: Our hope is that we will end up with some specific recommendations about where 
	ontology is particularly well suited to help, be it in the systems engineering process itself, or in 
	the engineered system that results. ... @ChrisWelty - I think more of a focus will emerge as the 
	tracks become more crystallized    (32QM)
	ChrisWelty: ...in my experience, "focus" is not an emergent quality    (32QN)
	AliHashemi: @ChrisWelty, the reason I suggested that a focus would emerge is that it is not wholly 
	clear to what extent of the different types of systems will be covered. Once the exact scope of the 
	large-systems being investigated (a function of who is involved in the tracks in addition to the 
	mission statements) will greatly narrow the focus    (32QO)
	SimonSpero: @ChrisWelty - I think that the cross-tracks will also help lock in    (32QP)
	SimonSpero: (it's a question)    (32QQ)
	SimonSpero: I asked if long was a dimension of big    (32QR)
	SimonSpero: I asked if keeping data usable over archival timespans    (32QS)
	SimonSpero: 50 years and longer    (32QT)
	SimonSpero: [dataset provenance, citation tracking, replication awareness, etc are important issues 
	in large scale systems engineering)    (32QU)
	AliHashemi: PeterYim suggests to post questions here, and use the hand for indicating you want to 
	speak.    (32QV)
	PeterYim: ref. SteveRay's suggestion (verbal) on prefixing mailing list posts - please use 
	[SystemEngineering], [EngineeredSystems], [BigDataChallenge], [Applications] & [Quality] when 
	discussing respective track issues (I will document that on the wiki too, just in case people want 
	to refresh their memories later - it'll be under: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012#nid309T    (32QW)
	AliHashemi: A preliminary unifying narrative I see is the recommendations for various practitioners. 
	It would seem to begin with identifying what exactly big systems are, and then explicating the 
	various ways that ontologies apply. This would cover tracks 1 & 2. Track 4 supplements those two by 
	providing examples, while track 3 focuses on a problem that persists at the moment.    (32QX)
	NancyWiegand: I have an interest in what might be Track 1 or Track 4 regarding how computer 
	architectures hold and use ontologies and other semantic components. For starters, I was thinking of 
	looking at CUAHSI or iPlant to find out how they designed semantics into their architectures. Ilya 
	Zaslavsky and Blazej Bulka from those respectively did answer an email on this and might be willing 
	to give presentations. Others probably know of other systems too.    (32QY)
	NancyWiegand: @LinePouchard -- Maybe you could talk about your system too, regarding my comment.    (32QZ)
	MatthewWest: To try to answer the question being asked about multiple data sets with the same data. 
	What I hope will happen is that the idea of "Authoritative Source" will gain credence, so that those 
	that are the originators of data and are properly the authoritative source will make it available so 
	that the many do not have to curate their own copy.    (32R0)
	TerryLongstreth: @MatthewWest: your point about "authoritative source" is well taken, but our 
	current models all assume that the authority is a human. In an archiving environment, transferring 
	authority over the course of years is a hard problem.    (32R1)
	AmandaVizedom: @Terry: true of some systems, but notably not true of, e.g., sensor fusion systems 
	(which I think would count as Big in several dimensions!    (32R2)
	AmandaVizedom: @Larry, your point a way back about "complexity of the required ontology" can also be 
	viewed through the lens of quality and evaluation, in this sense: one significant barrier to 
	effective ontology evaluation is the lack of effective specifications of ontology *requirements*. 
	Understanding how to specify ontology requirements, including what characteristics/dimensions matter 
	to fitness-for-purpose, is one area in which, IMHO, relatively rapid progress in support of ontology 
	quality could be made.    (32R3)
	SimonSpero: It helps    (32R4)
	LarryLefkowitz: @Amanda: Agreed. Walking this back even one step further, the question might be how 
	ontology development (including requirement specification) should be driven: in the abstract (e.g, 
	"let's build a weather ontology") vs application-driven. In the latter case, of course, one wants to 
	aim for reusability, but there are definite advantages to having a concrete use case as a driver and 
	as a means of validation.    (32R5)
	anonymous morphed into PavithraKenjige    (32R6)
	GaryBergCross: When we talk about ontology to help Big Data are we talking about Big Meta-Data? 
	Might play well.    (32R7)
	KenAllgood: @Gary: How would you differentiate the two?    (32R8)
	SimonSpero: @Gary "All data is metadata"    (32R9)
	KenAllgood: @Simon: And all metadata is data    (32RA)
	GaryBergCross: @KenAllgood - "How would you differentiate the two?" Ontology is formalized 
	metadata???    (32RB)
	KenAllgood: @Gary: It could be described as such, I asked the question to gain insight into how it 
	could be presented cleanly..    (32RC)
	LinePouchard: @Gary: in simulation results on large supercomputers, order of magnitude in size still 
	is one of the differences between data and metadata. Another one maybe formats, with results as 
	scalars or arrays, and metadata as somewhat human-readable.    (32RD)
	GaryBergCross: @Line. That magnitude factor is a great distinction. I was thinking if we are talking 
	about VERY Big data, then we get to Big metadata...    (32RE)
	PavithraKenjige: What are big systems? how do you define large systems? did anyone discuss it 
	already?    (32RF)
	MatthewWest: @Pavithra: yes this has been discussed. We got as far as the whole system being beyond 
	the comprehension of a single person.    (32RG)
	GaryBergCross: Nicola mentioned FuturICT at last year's Summit, so perhaps an update on that is in 
	order.    (32RH)
	GaryBergCross: (ref. Nicola's verbal response) Nicola, thank you for the update. It seems that the 
	project must be considering some of the issues surfaced here.    (32RI)
	BruceBray: Shorter subject titles would be better than longer ones    (32RJ)
	MatthewWest: @Nicola: I agree that an important aspect of the systems we are looking at that is 
	about being intentionally constructed, indeed intentionally construct systems would have been my 
	choice of name for clarity, but for a wider audience I think engineered systems is better, and 
	matches systems engineering.    (32RK)
	SimonSpero: @Nicola, @Matthew: Taxis, not Kosmos, in Hayek's terms (Made order, vs. Grown order)    (32RL)
	AndreaWesterinen: But, use cases of 1 always work and rarely result in designs that are reusable.    (32RM)
	AliHashemi: @Nicola and Matthew, I asked on the list, but i'll repeat here - consider someone trying 
	to understand and do urban planning human's role in ecologies / environment / climate science ... 
	are the people trying to understand (and in some case, conduct interventions in these systems) 
	engaged in engineering? ... Why not _Designed_ Systems ?    (32RN)
	AndreaWesterinen: I am not arguing against use cases, just arguing for multiple ones if reusability 
	is a goal.    (32RO)
	GaryBergCross: Design is part of Engineering as is analysis and implementation.    (32RP)
	NicolaGuarino: @Ali: I agree with you, "designed" is better than "engineered". However, I want to 
	include also the context where designed systems are placed in the notion of system. That's why I am 
	proposing "large scale socio-technical systems"    (32RQ)
	AliHashemi: @Nicola, that works too, i don't think the notion of function is restricted to 
	engineered systems only.    (32RR)
	NicolaGuarino: @Ali: agreed    (32RS)
	LarryLefkowitz: @Andrea: I concur (re multiple use cases). One proxy for that is drawing on the 
	experience (embodied both in terms of an extant ontology and in the minds of the practioners) to 
	design for reuse, even in the case of a single (new) app/usecase. I think we both agree that several 
	are better than one and that one is better than none (i.e., developing in the abstract).    (32RT)
	AliHashemi: @Gary, my point is that someone who is engaged in design planning, or someone who is 
	trying to build a climate model, could use things from engineering, but would not necessarily define 
	their system as an "engineered system"    (32RU)
	AliHashemi: er, could use learning from ontology*    (32RV)
	AliHashemi: design planning --> urban design planning*    (32RW)
	MatthewWest: @Ali: I don't have a fixed idea of what the name of track 2 should be. If someone makes 
	a suggestion and several others support it, I would be inclined to go with it. As far as designed 
	systems is concerned I think it has similar problems of interpretation as engineered systems. You 
	only need to take a narrow view of the name as you have done with engineered systems.    (32RX)
	NicolaGuarino: On the ontology of functions, let me point to the recent special issue of Applied 
	Ontology http://iospress.metapress.com/content/u015875jv78t/?p=ccdb1d13b00943ba931aff599352fd21&pi=2    (32RY)
	GaryBergCross: @Ali. I see your point in an urban design planning activity. The resulting urban 
	product might not be called "engineered", but this seems in part to me one of labeling.    (32RZ)
	SimonSpero: Tall for a philosopher, but short for a basketball player...    (32S0)
	AliHashemi: @Gary, I'm also thinking in terms of making the content findable, and such that someone 
	in non-ontology domain would identify with it. If part of the goal of this summit is to foster 
	inter-disciplinary knowledge transfer, then it seems useful to make the terms accurately reflect how 
	different cultures identify their domains.    (32S1)
	SteveRay: @Matthew: But we have included "Large" to also mean simply Big, so I would include 
	Facebook in scope.    (32S2)
	SimonSpero: @MatthewWest was OS/360 a complex system?    (32S3)
	AndreaWesterinen: @Ali: I agree. That was my point earlier about the different aspects of building, 
	understanding, efficiently storing and then reasoning over ontologies.    (32S4)
	GaryBergCross: Complex in relation to usual human ability to understand...but not for a chess 
	grandmaster...    (32S5)
	AliHashemi: @Andrea, I agree. Especially if track 2 is about ontologies that can be used to describe 
	these systems, they will often include aspects that aren't often within the scope of traditional 
	engineering professions.    (32S6)
	SimonSpero: I agree: If enough people say "it is big system", that's enough for now    (32S7)
	GaryBergCross: @Amanda I do like your related quality to the largeness and conplexity focus we have.    (32S8)
	ChrisWelty: i suggest it would be a mistake to try and define "complex" and "big" ... even "system". 
	It would take a lot of time, generate something most people would simply disagree with, and serve no 
	real purpose    (32S9)
	JosephSimpson: For complex systems you must first define the boundary of the system. If you can not 
	clearly define the boundary, it is probably is complex.    (32SA)
	ChrisWelty: rather, (...looking for focus...) what seems to be clear here is a nice focus on 
	ontology quality    (32SB)
	AliHashemi: @Chris, would it be useful to identify interpretations of systems that fall within scope 
	of the summit?    (32SC)
	SimonSpero: @ChrisWelty++    (32SD)
	GaryBergCross: Are Big systems from 1970 now considered Big in 2012?    (32SE)
	AliHashemi: At least try to make clear which systems we expect our recommendations to apply to, and 
	which do not.    (32SF)
	KenAllgood: @ChrisWelty: Agree, and we've run into that ourselves already    (32SG)
	ChrisWelty: i think it woudl be useful to make a "big systems may include systems like ..." and make 
	a clearly non-exhaustive list, and then move on    (32SH)
	ChrisWelty: they key being to move on    (32SI)
	MikeBennett: Apologies, have to drop off for another call. Great session!    (32SJ)
	AliHashemi: Also, isn't track 2 answering that question to a large degree?    (32SK)
	KenAllgood: @Chris: Or at the least arrive at a list of criteria.    (32SL)
	LarryLefkowitz: What are the next steps?    (32SM)
	ChrisWelty: gotta go    (32SN)
	SimonSpero: Would it help to pull a list of the domains that are currently being addressed by the 
	NSF Datanet projects?    (32SO)
	GaryBergCross: @ChrisWelty - I think the giving examples of Big Systems is a good one..    (32SP)
	SteveRay: @Gary: That's what Track 4 will try to do.    (32SQ)
	MatthewWest: (ref. AliHashemi's solicitation to ALL to blog, tweet or help spread the word about 
	OntologySummit2012) I'm on LinkedIn so I can say something there.    (32SR)
	AliHashemi: There should be some LinkedIn groups where a thread might pick up steam (and could point 
	here)    (32SS)
	SteveRay: Thanks all.    (32ST)
	AliHashemi: Thanks    (32SU)
	GaryBergCross: Bye all.    (32SV)
	SimonSpero: Thanks everyone    (32SW)
	KenAllgood: Thanks Leo and Steve..    (32SX)
	LeoObrst: Thanks, folks!    (32SY)
	PeterYim: great session ... thanks!    (32SZ)
	NicolaGuarino: bye all!    (32T0)
	PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:05am PST --    (32T1)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (31JG)
(long distance cost may apply)
generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer)

ConferenceCall 2012 01 19

OntologySummit2012: Session-02 - Thu 2012-01-19 (31HA)

Abstract: (31IU)

Agenda: (31J3)

Proceedings: (31JA)

Audio Recording of this Session (31JM)

Additional Resources: (31JV)

How To Join (while the session is in progress) (31K2)

Conference Call Details (31HO)

Attendees (31IG)

Your Visited Pages

View Backlinks

Wiki Search