OntologySummit2012: Session-03 - Thu 2012-01-26    (32UC)

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2012: "Ontology for Big Systems"    (32UD)

Track (1&2) Title: Ontology for Big Systems & Systems Engineering    (32UE)

Session Topic: Ontology for Big Systems & Systems Engineering - I : The Systems and Systems Engineering Problem Space    (32UF)

Session Chair: Dr. MatthewWest ... intro-slides    (32UG)

Panel Briefings:    (32UH)

Archives:    (32UO)

Abstract:    (32W6)

Ontology for Big Systems & Systems Engineering - I: The Systems and Systems Engineering Problem Space    (32W7)

This is our 7th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by NIST, Ontolog, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD with the support of our co-sponsors. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit is: "Ontology for Big Systems." The event today is our 3rd virtual session.    (32W8)

The principal goal of the summit is to bring together and foster collaboration between the ontology community, systems community, and stakeholders of some of "big systems." Together, the summit participants will exchange ideas on how ontological analysis and ontology engineering might make a difference, when applied in these "big systems." We will aim towards producing a series of recommendations describing how ontologies can create an impact; as well as providing illustrations where these techniques have been, or could be, applied in domains such as bioinformatics, electronic health records, intelligence, the smart electrical grid, manufacturing and supply chains, earth and environmental, e-science, cyberphysical systems and e-government. As is traditional with the Ontology Summit series, the results will be captured in the form of a communiqué, with expanded supporting material provided on the web.    (32W9)

This "Ontology for Big Systems & Systems Engineering" Track aims to bring key challenges to light with large-scale systems and systems of systems for ontology and identify where solutions exist, where the problems require significant research, and where we can work towards solutions as part of this summit. The areas to be considered include:    (32WA)

In this session we want to look at the problems in big systems and systems engineering where ontology has a role to play. The aim is to uncover the various areas where challenges exist that the world of ontology can contribute to, which we will delve into in the next panel session.    (32WM)

More details about this Summit at: OntologySummit2012 (home page for the summit)    (32WN)

Agenda:    (32WO)

Ontology Summit 2012 - Panel Session-03    (32WP)

Proceedings:    (32WV)

Please refer to the above    (32WW)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:    (32WX)

 see raw transcript here.    (32WY)
 (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.    (32WZ)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (32X0)
	PeterYim: Welcome to the    (33HL)
	 = OntologySummit2012: Session-03 - Thu 2012-01-26 =    (33HM)
	Summit Theme: OntologySummit2012: "Ontology for Big Systems"    (33HN)
	Track (1&2) Title: Ontology for Big Systems & Systems Engineering    (33HO)
	Session Topic: Ontology for Big Systems & Systems Engineering - I : 
	               The Systems and Systems Engineering Problem Space    (33HP)
	Session Chairs: Dr. Matthew West    (33HQ)
	Panel Briefings:    (33HR)
	*  Mr. JackRing (OntoPilot, US) - "Toward a Unified Ontology for Systemists"    (33HS)
	*  Mr. AnatolyLevenchuk (TechInvestLab, RU) - "Ontology Engineering for Systems Engineering"    (33HT)
	*  Professor GiancarloGuizzardi (Federal University of Espírito Santo, BR) 
	        - "An Engineering Approach to Ontology Engineering in Complex Environments: 
	           the role of Foundational Theories and Ontological Patterns"    (33HU)
	*  Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK) - "Model-based System Engineering"    (33HV)
	Session page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_01_26    (33HW)
	Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute    (33HX)
	Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"    (33HY)
	 == Proceedings: ==    (33HZ)
	anonymous morphed into TomTinsley    (33I0)
	anonymous2 morphed into TimDarr    (33I1)
	anonymous3 morphed into MattHettinger    (33I2)
	anonymous2 morphed into RogerBurkhart    (33I3)
	LeoObrst: Hi, all!    (33I4)
	anonymous1 morphed into ChristopherSpottiswoode    (33I5)
	anonymous1 morphed into NicolaGuarino    (33I6)
	anonymous1 morphed into DougFoxvog    (33I7)
	anonymous morphed into JosephSimpson    (33I8)
	anonymous2 morphed into ErnaniSantos    (33I9)
	anonymous morphed into ReginaldFord    (33IC)
	anonymous morphed into AnatolyLevenchuk    (33ID)
	JoelBender-1 morphed into JoelBender    (33IE)
	NicolaGuarino: Note that if you are using Skype you HAVE to call the nickname "joinconference". 
	Otherwise if you call a telephone number with Skype you cannot unmute yourself (this is what I 
	discovered)    (33IF)
	JackRing: I am unmuted and speaking    (33IG)
	JackRing: I am on Skype    (33IH)
	PeterYim: @Nicola - my experience with skype is that you *can* do the mute/unmute with the "dial 
	pad" (under the "call" dropdown menu) .. .amybe we are running different versions of skype ... they 
	are definitely running different revision levels of their software depending on what platform - 
	linux, mac, pc, ipad, etc. you are on    (33II)
	CoryCasanave: Skype "joinconference" does not seem to have a way to enter the conference code - no keypad.    (33IJ)
	PeterYim: @Cory - can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"    (33IK)
	CoryCasanave: It seems to work ok dialing the phone #    (33IL)
	 === JackRing presents ...    (33MV)
	DougFoxvog: [ref. JackRing's presentation - slide#4] Why should simply adding cognates migrate a 
	system from being deterministic to being non-deterministic?    (33IN)
	CoryCasanave: [ref. ?? in JackRing's presentation] Sounds similar to "SEMAT" (Software Engineering 
	Method and Theory) http://www.semat.org started by Ivar Jacobson    (33IO)
	LeoObrst: [ref. JackRing's presentation] What is "POSIWID"? On slide 3.    (33IP)
	AliHashemi: "The purpose of a system is what it does"    (33IQ)
	MatthewWest: @Leo: Purpose Of System Is What It Does    (33IR)
	AliHashemi: cf - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does    (33IS)
	NicolaGuarino: @Ali & Matthew: what it does or what it is intended to do?    (33IT)
	AliHashemi: (if you follow the wiki link, it provides a very high level overview)    (33IU)
	MatthewWest: What it does!    (33IV)
	AnatolyLevenchuk: Purpose of a system what is does (what service it have) as a subsystem in upper 
	level system.    (33IW)
	JoelBender: @Nicola - what is does, maybe not very well    (33IX)
	NicolaGuarino: @Joel: hmmm....    (33IY)
	NicolaGuarino: Is a broken system a system?    (33IZ)
	AnatolyLevenchuk: @Nicola -- Yes, there is life cycle. Broken system on maintenance stage of it life 
	cycle.    (33J0)
	AnatolyLevenchuk: When we speak about what it does, that usually mean operation stage of it life 
	cycle. And enactment of it service at this stage.    (33J1)
	CoryCasanave: Also, this may be applicable to: OMG RFP "A Foundation for the Agile Creation and 
	Enactment of Software Engineering Methods"    (33J2)
	AnatolyLevenchuk: @Cory: I prefer ISO 24744 instead of this OMG RFP. It more ontologically correct.    (33J3)
	CoryCasanave: How can a request be correct or not? It would be the response that would be correct.    (33J4)
	NicolaGuarino: @Jack: I don't understand the comparison between formal ontology and an algorithm    (33J5)
	LeoObrst: I don't think there is a 1-1 relation between an ontology and an algorithm.    (33J6)
	CoryCasanave: @Leo - Agree    (33J7)
	LeoObrst: Oops: same question, Nicola.    (33J8)
	AliHashemi: An algorithm could represent an implemented and operational ontology given some 
	inference rules.    (33J9)
	AliHashemi: could represent --> is analogous*    (33JA)
	NicolaGuarino: formal ontology is a discipline    (33JB)
	AliHashemi: @Nicola - Jack's formulation was "situated ontology"    (33JC)
	AliHashemi: An algorithm represents the commitment of the programmers to what they believe exists in 
	the scope of its execution. If the procedures within the program further represent operations and 
	transformations (constraints on what is assumed to exist), then an algorithm can viewed as an 
	operational ontology under some inference rules, no? (informal, implicit ontology)    (33JD)
	GaryBergCross: On the ontology - algorithm front, one could create an ontology to represent an 
	algorithm as a process, as I believe that JohnSowa has pointed to.    (33JE)
	LeoObrst: An algorithm, by definition, specifies "how", whereas an ontology (like logic) specifies 
	"what". I think that the algorithm must closely correspond to the semantics expressed by the 
	ontology(ies), which indeed is hard to accomplish. Perhaps generating an algorithm from the 
	semantics is the way to go, but of course is very hard.    (33JF)
	AliHashemi: @Leo, one quick point.. In specifying the "how" you (implicitly) commit to the what.    (33JG)
	NicolaGuarino: @all: let's just list the problems now, devoting a few chat interactions to each, 
	otherwise we miss the whole picture presenters are trying to convey    (33JH)
	GaryBergCross: With so many terms/concepts thrown around in the talk it would be nice to have 
	atop-level, context diagram for what Jack or others are proposing as this conceptual space.    (33JI)
	JackRing: Which ontology? An ontology will be embedded in a system. Another will be embedded in the 
	SE human activity system. A third ontology will be embedded in the SE learning environment. In a 
	swarm of autonomous systems all three are inside the system.    (33JJ)
	JackRing: IN fact, one of the contributions of SE is to identify and resolve the gap between how 
	things are and what things should be. Beer's POSIWID must be revealed.    (33JK)
	anonymous morphed into LinePouchard    (33JL)
	 === AnatolyLevenchuk presents ...    (33JM)
	NicolaGuarino: @Anatoly: I appreciate very much the contrast between ontology engineering and 
	traditional mathematical tools    (33JN)
	MatthewWest: Yes, Engineers are generally interested in mathematical rather than logical models.    (33JO)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: @Matthew: the additional point is that they are frequently interested in 
	mathematical models which are insensitive to true ontological notions    (33JP)
	NicolaGuarino: @Anatoly: just to understand, is a method a *way* to achieve a certain function (e.g. 
	cutting some materials by using lasers or scissors)    (33JQ)
	anonymous morphed into EvanWallace    (33JR)
	MatthewWest: @Giancarlo: I agree with Ali on this. Mathematical models have implicit ontological 
	commitments. They may not be the ones that ontologists would wish them to make.    (33JS)
	NicolaGuarino: @ Anatoly: very interesting distinction between counterintuitive and folk ontologies. 
	Still the objective in my opinion is being able to capture the actual language engineers use...    (33JT)
	MatthewWest: I think you will find Anatoly and I would disagree with you there. What is more 
	important is to have an ontology that is as acurate as possible to how things are, rather than to 
	accurately reflect how people talk about things.    (33JU)
	JackRing: For example a software package Kollabnet prowls around in CAD files and extracts the terms 
	and operands, etc., then helps organize a cross reference (semantic web) that shows the 
	relationships and opportunities for parsimony.    (33JV)
	NicolaGuarino: @Matthew: yes, but accuracy with respect to how things are is the goal of physics, 
	photography, and so on...    (33JW)
	LeoObrst: I still have an issue with "counterintuitive": perhaps it is naively counterintuitive, but 
	doesn't at least some of the ontology become intuitive to the expert?    (33JX)
	MatthewWest: @Nicola: And also ontology.    (33JY)
	AliHashemi: @Leo, I think it raises an interesting question - how long does it take for 
	counter-intuitive insights to become common sense? (I think this is what Anatoly was emphasizing.)    (33JZ)
	RexBrooks: Slide needs to be advanced.    (33K0)
	JackRing: As Will Rogers said, it isn't what we don't know that hurts us, it is what we do know --- 
	that ain't so.    (33K1)
	AliHashemi: And it does point to important human factors issues in creating a system with high 
	fidelity to reality, but also manageable for the end users.    (33K2)
	JackRing: Any ontology must be vetted as fit for purpose.    (33K3)
	NicolaGuarino: @Matthew: if we limit ourselves to describe (accurately) what things ARE we have no 
	way to express how we want to use them for specific purposes    (33K4)
	MatthewWest: @Ali: That is a good point. When I first came across 4D ontologies, I understood it, 
	but found it very difficult to put into words. These days I hope I can speak about it more or less 
	as it was an everyday idea. It takes time.    (33K5)
	GaryBergCross: [ref. AnatolyLevenchuk's slide#8] What is formal pragmatics? Need more of a sense of 
	this and an example.    (33K6)
	AliHashemi: I'm curious to know the response to Gary's question re "Formal Pragmatics"    (33K7)
	AnatolyLevenchuk: Formal pragmatics -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_pragmatics    (33K8)
	MartinSerrano: Bit elaboration on finding out Federation of systems and Information modeling will be 
	healthy to get into the real meaning.. True is Federation is more than a logic or instrumentation 
	for modelling methods,    (33K9)
	LeoObrst: @Anatoly: I agree that formal pragmatics (presuppositions, implicatures, speech acts, 
	etc.) is needed, i.e., interpretation of the semantics in context and with respect to use, although 
	I am not sure about Habermas and his "Universal Pragmatics". Also, epistemology must figure in: 
	different belief stances.    (33KA)
	AnatolyLevenchuk: @Leo -- formal pragmatics (that is slightly after Universal Pragmatics that is 
	more philosophical by nature) is more about logic than linguistics. While my friends linguists 
	wonder that contemporary logic branch of it is differ from linguistic one, while inherit most of 
	terminology    (33KB)
	LeoObrst: @Anatoly: I am a linguist/semanticist originally and think of formal pragmatics mainly 
	from that perspective. In the ontology world, this is mostly addressed via formalized use cases, 
	competency questions, which I admit is really just the beginning.    (33KC)
	AnatolyLevenchuk: @Leo -- formal pragmatics is branch of philosophical logic, ontology is another 
	branch. They are siblings on knowledge tree :-)    (33KD)
	MatthewWest: @Nicola: Intentions are also something we can talk about in terms of what they are.    (33KE)
	DougFoxvog: When you need knowledge at different levels of granularity, why not use different 
	ontologies for the different levels? Some ontologies would be far more stable than others.    (33KF)
	AmandaVizedom: Nicola: IME, one very significant division of ontology applications falls long 
	whether they (are required to) model (a) some slice of the world, (b) information artifacts about 
	some slice of the world, or (c) both. In all three cases, the ontology models the thing, support 
	reasoning about the thing, and supports manipulation of the thing in various ways and degrees. IMHO, 
	a great many cases are of type (c), but developers think in terms of modeling (a) or (b), and not 
	always the right one, and different requirements and methods fit those two objects.    (33KG)
	JackRing: The ontology of units of measure is traceable to standards and basic science. It can be 
	considered 'truth' at least to earth-bound users. In contrast the term "vigorously" in an ontology 
	is moderated by situation (we must accommodate Zadeh's fuzzy logic).    (33KH)
	DougFoxvog: If you can model a heuristic, you can ontologize it. If you can't define the heuristic, 
	then you can't ontologize it.    (33KI)
	MatthewWest: @Jack: Actually the ontology of units is surprisingly shakey. It turns out that the 
	standards can be interpreted (deliberately) in more than one way to avoid significant differences of 
	opinion aboiut what units are and how they are used. Fortunately no buildings will fall down as a 
	result of these differences.    (33KJ)
	AliHashemi: @Nicola, I would suggest those are two distinct issues. What we want (intention), vs 
	perhaps common but inaccurate views of the system. I suspect Anatoly's point emphasizing 
	counter-intuitive-ness is about the latter.    (33KK)
	LeoObrst: @Anatoly: Category theory indeed is focused on structure, as opposed to set theory, and 
	provides you ways of relating structures more generally, but multiple logics (and both their 
	syntaxes and semantics) can be represented. Perhaps that is what you mean?    (33KL)
	JackRing: Anatoly: Is TRIZ an ontology?    (33KM)
	NicolaGuarino: Nice idea of extending enterprise service bus to systems engineering    (33KN)
	NicolaGuarino: (but I would drop the "smart" adjective, too many smart things are being advertised 
	nowadays...)    (33KO)
	JackRing: Matthew: Whether buildings fall down the fact was that a spacecraft crashed on MARS.    (33KP)
	MatthewWest: @Jack: that was simply not using the same units in different system. A much simpler 
	problem (ontologically) than what a unit of measure is in the first place.    (33KQ)
	JackRing: MatthewWest: Not different system. It was using an attribute value in one program that was 
	expecting the number to be in the English system but was given a number in the metric system. An 
	ontology spanning both systems would have noted the difference    (33KR)
	JackRing: @Matthew: The human mind cannot discriminate reality from illusion. Takes two the 
	untangle.    (33KS)
	EvanWallace: Jack: I think that Matthew's point was that it wasn't an understanding of the notion 
	"unit" that was a problem, but rather false assumptions about which units were being used. Yes. 
	These sorts of false assumptions happen when you don't make units an explicit part of your model. So 
	many would agree that there is value in defining and using an ontology of quantities, units, and 
	measures, but the problem that Matthew mentioned about the ambiguity of the references for these 
	things makes it more difficult to get consensus on *one* such ontology.    (33KT)
	JackRing: @Evan. Not quite. The error was in not addressing units in the design model. The 
	presumption "...false assumptions about which units were being used" is not correct because there 
	was not consciousness of 'which' anonymous morphed into VictorAgroskin    (33KU)
	MatthewWest: Welcome Victor    (33KV)
	LeoObrst: @Jack: I think TRIZ could be formalized as an ontology.    (33KW)
	JackRing: @Leo, I tried to do this in 1992 with RDD-100 Software Engineering tool but got swamped 
	with other tasks.    (33KX)
	JackRing: SE must presume that two or more people constructed the system model and that they did not 
	have a coherent weltanschaaung or even lexicon. Also, that Model(x) of one system and Model(y) of 
	another system must be harmonized if you intend to make these subsystems of a third system.    (33KY)
	MatthewWest: @Jack: Why more than one?    (33KZ)
	VictorAgroskin: Some ontology can be deduced from TRIZ. But the major value of TRIZ is a method, 
	thus you have to choose some method ontology (like ISO 24744) and combine it with domain ontology - 
	if you want to have a formal model of TRIZ.    (33L0)
	 === GiancarloGuizzardi presents ...    (33L1)
	PeterYim: @Giancarlo - when you get a chance, please supply me with a slide deck on which slide are 
	numbered (so I can swap it in). Thanks.    (33L2)
	JackRing: Giancarlo's patterns are equivalent to my modularizations.    (33L3)
	MatthewWest: @Jack: That is a good link to make.    (33L4)
	CoryCasanave: The use case being presented by Giancarlo is the subject of an OMG RFP: 
	http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/11-12-10, of which Giancarlo is a participant.    (33L5)
	GaryBergCross: Agree on the point of conceptual models being improved by by formal ontology 
	distinctions.    (33L6)
	JackRing: Isn't this Panel scrubbing concepts into a 'formal' ontology?    (33L7)
	MatthewWest: @Jack: So if I am on a desert island, I don't know if it is real or a dream?    (33L8)
	CoryCasanave: @Matthew, perhaps some people have more trouble with reality    (33L9)
	DougFoxvog: @Matthew: If you think you are on a desert island, it may be real, a dream, or some 
	other misconception.    (33LA)
	JackRing: @MatthewWest. We have been over this before. Pls explain why witnesses to an event 
	describe it differently. Pls explain why design reviews of system concepts always find fundamental 
	logic or referent errors.    (33LB)
	NicolaGuarino: @Giancarlo: distinguishing modeling patterns from analysis patterns sounds intriguing 
	(and new), but I am not sure I understand what analysis patterns are, in practice    (33LC)
	JackRing: @Giancarlo, For the enterprise ontology let's start with "objective" and "goal"    (33LD)
	NicolaGuarino: I have to leave now, bye everybody. Great session!    (33LE)
	GaryBergCross: Also have to leave now...    (33LF)
	ChristopherSpottiswoode: Bye from me too - thanks to all!    (33LG)
	anonymous morphed into ReginaldFord    (33LH)
	LeoObrst: @Giancarlo and all: I've always found some confusion between domain specific languages and 
	ontologies. I personally think that ontologies need to provide the semantics for those DSLs, no?    (33LI)
	CoryCasanave: Perhaps we should support "multiple inheritance" of track topics    (33LJ)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: @Jack: these are very important and interesting notions. I have been interested 
	in them for a while myself and have done some work in that direction. If you are interested, I would 
	be happy to shared them with you    (33LK)
	CoryCasanave: @Giancarlo, please post reference to the group & seminar you mentioned.    (33LL)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: @Leo: yes, fully agree. In the ideal case, the metamodel (representing the 
	worldview) behind a DSL should be isomorphic to the ideal domain ontology of the domain    (33LM)
	LeoObrst: Will design patterns, analysis patterns, etc., be ontological constructs (with rules)? Are 
	there as yet repositories for these?    (33LN)
	TerryLongstreth: My principal concern about the combining of tracks 1 and 2 is the loss of 
	discussion of emergent behaviors (since they are in my opinion, by definition, un-engineered) We've 
	tried to finesse this question by expanding the notion of engineering to include any system with 
	sentient inputs into its manifestations, but that seems to be to be a copout.    (33LO)
	LeoObrst: @Todd: can you place your question in the chat room? So we have a textual record? Thanks!    (33LP)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: @Todd: if you are interested, I can send you the references to UFO.    (33LQ)
	BobbinTeegarden: @Giancarlo, please send refs to UFO to all    (33LR)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: @BobbinTeegarden: The foundational work of the structural part of UFO can be 
	found in http://www.inf.ufes.br/~gguizzardi/OFSCM.pdf    (33LS)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: @BobbinTeegarden: this has been used as a foundational for the modeling language 
	which now has been dubbed OntoUML    (33LT)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: @BobbinTeegarden: parts of the Event and Social fragments of UFO can be found in 
	(analyzing the goal modeling extension of Archimate), 
	http://www.inf.ufes.br/~gguizzardi/Using%20a%20Foundational%20Ontology%20for%20Reengineering%20a%20Software%20Process%20Ontology_cameraready%20(1).pdf    (33LU)
	BobbinTeegarden: @Giancarlo: Thank you, more on OntoUML?    (33LV)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: @BobbinTeegarden: the last one is an example of its use in analyzing a Software 
	Process Domain Ontology    (33LW)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: @BobbinTeegarden: Sorry for the delay...An approach based on OntoUML used at a 
	systems engineering department at the US DOD is described in 
	( http://www.omgwiki.org/architecture-ecosystem/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=dmg_for_enterprise_ldm_v2_3.pdf ).    (33LX)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: @BobbinTeegarden: I will send more information in a second...    (33LY)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: @BobbinTeegarden: I have input a lot of information on specific parts of OntoUML 
	in the following OMG SIMF forum: http://www.omgwiki.org/architecture-ecosystem/doku.php?id=uml_based_data_modeling_for_an_enterprise_data_model 
	(see the lower part on discussions)    (33LZ)
	PeterYim: @Matthew - please watch the clock    (33M0)
	MatthewWest: @Peter: Would it be better to drop my presentation in order ot make time for 
	discussion?    (33M1)
	PeterYim: @Matthew - that's a thought but, it would be your call ... picking up from next session 
	(with Henson presenting his bit is not a bad idea)    (33M2)
	MatthewWest: @Peter: Yes that makes sense. I have one story to tell, and I can do that on the list.    (33M3)
	PeterYim: @Matthew - since you cannot be with us next week, I definitely would want to hear your 
	portion of the presentation    (33M4)
	DeborahMacPherson: Great presentations! No questions but fascinating presentations    (33M5)
	 === MatthewWest presents ...    (33M6)
	TerryLongstreth: @Matthew - JPL = NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory?    (33M7)
	PeterYim: @TerryLongstreth - ref. the change of Track labeling should not affect the conversation 
	(at least not the way we have seen conversations direct themselves on the mailing lists all along) 
	... I think combining the tacks helps people who are confused as to what track their conversation 
	belonged to, in the first place    (33M8)
	DougFoxvog: @Henson: For the strange life of system components, an ontology could represent the 
	model of the system, the physical components that fill the roles of the different components of the 
	model, and temporary and permanent IDs for the physical components. With such an ontology, the 
	various aspects you referred to on slide 7 could be    (33M9)
	DougFoxvog: referenced and distinguished.    (33MA)
	LinePouchard: @everyone: I am collecting ontologies for units at present. If anyone would like to 
	send me links, I'd be happy to examine them. I'd like in particular ontologies of units in OWL or 
	that can me translated into OWL. Thanks    (33MB)
	LinePouchard: I forgot to say, you can mention them here or send me private email.    (33MC)
	PeterYim: @LinePouchard - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM    (33MD)
	LinePouchard: @Peter: thank you    (33ME)
	CoryCasanave: @Line, OMG has adopted but not yet published a date/time ontology which includes 
	units. The ontology is expressed in OWL, UML and SBVR.    (33MF)
	LinePouchard: @Cory: do you have a time frame for when it's available?    (33MG)
	CoryCasanave: @Line, very soon - I can provide the document which is being prepared for publication.    (33MH)
	CoryCasanave: @Line, the lead on the date/time ontology is Mark Linehan, IBM: email: mlinehan at us dot ibm do com    (33MI)
	FabianNeuhaus: @Cory, Line the OMG date/time ontology also contains CLIF axioms    (33MJ)
	CoryCasanave: @Fabian, sorry for the omission?    (33MK)
	FabianNeuhaus: @ Cory, I just thought that I mention it since the CLIF axioms are probably better 
	suited to understand the underlying model than OWL    (33ML)
	CoryCasanave: @Fabian, yes - the CLIF is very precise in date/time.    (33MM)
	DougFoxvog: @LinePouchard: http://forge.morfeo-project.org/wiki_en/index.php/Units_of_measurement_ontology#Measurement_Units_Ontology_.28MUO.29    (33MN)
	DicksonLukose: thank you!    (33MO)
	AliHashemi: thank you all! take care.    (33MP)
	LeoObrst: Thanks, Matthew and all!    (33MQ)
	DicksonLukose: bye    (33MR)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: Thanks a lot Peter, Henson and Matthew. very interesting discussions    (33MS)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: bye everyone    (33MT)
	PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:33am PST --    (33MU)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (32X1)

Audio Recording of this Session    (32X7)

Additional Resources:    (32XG)

For the record ...    (32XN)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (32XO)

Conference Call Details    (32UW)

Attendees    (32VO)