OntologySummit2012: Session-12 - Thu 2012-03-29    (388R)

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2012: "Ontology for Big Systems"    (388S)

Session Topic: Organizing the 'Big' Communique    (388T)

OntologySummit2012_Communique co-Lead Editors & Session co-Chairs:    (38F6)

Panelists:    (388V)

Archives:    (3894)

Conference Call Details    (389C)

Attendees    (38A4)

Abstract:    (38AT)

Session Topic: Organizing the 'Big' Communique    (38AU)

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 12th virtual session.    (38AV)

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.    (38AW)

As is traditional with the Ontology Summit series, the collective results of this extended discourse will be captured in the form of a communiqué, with expanded supporting material provided on the web. Towards that end, our communique lead editors will conduct this session, where we will, as a community, review how we would want to frame the message we would want to deliver in the communique, review the input from each of the tracks, as synthesized from the focused discourse over the last couple of months or so. Our target is to get to an 'almost final' communique draft available for community review/comment between April-4 and April-8, which will then allow us to have a final draft before the OntologySummit2012_Symposium on Thursday 12-April-2012, where the communique will be finally reviewed and adopted.    (38AX)

The goal of the meeting is to come up with an initial draft, albeit possible very coarse, of the summit's communique. Due to the time constraint, discussions will need to be focused and succinct.    (38AY)

More details about this Summit at: OntologySummit2012 (home page for the summit)    (38D0)

Agenda:    (38AZ)

Ontology Summit 2012 - Panel Session-12    (38B0)

Proceedings:    (38B8)

Please refer to the above    (38B9)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:    (38BA)

 see raw transcript here.    (38BB)
 (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.    (38BC)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (38BD)
	PeterYim: Welcome to the    (38S2)
	 = OntologySummit2012: Session-12 - Thu 2012-03-29 =    (38S3)
	Summit Theme: OntologySummit2012: "Ontology for Big Systems"    (38S4)
	Session Topic: Organizing the 'Big' Communique    (38S5)
	OntologySummit2012_Communique co-Lead Editors & Session co-Chairs: ToddSchneider & AliHashemi    (38S6)
	Panelists - Track Champions and Co-editors of the Communique:
	* Track-1&2: Ontology for Big Systems and Systems Engineering - MatthewWest & HensonGraves
	* Track-3: Challenge: Ontology and Big Data - ErnieLucier & MaryBrady
	* Track-4: Large-Scale Domain Applications - SteveRay & TrishWhetzel
	* Cross-Track-A1: Ontology Quality and Large-Scale Systems - AmandaVizedom & MikeBennett
	* Cross-Track-A2: Ontology for Federation and Integration of Systems - CoryCasanave & AnatolyLevenchuk
	* OntologySummit2012_Symposium Co-chairs: RamSriram and MichaelGruninger
	* OntologySummit2012 General Co-chairs: LeoObrst and NicolaGuarino    (38S7)
	Session page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_03_29    (38S8)
	Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute    (38S9)
	Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"    (38SA)
	 == Proceedings: ==    (38SB)
	anonymous morphed into ElizabethFlorescu    (38SC)
	anonymous morphed into ErnieLucier    (38SD)
	ToddSchneider: Good afternoon/morning everyone.    (38SE)
	ToddSchneider: Will be with you shortly.    (38SF)
	anonymous morphed into TomTinsley    (38SG)
	MikeBennett: I have to jump off just before 2 Eastern / 11 Pacific.    (38SH)
	anonymous morphed into DougFoxvog    (38SI)
	MatthewWest: I've had my head down in our own track, so do not have a broad view of this summit.    (38SJ)
	MikeBennett: One possible theme is the different applications of ontologies, as a technical artifact 
	in its own right, and as a means to capture common semantics across some large engineering system. I 
	don't know if that fits with what you are looking for here though.    (38SK)
	AliHashemi: SteveRay points out that many systems: software, enterprises are based around "Model 
	Driven Systems"    (38SL)
	MatthewWest: Model driven is closely associated with semantics of course.    (38SM)
	NicolaGuarino: Modelling is much more general than ontological modelling    (38SN)
	MikeBennett: @Nicola agreed. And ontology has broader applications than model driven engineering 
	(indeed, the latter has been a minority case in the Semantic Web world but has been shown to be 
	important in the big systems context)    (38SO)
	NicolaGuarino: @Mike agreed    (38SP)
	TerryLongstreth: Lemma: Ontological methods can be applied to engineering models to improve depth 
	and breadth of modeling semantics    (38SQ)
	NicolaGuarino: @Terry: I agree very much. Ontological analysis and actual engineered ontologies just 
	complement (in a very useful way) model driven engineering (for instance model driven engineering 
	based on systems of differential equations)    (38SR)
	BobbinTeegarden: @Steve Are you implying, perhaps, that the (ontology)Model IS the System (as in 
	Model Driven Architecture (MDA))?    (38SS)
	SteveRay: @Bobbin: Yes I am.    (38ST)
	HensonGraves: agree that we are in a model driven age. Also our modeling language are not as good as 
	we need. Ontology is the value proposition to make the models work.    (38SU)
	TerryLongstreth: @Henson: +1    (38SV)
	SteveRay: I suppose my point is that ontological modeling is a better, more rigorous way of modeling 
	in general.    (38SW)
	MatthewWest: Engineering models are more often mathematical than logical, but there are none the 
	less ontological elements.    (38SX)
	MatthewWest: @Steve: does that mean you propose replacing mathematics with logic?    (38SY)
	SteveRay: @Matthew: Not really. Logic is just a part of mathematics, right? Where it makes sense, 
	use logic. Where a differential equation makes sense, by all means use that.    (38SZ)
	MatthewWest: @Steve: Yes, but most people see ontology as being limited to expression in logic, and 
	not to include broader mathematical models.    (38T0)
	SteveRay: @Matthew: Fair enough. For inherently numerical problems, I would agree that mathematics 
	as traditionally understood is best (such as a control system for example). But for symbolic 
	problems, ontology models are best.    (38T1)
	SteveRay: @Matthew: So, both are models, and in fact I would submit that an ontological model 
	provides the contextual framework in which a mathematical model operates.    (38T2)
	MatthewWest: @Steve: Agreed.    (38T3)
	JimKirby: Where are the slides?    (38T4)
	MikeBennett: @Jim on the hopper (vnc server) http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/    (38T5)
	ErnieLucier: @Jim if you do not have access to hopper (the vnc server) then 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/OntologySummit2012_Communique/2012-03-29_draft-review/OntologySummit2012_communique-drafting-I--ToddSchneider-AliHashemi_20120329.pdf    (38T6)
	JimKirby: @Ernie Thanks!    (38T7)
	AnatolyLevenchuk: We may at least tell that ontology is about meta-modeling part of modeling. There 
	are many levels of meta-models and models, therefore we have difficulties in differentiating 
	ontologizing and modeling (and programming too). Model transformations, compilation and mapping is 
	about the same activity.    (38T8)
	anonymous morphed into MaryBrady    (38T9)
	RexBrooks: While I haven't come to any overarching conclusion, I am now using UML Modeling in 
	Enterprise Architect and Owl Ontology / Ontologies in Protege, and they are quite useful when 
	working back and forth from one to the other for specific classes, terms, systems-programs, etc. Of 
	course having a coordinated set of ontologies and models as the end products is very handy as 
	resources and references for getting specific kinds of information about these things as needed.    (38TA)
	RexBrooks: I haven't gotten to the point where using these with inferencing engines or open data 
	sources with SPARQL but I expect that to become even more useful.    (38TB)
	MikeBennett: @Rex have you considered using the Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM) so as to have 
	your ontologies and logical UML models in the same tool? Mail me off list if you need to know 
	details.    (38TC)
	BobbinTeegarden: @Rex Enterprise Architect is just coming out with an OWL Plugin, very formative 
	stage; and Elisa Kendall's VOM Plugin is more mature (and does follow ODM, ref by Bennett).    (38TD)
	BobbinTeegarden: @Rex VOM Plugin is in MagicDraw, just fyi.    (38TE)
	MikeBennett: @Bobbin agreed. Also lets one generate OWL for use in Protege tools.    (38TF)
	RexBrooks: @Bobbin-Mary-Matthew: Thanks very much. Wish I could afford MagicDraw, 
	but I'm glad to hear that there is a plugin on the way for EA. However, I will probably continue to 
	use them as springboards back and forth, creating a kind of synergy I haven't had before.    (38TG)
	RexBrooks: @Mike: I had your email on another machine that failed recently. I would like to contact 
	you about the ODM. I was aware of it, but not this capability. My email is rexb[at]starbourne.com    (38TH)
	AliHashemi: ErnieLucier suggests that the distinction between Current Problems and Uses is unclear.    (38TI)
	AliHashemi: NicolaGuarino suggests that section headings should convey more meaning.    (38TJ)
	ErnieLucier: I have to leave now.    (38TK)
	MaryBrady: @Ernie: I can stay for just a bit longer...about 1:15    (38TL)
	anonymous morphed into GiancarloGuizzardi    (38TM)
	AliHashemi: google-doc of the developing communique draft is at: 
	https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OG_iNRROkfh2T76Ri0SrNzwLwVKGKo4kQOWwBKxHjy8/edit    (38TN)
	AliHashemi: Please note - anyone with this link can edit the document (while we are in-session now)    (38TO)
	PeterYim: @Henson, @Matthew - the figures are now in - see: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012_BigSystemsEngineering_Synthesis    (38TP)
	TrishWhetzel: Regrets, I need to leave the call now.    (38TQ)
	NicolaGuarino: Ontological analysis as enabler of good modeling. I endorse this very much. Very 
	crisp statement.    (38TR)
	NicolaGuarino: (who said that?) ... [it was HensonGraves and MatthewWest citing that as being among 
	the track-1&2 key conclusions; the statement was reiterated by session co-chair ToddSchneider just 
	now.]    (38TS)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: @Nicola: Fully agree.    (38TT)
	SteveRay: +1 on Nicola's statement    (38TU)
	CoryCasanave: We should not differentiate modeling and ontological analysis, ontological analysis 
	should be positioned as part of modeling and one that is emerging as best practice. The precise 
	modeling encompassing ontological analysis is a key enabler to the model driven approach Steve 
	identified.    (38TV)
	MaryBrady: Regrets...I too have to leave.    (38TW)
	PeterYim: I just want to emphasize that some statements (or recommendations) made (say, by panelists 
	or even in the syntheses) are context sensitive. If we don't have the luxury (say, limited by 
	document length constraints) in the synthesis write-ups and/or the communique to provide those 
	context, we should avoid citing them out of context.    (38TX)
	MikeBennett: Cross Track X1 (Ontology Quality), the Google Doc seems to incorporate our community 
	input page and not our track champions' synthesis page.    (38TY)
	HensonGraves: @amanda, there are well developed methods for validating models, e.g., but test. 
	Presumably these methods could be used to test ontologies. also you could build on Nicola's notion 
	of ontology correctness    (38TZ)
	AmandaVizedom: @henson, yes, and there are even techniques for unit testing, and various researchers 
	have been developing more quantitative measures of other ontology characteristics that may or may 
	not be applicable to particular cases... and there are many techniques for in-use testing and domain 
	expert validation that are not well documented. That's one step; finding more ways to streamline 
	and/or automate is another.    (38U0)
	DougFoxvog: @Amanda: Could you provide a link to methods/tools for validating ontology quality that 
	you were referring to? Are you referring to tools such as OntoClean?    (38U1)
	AliHashemi: @Doug - this probably isn't the same as what Amanda suggests, but this is also relevant: 
	http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3602    (38U2)
	AmandaVizedom: @Doug, I was mostly talking about the need to document approaches to evaluation, so 
	naturally I cannot provide links. But the reference library has a good start for discovery of some 
	of what is documented.    (38U3)
	BobbinTeegarden: Something about quality and requirements sometimes missed: if the goal is to tune 
	the current system, quality/requirements are important; but if the goal is to use modeling to do 
	possibility' thinking, integrate newness, or get out of the box and design a future system or 
	enhancement, it's more a creative sketching activity and 'quality' is more of an inhibitor, 
	requirements are highly conceptual... Is this worth saying?    (38U4)
	AmandaVizedom: @Bobbin- Conceptual requirements are still requirements! But more generally, I'd say 
	that this is part of the way that requirements vary with usage. And as a reminder, by "quality" here 
	we are limiting ourselves to the engineering sense: the quality of something is the degree to which 
	it meets requirements. So, if some characteristic (computational properties, reusability, 
	consistency with X,....) isn't a requirement of the usage, it shouldn't be part of the quality 
	measurement for this usage. What we need is better, explicit, and well-grounded understanding of 
	what requirements go with what usages!    (38U5)
	CoryCasanave: don't know why my call dropped!    (38U6)
	HensonGraves: [ref. Anatoly's point about "metamodelling = ontologizing"] @anatoly, I agree with you    (38U8)
	MikeBennett: Nicola is making a very important point here: metamodels and ontologies are not in any 
	way the same thing.    (38U9)
	SteveRay: Agree with Nicola. Metamodelling would refer to M2. Modeling would be M1.    (38UA)
	HensonGraves: @steve, an auto is M0, the model is M1, and the metamodel for autos can be at M2    (38UB)
	SteveRay: @Henson: Agreed    (38UC)
	SteveRay: [ref. Anatoly's remark that Nicola's rejection of "metamodels=ontologies" is possibly 
	related to "presentation versus representation"] Nicola is not talking about presentation versus 
	representation.    (38UD)
	HensonGraves: @nicola, the conceptualizations and patterns can be represented within metamodel. the 
	model of a system is an instance of the metamodel of a system as a pattern    (38UE)
	MatthewWest: Ontology is useful at each (meta) level, and in distinguishing between the levels.    (38UF)
	NicolaGuarino: At every modeling level there is a corresponding (often implicit) ontology. Ontology 
	does not just belong to the meta level    (38UG)
	AliHashemi: +1 to Nicola's point    (38UH)
	SteveRay: @Nicola: Also agreed. I don't think ontology is better suited for one metal level or 
	another. It is orthogonal to the metal level. It's just a better way to model.    (38UI)
	CoryCasanave: @Steve +1 - semantic modeling at all levels!!    (38UJ)
	MatthewWest: @Ali and Todd: [ref. Todd suggesting to do some real time cut-and-paste into the 
	developing communique draft] Please do not do that. We have provided input that was roughly in the 
	order of the outline, just take it offline.    (38UK)
	PeterYim: +1 on what MatthewWest is suggesting - that the lead editors should just make the calls 
	and come up with a first draft based on what the champions have turned in    (38UL)
	MatthewWest: It looks like you already have our stuff in there.    (38UM)
	PeterYim: +1 on Steve's remark about clarifying "Current State" as being "Current state of the 
	practice" vs. "state of the art"    (38UN)
	SteveRay: Absolutely agree with what Henson is saying    (38UO)
	PeterYim: @Henson - well said - can you document that on the chat, please    (38UP)
	AliHashemi: [documenting what Henson just said ...] Shift towards explicit semantics ... from 
	informal modeling to modeling in formal languages ... to underpin modeling languages w/ explicit 
	semantics ... to understand the underlying ontology of the elements of the languages    (38UQ)
	SteveRay: Eh?    (38UR)
	AliHashemi: ?    (38US)
	SteveRay: Well defined semantics without knowing what the context is?    (38UT)
	NicolaGuarino: ... and there is also a shift from just using *ontologies* (as useful engineering 
	artefacts) toward using *ontological analysis* (as a methodology which helps understanding and 
	disentangling the complexity of big systems)    (38UU)
	MatthewWest: @Nicola: +1    (38UV)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: @HensonGraves: Yes. I agree with that point. Formal characterization should 
	reflect ontological distinctions. Formal semantics cannot guarantee quality per se. Logics (or any 
	piece of mathematics for that matter) does not care what we do with it and, thus, cannot itself 
	fully constrain the possible interpretations of a model (and a metamodel) to the intended ones    (38UW)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: @Nicola: Fully agree with that.    (38UX)
	AnatolyLevenchuk: @Nicola not ontological analysis but ontology engineering (like requirement 
	engineering and systems architecture engineering along with requirement analyses etc. as small part 
	of engineering thing)    (38UY)
	MikeBennett: Apologies, I have to drop off now.    (38UZ)
	PeterYim: "inferencing" helps make sense of "big data"    (38V0)
	PeterYim: ontological engineering helps augment humans in dealing with "big data" by off-loading a 
	lot of the work to machines    (38V1)
	MatthewWest: @Peter: Yes, seeing how ontology can help to automate mundane but necessary activity.    (38V2)
	TerryLongstreth: Ontological analysis requires a canonical methodology, which may equate to 
	ontological engineering, but I think should be broader    (38V3)
	AnatolyLevenchuk: @peter better ontology engineering (not ontological). We then have ontology as 
	explicit engineering artifact with life cycle, practices (like analysis, management etc.).    (38V4)
	NicolaGuarino: Thank for you efforts, Todd & Ali!    (38V5)
	anonymous morphed into NikolayBorgest    (38V6)
	AliHashemi: re. "Reference List" see - 
	https://www.zotero.org/groups/ontologysummit2012/items/collectionKey/I4QX3RT7    (38V7)
	AmandaVizedom: re. "Reference List" content page on the wiki is at - 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012_RecommendedReading    (38V8)
	CoryCasanave: How wide or narrow do we consider "inferencing", production of derivative information 
	from models is done a lot, inference is more identified with FOL    (38V9)
	PeterYim: @Cory - not necessarily, even simple inferences (say, applying modus ponens) can prove to 
	be useful    (38VA)
	CoryCasanave: @Peter - I agree but that may not be the interpretation of readers    (38VB)
	PeterYim: @Cory - guess we (the lead editors) will just have to word it properly to make sure that 
	we are looking at a spectrum of possibilities    (38VC)
	CoryCasanave: @Peter - good, but not easy!    (38VD)
	GiancarloGuizzardi: Folks. I have to drop off now. thanks for all the effort. bye    (38VE)
	PeterYim: Bye, Giancarlo ... thanks for joining us today!    (38VF)
	NicolaGuarino: I have to go as well. Bye bye folks, good session!    (38VG)
	PeterYim: great session ... lots discussed and done!    (38VH)
	PeterYim: Ali says: we will be publishing a draft of the communique the day before our session next 
	Thursday    (38VI)
	PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:23am PDT --    (38VJ)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (38BE)

Audio Recording of this Session    (38BK)

Additional Resources:    (38BT)

For the record ...    (38CT)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (38CU)