OntologySummit2013: Panel Session-04 - Thu 2013-02-07    (3LGW)

Summit Theme: "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"    (3LGX)

Summit Track Title: Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria    (3LGY)

Session Topic: Ontology Development Methodologies for Integrating Ontologies    (3M2Y)

Session Co-chairs: Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction) and Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council; Hypercube) - intro slides    (3M2Z)

Panelists / Briefings:    (3M30)

Archives:    (3M35)

Abstract:    (3M4X)

OntologySummit2013 Session-04: "Ontology Development Methodologies for Integrating Ontologies" - intro slides    (3M4Y)

This is our 8th 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 Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle."    (3M6E)

Currently, there is no agreed methodology for development of ontologies, and there are no universally agreed metrics for ontology evaluation. At the same time, everybody agrees that there are a lot of badly engineered ontologies out there, thus people use -- at least implicitly -- some criteria for the evaluation of ontologies.    (3M6F)

During this OntologySummit, we seek to identify best practices for ontology development and evaluation. We will consider the entire lifecycle of an ontology -- from requirements gathering and analysis, through to design and implementation. In this endeavor, the Summit will seek collaboration with the software engineering and knowledge acquisition communities. Research in these fields has led to several mature models for the software lifecycle and the design of knowledge-based systems, and we expect that fruitful interaction among all participants will lead to a consensus for a methodology within ontological engineering. Following earlier Ontology Summit practice, the synthesized results of this season's discourse will be published as a Communiqué.    (3M6G)

At the Launch Event on 17 Jan 2013, the organizing team provided an overview of the program, and how we will be framing the discourse around the theme of of this OntologySummit. Today's session is one of the events planned.    (3M4Z)

Focusing on what Track-C: "Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria" addresses, one way to look at it is that Ontologies broadly come in two types:    (3M50)

We will be having one session devoted to each of these types, to try to identify what is important for them separately, and then to compare and see what the differences and similarities are for methodologies of these two types on the email exploder.    (3M52)

In this 4th panel session of the Summit, and the first Track-C session today, we will look at methodologies for developing integrating ontologies and will aim to identify the range of things a methodology needs to address in order for it to continue to develop consistently when there are potentially a large and distributed number of people involved in its development.    (3M53)

More details about this OntologySummit is available at: OntologySummit2013 (homepage for this summit)    (3M54)

Briefings:    (3M55)

Agenda:    (3M5H)

OntologySummit2013 - Panel Session-04    (3M5I)

Proceedings:    (3M5O)

Please refer to the above    (3M5P)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:    (3M5Q)

 see raw transcript here.    (3M5R)
 (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.    (3M5S)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (3M5T)
	[08:37] PeterYim: Welcome to the    (3MO8)
	 = OntologySummit2013: Virtual Panel Session-04 - Thu 2013-02-07 =    (3MO9)
	Summit Theme: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle    (3MOA)
	* Summit Track Title: Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria    (3MOB)
	Session Topic: Ontology Development Methodologies for Integrating Ontologies    (3MOC)
	* Session Co-chairs: Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction) & Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council; Hypercube)    (3MOD)
	Panelists / Briefings:    (3MOE)
	* Professor BarrySmith (University at Buffalo, US) - "Ontological realism as a strategy for integrating ontologies"    (3MOF)
	* Mr. ChrisPartridge (BORO Solutions, UK) - "Ontology Architecture - Top Ontology Architecture"    (3MOG)
	* Mr. AnatolyLevenchuk (TechInvestLab, RU) - "ISO 15926 Reference Data Engineering Methodology"    (3MOH)
	* Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council; Hypercube, UK) - "Quality Considerations for an Industry Standard Ontology"    (3MOI)
	Logistics:    (3MOJ)
	* Refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_02_07    (3MOK)
	* (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName (in WikiWord format)    (3MOL)
	* Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute    (3MOM)
	* Can't find Skype Dial pad?
	** for Windows Skype users: it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
	** for Linux Skype users: please note that the dial-pad is only available on v4.1 (or later or the earlier Skype versions 2.x,)
	   if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it.    (3MON)
	Attendees: AmandaVizedom, AnatolyLevenchuk, AndreyBayda, BarrySmith, BobSmith, BobSchloss, 
	BobbinTeegarden, BruceBray, CarmenChui, ChrisPartridge, DaliaVaranka, DavidMakovoz, 
	DeborahMacPherson, Dmitry, DmitryBorisoglebsky, DougFoxvog, FabianNeuhaus, FranLightsom, 
	GaryBergCross, HansPolzer, hevok, JaguaraciSilva, JeffersonBraswell, JoanneLuciano, 
	JoaoPauloAlmeida, Joe, JoelBender, JohnBilmanis, LamarHenderson, LeoObrst, LowellVizenor, MaksK, 
	MarcelaVegetti, MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa, MatthewWest, MeganKatsumi, MichaelGruninger, MichaelRiben, 
	MikeBennett, MikeDean, MikeDenny, NikolayBorgest, PeterYim, RichardMartin, RobHausam, RobertRovetto, 
	ScottHills, SimonSpero, SteveRay, TerryLongstreth, TillMossakowski, ToddSchneider, TorstenHahmann, 
	TrishWhetzel, VictorAgroskin.    (3MOO)
	 == Proceedings: ==    (3MOP)
	[09:04] anonymous morphed into Joe    (3MOQ)
	[09:14] anonymous morphed into CarmenChui    (3MOR)
	[09:25] anonymous1 morphed into TorstenHahmann    (3MOS)
	[09:27] anonymous1 morphed into RobertRovetto    (3MOT)
	[09:29] anonymous1 morphed into RobHausam    (3MOU)
	[09:30] anonymous1 morphed into MichaelRiben    (3MOV)
	[09:30] anonymous1 morphed into TrishWhetzel    (3MOW)
	[09:31] anonymous1 morphed into DougFoxvog    (3MOX)
	[09:31] anonymous morphed into NikolayBorgest    (3MOY)
	[09:32] anonymous morphed into MikeDenny    (3MOZ)
	[09:32] Andrey Bayda morphed into AndreyBayda    (3MP0)
	[09:34] anonymous morphed into DmitryBorisoglebsky    (3MP1)
	[09:34] anonymous1 morphed into ToddSchneider    (3MP2)
	[09:34] anonymous morphed into BarrySmith    (3MP3)
	[09:34] anonymous2 morphed into HansPolzer    (3MP4)
	[09:34] anonymous morphed into ChrisPartridge    (3MP5)
	[09:34] anonymous1 morphed into JoanneLuciano    (3MP6)
	[09:37] PeterYim: == MatthewWest opens the session on behalf of the co-chairs ... see: the [0-Chair] 
	slides    (3MP7)
	[09:37] anonymous morphed into hevok    (3MP8)
	[09:40] anonymous1 morphed into LamarHenderson    (3MP9)
	[09:41] anonymous morphed into JeffersonBraswell    (3MPA)
	[09:43] List of members: AmandaVizedom, AnatolyLevenchuk, AndreyBayda, BarrySmith, BobSmith, 
	BobbinTeegarden, CarmenChui, ChrisPartridge, DaliaVaranka, DmitryBorisoglebsky, DougFoxvog, 
	FabianNeuhaus, FranLightsom, HansPolzer, hevok, JoanneLuciano, JoaoPauloAlmeida, JeffersonBraswell, 
	Joe, JoelBender, JohnBilmanis, marcelaVegetti, MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa, MatthewWest, MeganKatsumi, 
	MichaelGruninger, MichaelRiben, MikeBennett, MikeDean, MikeDenny, NikolayBorgest, PeterYim, 
	RichardMartin, RobertRovetto, RobHausam, ScottHills, SteveRay, TerryLongstreth, TillMossakowski, 
	ToddSchneider, TorstenHahmann, TrishWhetzel, VictorAgroskin, vnc2    (3MPB)
	[09:41] PeterYim: == BarrySmith presenting ... see: the [1-Smith] slides    (3MPC)
	[09:41] anonymous morphed into TrishWhetzel    (3MPD)
	[09:46] LeoObrst: Hi, folks, running late.    (3MPE)
	[09:46] anonymous morphed into Dmitry    (3MPF)
	[09:46] BobSchloss: BarrySmith - for the future, your slide 4 meant to say XML but says XLM :-)    (3MPG)
	[09:57] PeterYim: @BobSchloss, @BarrySmith - I've updated the slides (and it says "XML" on Barry's 
	slide#4 now) ... Thank you, Bob, for the prompt.    (3MPH)
	[09:49] MatthewWest: [ref. BarrySmith's presentation showing multiple hits of obesity when that term 
	is searched in BioPortal] Whose definition of obesity should everyone else use?    (3MPI)
	[09:56] HansPolzer: Another way to constrain ontology for purposes of integration is to be explicit 
	about the specific ontology being used by the participating entities    (3MPJ)
	[09:58] HansPolzer: I would suggest that explicitness is often better than "realism". Explicitness 
	entails being explicit about the levels of realism in Barry's presentation    (3MPK)
	[10:03] BarrySmith: HansPolzer writes "Another way to constrain ontology for purposes of integration 
	is to be explicit about the specific ontology being used by the participating entities" -- this 
	would indeed have some positive effect, but it is not clear how it would serve to constrain; on the 
	contrary, it seems that it might well encourage further proliferation    (3MPL)
	[09:57] AmandaVizedom: Assume for the moment that we could somehow enforce such uniform terminology, 
	despite the long history of failed attempts to do so. How, then, do you address the real cognitive 
	performance issues of forcing users (human reasoners, information consumers) into vocabulary and 
	information processes not native to their expert fields, not adapting and growing with local 
	dynamics? Cognitive Science says this will harm their performance, especially in high-stakes, 
	high-uncertainty, time-sensitive fields. How do you suggest mitigating this harm, and why is this 
	terminology-focus worth it?    (3MPM)
	[10:03] BarrySmith: AmandaVizedom asks how the realist would address the real cognitive performance 
	issues of forcing users (human reasoners, information consumers) into vocabulary and information 
	processes not native to their expert fields not adapting and growing with local dynamics? Cognitive 
	Science says this will harm their performance, especially in high-stakes, high-uncertainty, 
	time-sensitive fields. How do you suggest mitigating this harm, and why is this terminology-focus 
	worth it?    (3MPN)
	[10:05] BarrySmith: AmandaVizedom asks how the realist would address the real cognitive performance 
	issues of forcing users (human reasoners, information consumers) into vocabulary and information 
	processes not native to their expert fields not adapting and growing with local dynamics? The answer 
	is that, from the realist perspective, a small fraction of people in any given field would be 
	involved in ontology development, and they would understand the need to use a common vocabulary. Not 
	every disciplinary subdialect needs to be represented in the ontology; that way chaos lies    (3MPO)
	[09:58] JoaoPauloAlmeida: What about if you want to describe social reality?    (3MPP)
	[09:59] JoaoPauloAlmeida: Not part of science text book    (3MPQ)
	[10:01] MikeBennett: @JoaoPauloAlmeida what about John Searle's ontology of social constructs? A 
	text book.    (3MPR)
	[10:04] JoaoPauloAlmeida: @MikeBennett All BFO usage examples are from biology, chemistry, ... I was 
	wondering whether Barry thinks it can be applied to social domains.    (3MPS)
	[10:01] JoaoPauloAlmeida: Will that not require a revision of BFO to include "doctrine", ... norms, 
	agents, etc.?    (3MPT)
	[10:06] BarrySmith: JoaoPauloAlmeida asks whether BFO usage can be applied to social domains. We are 
	working on this. See e.g. http://militaryontology.org    (3MPU)
	[10:06] JoaoPauloAlmeida: Thanks    (3MPV)
	[10:02] HansPolzer: social reality is grounded in near term or current social opinion within a 
	scoped population. Be explicit about the scope of that population and you can obtain social reality 
	by polling that population subset.    (3MPW)
	[09:59] HansPolzer: Appeals to authority or standardization to promote integration have limited 
	scalability in scope.    (3MPX)
	[10:00] PeterYim: @Barry - is there a plan/timeline to get all ontologies in the OBO Foundry to be 
	BFO "compliant" (if they aren't already)?    (3MPY)
	[10:01] ToddSchneider: Have to go.    (3MPZ)
	[10:01] AmandaVizedom: @BarrySmith: You slide between talk of "common ontology" and talk of 
	controlled terminology. Why? Why not map multiple terminologies (including multilingual) to common 
	ontology and use localization and user modeling techniques?    (3MQ0)
	[10:03] DougFoxvog: @Amanda: +1    (3MQ1)
	[09:58] PeterYim: == ChrisPartridge presenting ... see: the [2-Partridge] slides    (3MQ2)
	[10:02] anonymous1 morphed into LowellVizenor    (3MQ3)
	[10:04] HansPolzer: Re Chris's talk, a look at the NCOIC SCOPE model might be of interest regarding 
	the relationship between different scales of projects/systems/enterprises and architecture.    (3MQ4)
	[10:06] JoaoPauloAlmeida: There is a more general definition of architecture that is used by IEEE 
	(1471-2000): The fundamental organization of a system, embodied in its components, their 
	relationships to each other and the environment, and the principles governing its design and 
	evolution.    (3MQ5)
	[10:06] MikeBennett: @JoaoPauloAlmeida good question. In FIBO we make reference to JohnSowa's KR 
	Lattice which has similar upper ontology partitions, and have added Social Constructs, but I almost 
	wonder if they should be a partition in their own right.    (3MQ6)
	[10:07] PeterYim: @Joe, @hevok, @Dmitry, @anonymous - kindly morph into your real name (click on the 
	settings button at the top center of the window to do so) so we all know who's here and properly 
	attribute contributions ... thanks.    (3MQ7)
	[10:07] HansPolzer: Shared understanding and "common" ontology raise the issue of what that 
	understanding is shared across and what the ontology is common to. Commonality and sharing imply a 
	scope across which things are shared or common. We need a way to define and share that scope among 
	the participants that are sharing or using a common artifact.    (3MQ8)
	[10:08] GaryBergCross: Generative Entrenchment sounds similar to ideas around contingency.    (3MQ9)
	[10:10] HansPolzer: Managing a project isn't just about managing interdependence of the parts - 
	although very important, but also managing the relationship of the project/enterprise with the 
	larger ecosystem. Often this latter aspect is assumed and assumed to be static - which it rarely 
	really is!    (3MQA)
	[10:14] HansPolzer: I would add to the Pierce quote that people also have a context assumption and 
	an assumption concerning the scope of that context.    (3MQB)
	[10:15] HansPolzer: This is the source of silos, by the way    (3MQC)
	[10:18] HansPolzer: It would be helpful if people on projects were asked to explicitly identify 
	adjacent domains and interacting external projects/systems/enterprises/contexts that their 
	creation will need to interact with. In other words, explicitly consider the ecosystem within which 
	they operate    (3MQD)
	[10:21] BarrySmith: To HansPolzer's remark -- that people identify neighboring domains and build 
	ontologies in such a way as to be consistent with neighboring ontologies -- this is one of the 
	principles of the OBO Foundry: http://obofoundry.org    (3MQE)
	[10:21] MikeBennett: @Hans good point. A related point is to what extent you define abstractions in 
	a given domain ontology, such that terms in an adjacent subject matter may be specializations of 
	those same abstractions. This makes no sense in the application domain but helps with common 
	meaning.    (3MQF)
	[10:26] ChrisPartridge: @HansPolzer - Yes I agree that one needs to look at the larger ecosystem. 
	However, I think you need to differentiate between the ontology as artefact and its ecosystem - and 
	the ontology as the 'reality' being described and its ecosystem. They are usually different, 
	sometimes very different.    (3MQG)
	[10:28] HansPolzer: Chris, agree that these are best managed separately - but linked    (3MQH)
	[10:31] HansPolzer: Chris, this is also similar to the "different path" effect you referenced in 
	your talk. If you look more explicitly at the ecosystem and its dynamic trajectory you may end up 
	with a different solution than if you just look at the problem that the ontology is addressing with 
	only implicit context assumptions.    (3MQI)
	[10:29] JaguaraciSilva: how can we define the difference among artifacts and ontologies if the 
	proper ontology can be an artefact within a ecosystem?    (3MQJ)
	[10:35] HansPolzer: Jaguariaci, ontologies are both artifacts and used to describe/represent 
	artifacts. We don't have an ontology of ecosystems and their scope, but we should. Then you could 
	specify the scope of the ontology and the ecosystem assumptions of that ontology. The NCOIC SCOPE 
	model is not an ontology, but it is an effort to provide a descriptive framework for characterizing 
	scope of an artifact/institution/system/ecosystem    (3MQK)
	[10:38] JaguaraciSilva: @Hans, thanks!. it means a "architecture view" in an well defined context.    (3MQL)
	[10:16] anonymous1 morphed into DeborahMacPherson    (3MQM)
	[10:17] anonymous1 morphed into JaguaraciSilva    (3MQN)
	[10:20] MichaelGruninger: @ChrisPartridge: Can you identify an upper ontology for each of the 
	choices on slide 11? Additionally, have you evaluated existing upper ontologies with respect to the 
	meta-ontological choices?    (3MQO)
	[10:31] ChrisPartridge: @MichaelGruninger Hi Mike. I'm not sure one can have an ontology component 
	for each of the choices, as they are tightly coupled. One can take a top ontology and classify which 
	of the choices it has made - and see the outcome. My focus has been on the choices that have been 
	made in the top ontologies I have worked on - and the results of the choices. However, I have 
	commented on SUMO, DOLCE and BFO as I have been exposed to them. My proposal is that the developers 
	of top ontologies should classify them - if not by the choices I propose then by some of their own 
	making - and provide arguments for their choices.    (3MQP)
	[10:46] RobertRovetto: @ChrisPartridge When you say "top ontologies should classify them", what is 
	them referring to? The choices made?    (3MQQ)
	[10:52] MatthewWest: @RobertRovetto: Yes, he means classify them by the ontological commitments made 
	as e.g. listed on one of his slides.    (3MQR)
	[10:24] PeterYim: == AnatolyLevenchuk presenting ... see: the [3-Levenchuk] slides    (3MQS)
	[10:28] DaliaVaranka1 morphed into DaliaVaranka    (3MQT)
	[10:37] anonymous1 morphed into SimonSpero    (3MQU)
	[10:39] AmandaVizedom: @AnatolyLevenchuk: Can you explain what you mean by "same domain" (on your 
	slide 11)?    (3MQV)
	[11:00] AnatolyLevenchuk: @AmandaVizedom: when we engineer formal symbolic system as artifact that 
	represent something in real world, it is the same activity. Especially if you compare declarative 
	programming with programming, modeling with programming (Simula 68 is a memory about times when 
	programming and modeling was the same), ontologizing and data modeling, etc., you see multiple 
	generalities in essence of this activities but completely different terminology, conferences and 
	even theory. Now it slowly converges (e.g. Domain-Driven Design in programming is close to 
	ontologising, Model-Driven Programming is part of software engineering now, etc.).    (3MQW)
	[11:31] AmandaVizedom: @Anatoly, thanks for your answer.    (3MQX)
	[10:41] HansPolzer: Ref Anatoly's talk, the programming, ontology, and modeling are not the same 
	domain. They are overlapping domains that share many scope dimensions, but differ from each other in 
	specific other scope dimensions (like what they model/represent). It helps to be specific/explicit 
	about along what dimensions they differ so that we can better identify their commonality and the 
	process elements that are appropriate to them and which process elements need to differ and how.    (3MQY)
	[10:55] JaguaraciSilva: by conceptual modeling the view programming, ontology and modeling aren't in 
	the same domain, but if there's another need what characterizes a [system architecture by example] 
	it can result on unique view, what depends on such concerns.    (3MQZ)
	[11:06] AnatolyLevenchuk: @HansPolzer: if you want to see differences, you definitely will find 
	them. I want to see commonality to heavy reuse achievements of this professional silos, then I find 
	that all these domain not so distinct in essence of their intent: to engineer an executable 
	(interpretable) formal systems that reflect real world systems.    (3MR0)
	[11:09] HansPolzer: Anatoly, my point is that if you want commonality, that commonality has to deal 
	with the differences across which you want commonality. Trying to force fit commonality in places 
	where there are essential differences (as seen by the domain stakeholders and their purposes) 
	results in empty standards, i.e., ones that aren't followed.    (3MR1)
	[11:15] AnatolyLevenchuk: @Hans: if I tell that tigers and lions are mammals, that is not I will 
	miss striped skin of a tiger and attribute it to lion. But I will feed them with milk early in their 
	life cycle and with meat later. This is my approach for programming, ontologizing, modeling.    (3MR2)
	[11:21] HansPolzer: Anatoly - I understand what you were trying to communicate - I was just pointing 
	out that we have different names for these domains for a reason. In many contexts, these domains may 
	well be indistinguishable - but be sure that they are when you are applying a process or ontology 
	standard to them in that context.    (3MR3)
	[11:04] JaguaraciSilva: @AnatolyLevenchuk do you know some studies with domain-driven design? I've 
	used MDA (Model Driven Architecture) approaches on last years.    (3MR4)
	[11:10] AnatolyLevenchuk: @Jaguaraci: 30 years ago we discuss domain-driven design as "if you not 
	knowing what exactly should do your system, better use bottom up process and build library that 
	reflect your project". Now this is DDD (Domain-Driven Design). Yes, I regularly read about DDD and 
	actively use it. MDA is about different thing (but you can use both).    (3MR5)
	[10:48] PeterYim: == MikeBennett presenting ... see: the [4-Bennett] slides    (3MR6)
	[10:52] anonymous1 morphed into SimonSpero    (3MR7)
	[10:58] HansPolzer: Ref Mike's talk: good point on no right answer for genius versus methodology 
	balance. That's where context and scope come in    (3MR8)
	[11:00] AmandaVizedom: @MikeBennett: Genius-Methodology Balance is an interesting suggestion. I 
	wonder, though, whether there is some choice as to whether this is treated as zero or positive sum. 
	As I think over the places I've worked, those couple that had the highest concentration of really 
	brilliant people *also* paid the most attention to methodology and related areas such as training 
	and testing. This did, however, require additional investment in really brilliant people to lead and 
	coordinate those latter activities!    (3MR9)
	[11:03] anonymous1 morphed into MaksK    (3MRA)
	[11:04] PeterYim: @MaksK - would you be kind enough to morph into your real name, please    (3MRB)
	[11:08] AmandaVizedom: @MikeBennett: regarding "the Bonus" (your slide 12): Another, potentially 
	major bonus is "implementability" of the standard itself -- that is, the usability of the standard 
	in compliance monitoring. Have you seen work in this direction with FIBO?    (3MRC)
	[11:11] SimonSpero: @MikeBennett: A lot of common things that you have to use restriction classes 
	for are easily expressed using things like controlled natural language. e.g. Everything that a 
	carnivore eats is an animal.    (3MRD)
	[11:13] TerryLongstreth: @Simon: And CNL (controlled natural language) can express ambiguity (where 
	resolving ambiguity is an implementation detail); e.g. Almost Everything that a carnivore eats is an animal.    (3MRE)
	[11:14] SimonSpero: @TerryLongstreth: Most is a nasty nasty quantifier :-)    (3MRF)
	[11:11] DougFoxvog: @MikeBennett: A requirement for a *LANGUAGE* to be DL-safe seems to be 
	self-defeating. Businesses regularly use programming languages (!) none of which are DL-safe. The 
	issue always is *HOW* the language is used. Restricting the power of the language is not, imho, an 
	appropriate answer.    (3MRG)
	[11:13] SimonSpero: @MikeBennett: I usually have to check with Attempto to see what it was I just said.    (3MRH)
	[11:15] HansPolzer: @MikeBennett, ref slide 15 - need to be explicit about scope/context of the 
	business domain at issue, as well as any other domains the selected domain needs to interact with 
	and to what extent it needs to do so    (3MRI)
	[11:18] PeterYim: == Q&A and Open Discussion ...    (3MRJ)
	[11:18] AmandaVizedom: Question for All Panelists: As you understand & practice it, what role(s) 
	does ontology evaluation play in development methodology.    (3MRK)
	[11:20] AmandaVizedom: (and, to the extent that there are multiple answers, what types of evaluation 
	play those roles)?    (3MRL)
	[11:21] JoanneLuciano: And adding to Amanda's question, I am wondering what thoughts have been given 
	to incremental development and modularization of ontology development and evaluation    (3MRM)
	[11:23] LeoObrst: @Joanne: yes, modularity issues are very important! Enables relatively 
	independent, parallel ontology development.    (3MRN)
	[11:30] JoanneLuciano: @LeoObrst --that's the idea...    (3MRO)
	[11:30] MikeBennett: Modularity has been an important consideration in the development of FIBO. 
	Partly this is so that one can take a specific sub-set of those ontologies, either as application-ready 
	ontologies (ambitious!) or as the basis from which to then derive the operational ontology.    (3MRP)
	[11:32] JoanneLuciano: @MikeBennett -- good.    (3MRQ)
	[11:32] ChrisPartridge: @Leo - I have concerns about this idea. On the one hand it is good, but on 
	the other hand complex (i.e. functionally rich) systems are normally tightly coupled. I have a 
	feeling that this desire for modularity could be a kind of self-hard - deliberately dumbing down the system.    (3MRR)
	[11:34] LeoObrst: @Chris: yes, there are serious issues. You must do an analysis (top-down) 
	initially to characterize the modules and their dependencies.    (3MRS)
	[11:35] LeoObrst: @Chris: more later on this topic!    (3MRT)
	[11:34] JoanneLuciano: We haven't talked much about the relationship of OWL and RDF...    (3MRU)
	[11:34] JoanneLuciano: and multiple ontologies over the same domain    (3MRV)
	[11:34] JoanneLuciano: (another time!)    (3MRW)
	[11:23] SimonSpero: Further to AmandaVizedom's question: in agile methods, continuous tests are 
	generally considered critical (Unit -> Integration -> Behavior).    (3MRX)
	[11:23] SimonSpero: Can there be Onto-Unit (without Application)    (3MRY)
	[11:25] HansPolzer: Continuous evaluation throughout development might be practical for evaluating 
	attributes that can be analyzed via automated methods, but unlikely to be practical if it requires 
	lots of human stakeholders and expertise and time. A more phased approach is probably more pragmatic 
	in most contexts, with maybe some intrinsic attributes evaluated more frequently during the 
	development process    (3MRZ)
	[11:28] JaguaraciSilva: @Hans: continuous evaluation can using a continuous integration environment 
	such as Hudson, TFS, etc..    (3MS0)
	[11:29] HansPolzer: @Jaguaraci: Yes    (3MS1)
	[11:26] SteveRay: [ref. ChrisPartridge's verbal remarks about "mentoring is more important" - 
	citing: "give people some food and they will be starving tomorrow; give them a line and a hook, and 
	they will be able to eat for the rest of their lives"] That was Lord Kelvin who said that.    (3MS2)
	[11:27] ChrisPartridge: @Steve - Yup, thanks. I've had a long day.    (3MS3)
	[11:28] AmandaVizedom: [ref. verbal remarks] Thanks for your answers, @Chris and @Mike!    (3MS4)
	[11:30] MatthewWest: @Barry - *7 to unmute    (3MS5)
	[11:30] ChrisPartridge: @Barry - is there a BarrySmith2 - if so, is this a good thing?    (3MS6)
	[11:31] PeterYim: @Matthew & Fabian - Barry *is* on the voice line now [... BarrySmith's verbal 
	remarks followed.]    (3MS7)
	[11:34] PeterYim: great session!    (3MS8)
	[11:34] LeoObrst: Thanks, all!    (3MS9)
	[11:34] PeterYim: join us again, same time next week, for OntologySummit2013 session-05: "Software 
	Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - I " - Co-chairs: MichaelDenny (MITRE) & PeterYim (Ontolog; 
	CIM3) - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_02_14    (3MSA)
	[11:35] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:34 am PST --    (3MSB)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (3M5U)

Additional Resources:    (3M61)

For the record ...    (3M68)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (3M69)

Conference Call Details    (3M3E)

Attendees    (3M4B)