OntologySummit2013: ("postmortem") Review and Follow-up Action Planning Session - Thu 2013-05-23    (3SEJ)

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

Session Topic: OntologySummit2013 (postmortem) review and follow-up action planning    (3SEL)

Session Co-chairs: Dr. MatthewWest & Professor MichaelGruninger    (3SEM)

Agenda / Briefings:    (3SEN)

Archives:    (3SET)

Conference Call Details    (3SF3)

Attendees    (3SG0)

Abstract:    (3SGP)

OntologySummit2013: ("postmortem") Review and Follow-up Action Planning Session - [ intro slides]    (3SGQ)

With the adjournment of the OntologySummit2013_Symposium (on 3-May-2013) we have completed the program of this year's OntologySummit. This has been our 8th Ontology Summit, that featured a host of events spanning four months, and jointly organized by Ontolog, NIST, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD with the championship from our organizing committee members and support of our co-sponsors. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit was: "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle."    (3SGR)

The event today is our virtual postmortem session. We will be expecting participants of this year's summit, especially members of the organizing team, as well as anyone interested in the process of content of past and future Ontology Summits, at this session.    (3SGS)

The goal of this session is to revisit the Ontology Summit that just finished, and to plan ahead for the future. We will discuss what worked and what can be improved during the 4 months of OntologySummit2013 (plus the preparation work that led up to it,) and get ideas on how to make next year's Ontology Summit even better. This meeting gives us an opportunity to develop some plans and initiatives for action that will move what we have achieved beyond the 4-month Summit itself. Further, this meeting is also an opportunity to suggest topics and themes for next year's Ontology Summit.    (3SGT)

See also: OntologySummit (home page for the summit series) and document your thoughts at: OntologySummit/Suggestions    (3SGU)

Agenda Ideas:    (3SGV)

Agenda:    (3SH8)

Ontology Summit 2013 - Postmortem Session    (3SH9)

Proceedings:    (3SHU)

Please refer to the above    (3SHV)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session    (3SHW)

 see raw transcript here.    (3SHX)
 (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.    (3SHY)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (3SHZ)
 	[09:32] PeterYim: Welcome to the    (3TJW)
	 = OntologySummit2013: ("postmortem") Review and Follow-up Action Planning Session - Thu 2013-05-23 =    (3TJX)
	Summit Theme: "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"    (3TJY)
	Session Topic: OntologySummit2013 (postmortem) review and follow-up action planning    (3TJZ)
	Session Co-chairs: Dr. MatthewWest & Professor MichaelGruninger    (3TK0)
	Agenda / Briefings:    (3TK1)
	* Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction) - "Ontology Summit 2013: Reflections and thoughts for the Future"    (3TK2)
	* Mr. PeterYim (Ontolog; CIM3) - "Reflections on the OntologySummit Numbers"    (3TK3)
	* Dr. FabianNeuhaus (NIST) & Dr. AmandaVizedom (Ind. Consultant) - "Follow-up and action plans for the OntologySummit2013_Communique"    (3TK4)
	* Mr. TerryLongstreth (Ind. Consultant) - "A Quick Reference to Virtual Summit Session Content"    (3TK5)
	* Dr. MarcelaVegetti (INGAR, Argentina) - "Follow-up and action plans for the OntologySummit2013 Website(s)"    (3TK6)
	* Dr. AmandaVizedom (Ind. Consultant) - "Follow-up and action plans for the Ontology of Ontology Evaluation"    (3TK7)
	* ALL - Discussion-1: "OntologySummit2013 - What went well and what needs to be improved?"    (3TK8)
	* ALL - Discussion-2: "OntologySummit2014 - Ideas and Suggestions?"    (3TK9)
	Session page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_05_23    (3TKA)
	Attendees: MatthewWest (co-chair), MichaelGruninger (co-chair), AmandaVizedom, AstridDuqueRamos, 
	BobSmith, BobbinTeegarden, FabianNeuhaus, KenBaclawski, LamarHenderson (on phone only), 
	LeoObrst (partially, on phone only), MarcelaVegetti, MikeDean, OliverKutz, PeterYim, RamSriram, 
	TerryLongstreth, ToddSchneider    (3TKB)
	 == Proceedings ==    (3TKC)
	[09:38] TerryLongstreth: I've sent Matthew a reminder    (3TKD)
	[09:39] MatthewWest: Sorry I'm late. PC crashed and died slowly just as I was logging on.    (3TKE)
	[09:43] TerryLongstreth: Can someone roll the VNC, please?    (3TKF)
	[09:44] PeterYim: @Terry - the vnc should be working properly ... try refreshing the vnc viewer 
	window (not refreshing your browser)    (3TKG)
	[09:46] PeterYim: @Terry - is it working ok now?    (3TKH)
	[09:52] FabianNeuhaus: @Peter - (commenting on Peter's remark, during his presentation that the 
	list of Communique co-editors represented most members of the organizing committee) this year 
	the co-editors = the org. committee    (3TKI)
	[10:03] MichaelGruninger: Comment on Peter's slide 9: Who are the intended audiences for the 
	Ontology Summit?    (3TKJ)
	[10:05] MatthewWest: I agree about the improved effectiveness. I think this is because the core 
	people are not only dedicated, but have got to know and understand and respect each other. That 
	reduces the noise considerably. The respect means we trust each other, and that helps too.    (3TKK)
	[10:05] anonymous morphed into BobbinTeegarden    (3TKL)
	[10:05] AmandaVizedom: Peter, I see one more slide -- are you saving that for later?    (3TKM)
	[10:18] PeterYim: @Amanda - (ref. one more slide) thank you for catching this, that slide doesn't 
	belong here. I will be updating the file and remove it from the deck.    (3TKN)
	[10:07] MichaelGruninger: The volume of email discussions this year was disappointingly low    (3TKO)
	[10:08] AmandaVizedom: Interesting question about email levels - not sure that's easiest - can feel 
	like black hole and/or way to trigger unproductive discussion -- association with ontolog forum 
	issues. Return to this question later?    (3TKP)
	[10:10] AmandaVizedom: Point for later discussion: reach out to folks who have been involved in the 
	past (every) and aren't now. Get feedback on why; invite them to make suggestions; ask them to check 
	in again?    (3TKQ)
	[10:12] MichaelGruninger: I sometimes felt that the Organizing Committee was doing too much work, 
	filling in the lack of input from the overall group of participants    (3TKR)
	[10:17] MichaelGruninger: If we have a longer lead time for the next Summit, perhaps we could have a 
	period in which there is more discussion of the topics before the different Tracks are identified    (3TKS)
	[10:18] MichaelGruninger: Amanda's comment on slide 2: we need better alignment of presentation 
	content with Track topics    (3TKT)
	[10:22] MatthewWest: @Michael: I agree, but how do you do that? Each speaker has their own agenda, 
	and there is very little in the current set up we can do to vet. We would have to move to a refereed 
	conference with vetted presentations/papers to significantly improve this I think.    (3TKU)
	[10:23] PeterYim: @Amanda & ALL - the Analytics slides deck has now been updated (still 9 slides, 
	but the extraneous one has been removed.)    (3TKV)
	[10:27] ToddSchneider: @Amanda, (referring to Amanda's comment that google-docs facilitates input, 
	but makes editing more difficult) Ali and I had the same situation last year (using Google Docs).    (3TKW)
	[10:29] PeterYim: Amanda: (breaking news!) the SemTechBizSF lightning talk on Jun-3 is now confirmed 
	[ref slide#6]    (3TKX)
	[10:29] PeterYim: Amanda: suggest extending the Communique Endorsement deadline (beyond Jun-3, so 
	she those at SemTechBizSF may have a chance to endorse the Communique too) ... general response is "sure!"    (3TKY)
	[10:33] ToddSchneider: Peter, Terry summary should be on the main 2013 summit page.    (3TKZ)
	[10:33] ToddSchneider: Terry, Great work!    (3TL0)
	[10:34] FabianNeuhaus: @Todd I agree. I think this should be part of the OS website as well.    (3TL1)
	[10:34] MichaelGruninger: Hello Marcela -- are you on the conference call? *7 to unmute    (3TL2)
	[10:34] MarcelaVegetti: yes    (3TL3)
	[10:35] MarcelaVegetti: I'm on skype.    (3TL4)
	[10:35] ToddSchneider: Marcela, great reverb.    (3TL5)
	[10:50] PeterYim: @TerryLongstreth & MarcelaVegetti - some merger of your contents at [1] & [2] 
	would be useful ... 
	 [1] http://ontolog.cim3.net/OntologySummit/2013/OntologySummit2013_ConsolidatedPresentationQuickReference_20130523.html
	 [2] http://ontolog.cim3.net/OntologySummit/2013/telecons.html    (3TL6)
	[10:52] MarcelaVegetti: @Peter, I was thinking of that while Terry was talking    (3TL7)
	[10:57] ToddSchneider: When do we get to subject for the next summit?    (3TL8)
	[10:57] PeterYim: == Discussion: What went well? What could be improved?    (3TL9)
	[10:58] PeterYim: ref. [7-Discussion] slides - slide 2 & 3 - 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-05-23_OntologySummit2013_follow-up/OntologySummit2013-postmortem-questions--MatthewWest-MichaelGruninger_20130523.pdf    (3TLA)
	[10:59] MatthewWest: The Tracks: Generally good quality presentations.    (3TLB)
	[11:00] MichaelGruninger: How can we increase the quantity and quality of discussions (both during 
	live sessions and via email posts)?    (3TLC)
	[11:00] MatthewWest: The Communique: Took the summit forward.    (3TLD)
	[11:02] AmandaVizedom: I agree with Fabian that we should have more discussion *in* the sessions, 
	and not overpack the sessions with panelists or presenters.    (3TLE)
	[11:02] PeterYim: (re. "What went well?") - there was a resounding agreement from the OOR team (from 
	our May-21 team meeting) that the Hackathon (H-C) was great ... we even agreed that the OOR team 
	will start doing regular hackathons and have assigned champions to steward them    (3TLF)
	[11:02] TerryLongstreth: @Peter, Marcela. I intentionally focused on the actual presentations. The 
	second column has pointers to the Session agenda pages. So I'm not sure if diluting the page with 
	lists of participants is the right model, but we could have subordinate entries with the peoples 
	names and hotlinks from the presentation summary table without adding too much complexity to the 
	initial impression offered by it.    (3TLG)
	[11:08] MarcelaVegetti: @Terry, Peter, May be we can change the telecons.html page of the website 
	with the one proposed by Terry    (3TLH)
	[subsequent] PeterYim: since the "pretty" website is essentially designed to address an outside 
	(non-ontologist) audience, I would suggest that, for now, it would probably suffice for us just to 
	add a link to Terry's page from the telecons.html page. That, at least, allows us to make better use 
	of our time (like Marcela's working on semantic queries and search, etc.)    (3TLI)
	[subsequent] TerryLongstreth: One other thing that I would find useful would be to put a link to the 
	Quick Reference on the Resources page    (3TLJ)
	[subsequent] PeterYim; @Terry, Marcela, Todd [10:33] and Fabian [10:34] - Done! See: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/OntologySummit/2013/telecons.html ; 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/OntologySummit/2013/resources.html & 
	( =ppy/2013.05.27 )    (3TLK)
	[11:03] AmandaVizedom: Accompanying point: we might not lose so much if we are more selective about 
	what is presented.    (3TLL)
	[11:04] AmandaVizedom: We also might include presentations that are in effect summaries of the work 
	of a number of people who we might otherwise have invited on their own.    (3TLM)
	[11:04] TerryLongstreth: I agree with Matthew - initial presentations were scattershot to give us a 
	'Chinese menu' for followup.    (3TLN)
	[11:05] AmandaVizedom: Note: alternating presentations, on the other hand, might give some room to 
	try to schedule future presentations responsively to the way the summit is evolving.    (3TLO)
	[11:06] ToddSchneider: All, we should bear in mind that this year's summit subject is somewhat out 
	of the norm, or at least not a primary interest to ontology developers.    (3TLP)
	[11:08] AmandaVizedom: @Todd, I don't think that's true (the primary interest part).    (3TLQ)
	[11:08] ToddSchneider: Amanda, certainly not for you:)    (3TLR)
	[11:08] AmandaVizedom: Not for a great number of ontologists I know    (3TLS)
	[11:10] FabianNeuhaus: @Peter: (responding to PeterYim's verbal comment that the presentations added 
	hugely to the collective body-of-knowledge on this particular subject, as well as to the entire 
	archive) I am not discounting the presentations. I agree that they are important. I just try to 
	think of ways to have more interactions.    (3TLT)
	[11:12] MarcelaVegetti: Unfortunately, I have to go.    (3TLU)
	[11:14] PeterYim: @Marcela - bye ... thank you    (3TLV)
	[11:15] MichaelGruninger: I didn't think that the Keynote topics were relevant to the Summit topic 
	(just my personal opinion)    (3TLW)
	[11:15] ToddSchneider: The keynotes were good, but not 'close' to the summit's subject.    (3TLX)
	[11:16] AmandaVizedom: (Why) Do we need to have keynotes at all?    (3TLY)
	[11:16] PeterYim: (despite what others think) personally, I think the keynotes were among the "best" 
	parts of the Symposium    (3TLZ)
	[11:16] TerryLongstreth: Fabian's right - how do you invite an expert who's not already in the 
	(conceptual) room?    (3TM0)
	[11:17] TerryLongstreth: And the keynotes gave us viewpoints that were outside of the ontology 
	community's comfort zone    (3TM1)
	[11:20] RamSriram: One possible way to resolve the keynotes problem is to replace it with a panel on 
	potential funding opportunities for next year (as it will held near downtown).    (3TM2)
	[11:18] PeterYim: == Michael: what should we do next year ... choice of "Topic" first ... please 
	type suggestions below    (3TM3)
	[11:16] ToddSchneider: How about Reasoning or Ontologies and/for Reasoning for the subject of the 
	next summit?    (3TM4)
	[11:19] AmandaVizedom: Todd: Semantic Federation    (3TM5)
	[11:20] AmandaVizedom: Todd: Reasoning over Linked Data    (3TM6)
	[11:20] ToddSchneider: The value of ontology in linked data?    (3TM7)
	[11:21] MichaelGruninger: I was thinking of using a domain (such as E-Science) as a way of 
	addressing issues such as reusability, reasoning,, evaluation    (3TM8)
	[11:23] ToddSchneider: Big data semantic federation?    (3TM9)
	[11:24] ToddSchneider: Reasoning with big linked data for semantic federation?    (3TMA)
	[11:24] TerryLongstreth: Does anyone remember how the VLDB conferences started? I think Big Data's 
	on the same trajectory.    (3TMB)
	[11:25] RamSriram: @Amanda: Can you elaborate on what you mean by reasoning on linked data?    (3TMC)
	[11:33] AmandaVizedom: @Ram, e.g. consuming published linked data and using it in a mashup app that 
	performs some query answering / semantic search functions. E.g., finding resources across 
	distributed linked (open) data corpora, where the resource/corpora pairs might be: finding cultural 
	artifacts across libraries, archives, and museums LOD; finding reusable data sets across scientific 
	data repository LOD; finding products and services across potentially competing providers LOD; 
	gathering diverse news items about an event or entity across new service's LOD (and maybe also 
	Library-Archives-Museums LOD).    (3TMD)
	[11:35] AmandaVizedom: That all requires some reasoning over Linked (open) Data, where such LOD is 
	already being published. At the same time, there are live issues, within the LOD / SemWeb 
	communities regarding the quality of the semantic aspects of the data (standards, strengths and 
	weaknesses of particular ontologies).    (3TME)
	[11:38] RamSriram: @Amanda: May be then the workshop should focus on Linked data, its relationship 
	to Ontologies, and Reasoning over this.    (3TMF)
	[11:44] AmandaVizedom: @Ram, possibly, but we want to make clear we are putting the ontology-linked 
	data and reasoning-linked data relationships first. Or at least, like we aren't jumping in as if it 
	were a fresh field, ignoring the people who really are experts in Linked Data and LOD.    (3TMG)
	[11:26] ToddSchneider: Amanda, that get's back to Peter's observation on our poor PR capabilities.    (3TMH)
	[11:28] TerryLongstreth: Peter says two separate summits: external and internal. I say summits could 
	be a bridge between them.    (3TMI)
	[11:29] MatthewWest: I agree with Peter we need to choose between internal or external. I would go 
	for alternating.    (3TMJ)
	[11:30] MatthewWest: My idea on spreading it out is not to make it more than three months, but 1 
	month 3 times with gaps in between.    (3TMK)
	[11:30] TerryLongstreth: Maybe change the balance and make hackathons the major activity for future summits?    (3TML)
	[11:33] PeterYim: == Michael: what should we do next year ... let's discuss "the Schedule"    (3TMM)
	[11:33] MatthewWest: So two events with different names each every two years.    (3TMN)
	[11:34] TerryLongstreth: With each year having ONE presentation or session covering salient aspects 
	of the non-focus topic    (3TMO)
	[11:34] PeterYim: Michael: ... let's run a "topic" brainstorm session in September    (3TMP)
	[11:43] MichaelGruninger / MatthewWest: September 19th will be the date for the initial 
	brainstorming session for OntologySummit2014 potential topics ... an open meeting as usual (not just 
	limited to organizers)    (3TMQ)
	[11:35] PeterYim: Michael: we could leave "the summit" on the same duration (~3 months) but stretch 
	out the planning    (3TMR)
	[11:37] PeterYim: @Astrid ... I don't think we have received your Communique endorsement yet, would 
	you consider endorsing, please?    (3TMS)
	[11:38] AstridDuqueRamos: Hi Peter. Yes, Ill endorse, but I want to review it before    (3TMT)
	[11:38] PeterYim: @Astrid ... thank you, don't mean to rush you    (3TMU)
	[11:42] TerryLongstreth: It would also be useful to have a session at each summit that reviewed and 
	reported status of previous summits.    (3TMV)
	[11:44] PeterYim: great session!    (3TMW)
	[11:44] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:44am PDT --    (3TMX)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (3SI0)

Additional Resources:    (3SI7)

For the record ...    (3SIN)

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