OntologyBasedStandards Mini-series Planning Session - Thu 2013-07-18    (3V3J)

Session Co-chairs: MichaelGruninger (IAOA; U of Toronto) & ElisaKendall (OMG; Thematix)    (3V6D)

Topic: OntologyBasedStandards mini-series community brainstorm and program planning session    (3V6E)

To be Covered today:    (3V3K)

Archives:    (3VFB)

Conference Call Details:    (3V6F)

Attendees:    (3V6T)

Abstract    (3V3L)

OntologyBasedStandards mini-series community brainstorm and program planning session ... [ intro slides ]    (3VG3)

This session is a continuation from (a) the ONTOLOG Community Event Planning session of 2013.06.13, and (b) the kick-off sessions of the Joint OntologyBasedStandards mini-series we had late last year on 2012.10.25 and 2012.11.08.    (3VG4)

We intend to make this a brainstorming session to collect ideas on ongoing standards development programs we can coordinate and build synergies out of, find out what topics are of interest/importance to the community; based upon which, we can design our short-to-medium term Ontology-based Standards panel session program and/or other related activities.    (3VG5)

The plan is to lay out the options, have members of the community chime in on how best to frame and partition the program, decide on what events/activities will be featured, and who will be championing them. If you have an interest in OntologyBasedStandards and want to influence how we will move forward and design the upcoming program, please make sure you come join us at this session.    (3VG6)

Please also refer to the OntologyBasedStandards mini-series homepage.    (3VG7)

Agenda Ideas    (3VG8)

Some of the things that came to mind, include ...    (3VG9)

... send us your ideas too (post above, and identify yourself for follow-up purposes, or email that to the co-chairs so we can include them into the agenda!    (3VGN)

Agenda:    (3VGO)

OntologyBasedStandards Community Brainstorm and Planning    (3VGP)

Proceedings:    (3VGW)

Please refer to the above    (3VGX)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session    (3VGY)

 see raw transcript here.    (3VGZ)
 (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.    (3VH0)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (3VH1)
	Chat transcript from room: ontolog_20130718
	2013-07-18 GMT-08:00 [PDT]
	------    (3VU0)
	[09:18] PeterYim: Welcome to the    (3VU1)
	 = OntologyBasedStandards Mini-series Planning Session - Thu 2013-07-18 =    (3VU2)
	Session Co-chairs: MichaelGruninger (IAOA; U of Toronto) & ElisaKendall (OMG; Thematix)    (3VU3)
	Topic: OntologyBasedStandards mini-series community brainstorm and program planning session    (3VU4)
	To be Covered today:    (3VU5)
	OntologyBasedStandards Mini-series Planning - Opening (co-chairs)    (3VU6)
	I. Open Discussion on programs and topics of interest
	* Ongoing topics/programs to coordinate and build synergies out of ...
	* Candidate Topics of interest/importance to the community ...
	* Coordinating current & new programs ...    (3VU7)
	II. How can we best frame the discussion and organize the effort 
	* how can we best partition and organize the pursuit ... ?
	* Who will champion these activities ... ?    (3VU8)
	III. Events & Action Plans
	* Candidate Speakers the community would want to invite ... 
	* Short / medium term event plans    (3VU9)
	Logistics:    (3VUA)
	* Refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_07_18    (3VUB)
	* (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName    (3VUC)
	* Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute    (3VUD)
	* Can't find Skype Dial pad?
	** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
	** for Linux Skype users: please stay with (or downgrade to) Skype version 2.x for now 
	  (as a Dial pad seems to be missing on Linux-based Skype v4.x for skype-calls.)    (3VUE)
	Chat-room attendees: MichaelGruninger (co-chair), ElisaKendall (co-chair), AdrianPaschke, 
	BillMcCarthy, BobYoung, BobbinTeegarden, DanielKless, ElieAbiLahoud, EricChan, FrankOlken, 
	JeffersonBraswell, JohnBottoms, KenBaclawski, LaurentLiscia, MaxGillmore, MarkJohnson, MartinEast, 
	MichaelDenny, MikeBennett, PeterBloniarz, PeterYim, RalphHodgson, RayMartin, RichardMartin, RoyBell, 
	SimonSpero, TaraAthan, TerryLongstreth    (3VUF)
	 == Proceedings: ==    (3VUG)
	[7:29] anonymous morphed into DanielKless    (3VUH)
	[8:24] anonymous morphed into LaurentLiscia    (3VUI)
	[9:29] anonymous1 morphed into BobYoung    (3VUJ)
	[9:29] anonymous1 morphed into AdrianPaschke    (3VUK)
	[9:29] anonymous morphed into ElieAbiLahoud    (3VUL)
	[9:30] anonymous morphed into RichardMartin    (3VUM)
	[9:32] anonymous morphed into RalphHodgson    (3VUN)
	[9:33] anonymous morphed into ElisaKendall    (3VUO)
	[9:34] anonymous1 morphed into RayMartin    (3VUP)
	[9:35] anonymous morphed into RoyBell    (3VUQ)
	[9:36] anonymous1 morphed into PeterBloniarz    (3VUR)
	[9:36] anonymous1 morphed into MichaelDenny    (3VUS)
	[9:37] PeterYim: == session starts ...    (3VUT)
	[9:37] anonymous morphed into MartinEast    (3VUU)
	[9:40] anonymous morphed into JohnBottoms    (3VUV)
	[9:41] anonymous morphed into SimonSpero    (3VUW)
	[9:40] TaraAthan: I don't see the OGC (http://www.opengeospatial.org/) represented in the list of players.    (3VUX)
	[9:41] LaurentLiscia: I'm equally surprised to see that the OASIS QUOMOS (Quantities and Units of 
	Measure Ontology Standard) TC is not represented in this list:    (3VUY)
	[9:41] LaurentLiscia: Overview    (3VUZ)
	The OASIS Quantities and Units of Measure Ontology Standard (QUOMOS) Technical Committee works to 
	develop an ontology to specify the basic concepts of quantities, systems of quantities, and systems 
	of measurement units and scales, various base dimensions and units of the SI system, metric prefixes 
	(nano-, micro-, milli-, kilo-, ...), rules for constructing various derived units, and designations 
	of the most common derived units (joules, watts, ...) for use across multiple industries.    (3VV0)
	[9:42] LaurentLiscia: I'm wondering why? I'm also wondering what lessons can be learned from QUOMOS 
	in this mini-series?    (3VV1)
	[9:42] LaurentLiscia: Also RuleML has been mentioned, and this is finding direct application in 
	OASIS LegalXML. Are there lessons to be learned there?    (3VV2)
	[9:42] BillMcCarthy: another ontology standard is ISO 15944-4 -- economic and accounting ontology    (3VV3)
	[9:45] ElisaKendall: The goal for the slides was simply to provide a starting point for discussion, 
	not to be exhaustive - apologies if we left anything off    (3VV4)
	[9:46] anonymous morphed into BobbinTeegarden    (3VV5)
	[9:47] SimonSpero: Something that might be interesting to build on might be the FIBO Hackathon from 
	the Ontology summit - Link: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Hackathon_Clinics_FIBO_OOPS_OQuaRE    (3VV6)
	[9:51] PeterYim: extending from the "anonymous" [x:42] message and ElisaKendall's response ... we do 
	want to hear, and collect information, on standards projects that are related to Ontology here ... 
	ALL: please type them in here (we'll collate later)    (3VV7)
	[9:52] MikeBennett: FIBO    (3VV8)
	[9:52] TerryLongstreth: http://www.metadata-standards.org/ ... a reference point for standards 
	development on a closely related area    (3VV9)
	[11:08] MichaelGruninger / PeterYim: [action] start a wiki page to collect listings of relevant 
	"ontology-based standards"" and related work    (3VVA)
	[9:48] RalphHodgson: I would like to have an initial discussion on what kinds of standards are being 
	thought about - for example: machine/human/regulatory/subject areas/meta-standard?    (3VVB)
	[9:49] RalphHodgson: In other words what do we think about when we say ""standard""? On a polarity of 
	schema (types) to content (instances) what are people thinking?    (3VVC)
	[9:50] TaraAthan: standards = official standards union defacto standards    (3VVD)
	[9:53] AdrianPaschke: ISO/IEC Guide 2:2004: A standard is a document, established by consensus and 
	approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or 
	characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of 
	order in a given context.    (3VVE)
	[9:53] RalphHodgson: linkedmodel.org has some vocabs for industry classifications - not a standards 
	effort just a gift from TopQuadrant    (3VVF)
	[9:54] AdrianPaschke: Side remark here - standards should be based on the consolidated results of 
	science, technology and experience, and aimed at the promotion of optimum community benefits    (3VVG)
	[9:54] JeffersonBraswell: Yes, considering that there are standards for such diverse areas as the 
	mechanics and syntax of codification (and the issue of different types of capabilities -- or lack of 
	capability compatibility among different forms of expressing ontological content -- at what level 
	should ""standards"" be aimed at ? Future capabilities that do not yet exist, or are 'cutting edge', 
	or trying to standardize at the more common level of expressive degrees of freedom ? (Apologies for 
	the Goedel-esque question)    (3VVH)
	[9:55] JeffersonBraswell: (for examples, differences between OWL and, say, SUMO )    (3VVI)
	[9:57] JeffersonBraswell: And how one distinguishes rules and behavior from more static capture of 'meaning'    (3VVJ)
	[10:49] PeterYim: MichaelGruninger: check out the OntologySummit2009 ""Toward Ontology-based 
	Standards"" proceedings - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit#nid21PY    (3VVK)
	[9:47] MichaelGruninger: Possible session on ontologies for units of measure    (3VVL)
	[9:56] MichaelGruninger: Do we want to have sessions that focus on particular domains? e.g. 
	accounting, law, geospatial, ...    (3VVM)
	[9:57] MichaelGruninger: MikeBennett: the role of upper ontologies in standards harmonization    (3VVN)
	[9:57] PeterYim: a few of us are trying to re-initiate the QUOMOS effort ... besides getting other 
	government agencies to write to the NIST Director, in support of having NIST's support and 
	involvement, I will also be putting together a similarly directed letter on behalf of the ""ontology 
	community"" as well. Input and suggestions welcome!    (3VVO)
	[9:58] BobYoung: I'd be very interested in any sessions related to the manufacturing domain 
	especially reference ontologies for manufacture    (3VVP)
	[9:58] RalphHodgson: I did some work on ontologies for political systems (what is a democracy) - 
	posted this at oegov.us some years ago - even an ontology of the US Constitution :-) Now think that 
	an ontology of political systems would be an interesting project to revitalize.    (3VVQ)
	[9:59] LaurentLiscia: Thank you for taking onto consideration our observations. We look forward to 
	hearing the discussion on units of measure. We're also interested in hearing about how we can 
	educate standards practitioners on ontology and better demonstrate the benefits. Reaching out to 
	"vertical" communities is a great idea, but given the breadth, time and resources might be better 
	spent educating standards professionals. If they don't think ontologies will help them, that's an issue.    (3VVR)
	[10:00] AdrianPaschke: @LaurentLiscia, regarding your question about OASIS LegalRuleML - yes there 
	are interesting things to report here, e.g. about the ontological metamodel approach for the 
	specification of the LegalRuleML language and the use of external legal ontologies such FBRL, LKIF, 
	... in the LegalRuleML (typed) language    (3VVS)
	[10:00] MikeBennett: the importance of communities of practice in defining meaning, along with well 
	referenced academic work - this is where the meaning is. Focus on semantics not syntax in relating 
	these to one another and having / identifying common reusable meaningful concepts which can be cross 
	referenced to one another per JohnSowa's ISS methodology as per previous summit outcomes, i.e. use 
	of underspecified upper ontology partitions to frame the meanings.    (3VVT)
	[10:01] LaurentLiscia: Echoing Simon's view: ontologies should probably be built on expert knowledge 
	to clarify fundamental concepts. But adopting the ontology frame of mind has to happen in the 
	standards community.    (3VVU)
	[10:04] SimonSpero: @LaurentLiscia : I agree - I include SMEs as part of the standards community 
	(especially if they're voting members :)    (3VVV)
	[10:01] LaurentLiscia: Thanks.    (3VVW)
	[10:02] MikeBennett: A good point from Simon - part of the requirement for having ontologies where 
	the semantics is anchored in communities of practice, is being able to present and curate ontologies 
	in a form which business practitioners can comprehend. Huge gap in tooling to date.    (3VVX)
	[10:01] RalphHodgson: Peter - QUDT is undergoing formal NASA review at NASA HQ - then subject matter 
	expert review within NASA. Because QUDT release 2 is significantly larger than release 1 - the 
	process requires the kind of governance that NASA standards efforts entails. I will keep this group 
	informed of process. QUDT adoption is growing and release 2 will be released at some level soon.    (3VVY)
	[10:03] RalphHodgson: NASA and NIST are in communication about QUDT    (3VVZ)
	[10:04] RalphHodgson: OpenPHACTS also moving QUDT forward    (3VW0)
	[10:02] PeterYim: ref. QUOMOS and related efforts - see : http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM    (3VW1)
	[10:03] LaurentLiscia: Thanks, Peter, have to drop off.    (3VW2)
	[10:06] MikeBennett: Do we need a roadmap: what are the concepts which concepts in other industries 
	are drawn from (contracts, law, accounting spring to mind); and what are the concepts which concepts 
	in other industries need to make reference to (units of measure, date/time). Form a consensus on 
	these, develop common abstractions which everyone can agree on and which enable the common 
	representation of otherwise disparate terms. Start there.    (3VW3)
	[10:07] JeffersonBraswell: One metaphor that comes to mind, Mike, is how the capabilities and 
	expressiveness of a programming language have a significant effect on the nature (and robustness) on 
	what can be created, expressed, and implemented with the language ( Turing's machine notwithstanding ).
	For example, COBOL versus C versus Go versus Occam , etc . Does not the syntax of abstract 
	specification, definition and manipulation have a material effect on the size and scope of ""meaning "
	that can be manifested ?    (3VW4)
	[10:08] MikeBennett: Good point Jeff. I think that's why we were able to relate terms from different 
	standards and initiatives, because we had very atomic, archetypical concepts. Many of these are so 
	abstract that they are well outside the comfort zone of many technical people, which is a challenge 
	as soon as one starts to work on the more syntactical considerations of technical ontology development.    (3VW5)
	[10:09] TerryLongstreth: does the QUOMOS effort involve international collaboration, particularly 
	with respect to UNECE recommendation 20 and their Units of Measure: Code elements?    (3VW6)
	[10:11] FrankOlken: Yes.    (3VW7)
	[10:12] RayMartin: QUDT is an excellent effort. I am looking for something similar in ontology for 
	Goals, Actions, Perception - distinctly and separately - and in unison and combination.    (3VW8)
	[10:12] RichardMartin: Mike and Simon - doing this "semantics is anchored in communities of 
	practice" is the essence of a standard. In the doing we introduce variety of meaning to express 
	community evolution of practice. One problem I encounter is the disconnect between an existing 
	standard and that evolving practice. One part of the community depends upon the standard for 
	commercial reasons and another part of the community needs the standard to change in support of an 
	evolving practice. A critical need is to better understand the evolution of semantics in a diverging 
	community of practice.    (3VW9)
	[10:13] MikeBennett: @RichardMartin very good point.    (3VWA)
	[10:12] MikeBennett: Very interesting point from RalphHodgson - the subject matter in units of 
	measure is dimensional. Substantial body of business knowledge - IMHO this will require a different 
	mindset than what many of us on the tech side are comfortable with - need to partition review 
	efforts between the community of practice that has the knowledge, versus the technical side.    (3VWB)
	[10:13] JeffersonBraswell: Yes, Mike -- not only are the levels of abstraction challenging for 
	technical folks, but for subject matter experts as well -- requiring a bit of a Rashomon-capable 
	meta-expert to bridge the gap -- a rare breed. (One of the issues with the 
	tool/parallelization/bandwidth challenge )    (3VWC)
	[10:20] MikeBennett: @Jeff this is very true - domain experts tend to describe their terms in their 
	context and one has to unravel that. Working with a mix of academics and industry folks on the mid 
	level abstractions seemed to yield some pretty good results I think.    (3VWD)
	[10:13] TaraAthan: Observation and Measurement    (3VWE)
	[10:20] SimonSpero: Highfleet ECLIF is an extension of Common Logic    (3VWF)
	[10:20] SimonSpero: But sort of a simplification of IKL    (3VWG)
	[10:20] SimonSpero: (IIR)    (3VWH)
	[10:23] RalphHodgson: http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/    (3VWI)
	[10:20] MichaelGruninger: BobYoung: The interaction between the ontologies within standardization 
	and the different ontology representation languages and software environments    (3VWJ)
	[10:24] MikeDenny: My interest is in the use of ontologies to bolster national & international 
	standard terminologies work, both as one form of expression (design-time and/or output form for 
	promulgation) and also as a harmonization (mapping) tool. It sounded as if MichaelGruninger already 
	has this aspect well covered – so that’s good. This use could be particularly applicable in the 
	healthcare domain.    (3VWK)
	[10:28] KenBaclawski: I suggest that there be a meeting in this series to deal with social 
	networking ontologies and standards. The current situation involves large sites that have various 
	industrial standards for data models. Interoperability and harmonization would be beneficial, but 
	the main players have not expressed a lot of interest in interoperability.    (3VWL)
	[10:25] JeffersonBraswell: Interesting topic: social networking ontology: How would "social 
	networking" be differentiated from either "society" or "networks" ( or some combination thereof)?    (3VWM)
	[10:32] PeterYim: +1 to @KenBaclawski [10:28]    (3VWN)
	[10:25] MikeBennett: Social networking would be a good example of a business space where the 
	abstractions needed for a real ontology should be more general e.g. terms about people, places, 
	virtual places, digital works. All those would have broader communities of practice / research areas 
	which can pin down the meanings.    (3VWO)
	[10:26] JeffersonBraswell: Agree, Mike    (3VWP)
	[10:26] SimonSpero: Social Networking: the main players in general don't seem to be to interested in 
	open standards; they tend to want to pull people in to their walled gardens    (3VWQ)
	[10:27] SimonSpero: Social Networking: where they play open, it's to allow them to pull data in    (3VWR)
	[10:29] JeffersonBraswell: The main players wish to keep their informational assets close to their 
	(large) vest    (3VWS)
	[10:42] EricChan: For an overview of social network connect services, please see 
	http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5551044&contentType=Journals+%26+Magazines&sortType%3Dasc_p_Sequence%26filter%3DAND(p_IS_Number%3A5551033)    (3VWT)
	[10:46] EricChan: A good opportunity to apply ontology to distill and unify the model for Wallpaper, 
	Activity Stream, Time Line, etc., buried in the social web platforms    (3VWU)
	[10:26] RichardMartin: Another problem I encounter has to do with the translation of standards from 
	English to other languages for use by practitioners in various nations. While standards are now 
	published almost exclusively in English, their use as intended by the authors is often difficult for 
	non-English speakers or even different English speaking regions because of the variety of meaning 
	individual words have in combination with other words in particular contexts. Translation engines 
	presume common usage but standards address uncommon usage.    (3VWV)
	[10:26] DanielKless: I would like to indicate my interest in initiating a general standard/guide for 
	developing and maintaining ontologies. Topics of interest in such guide/standard: defining the 
	meaning of terms and concepts in an ontology, choice of a top-level ontology, choice of a logical 
	language, common pitfalls of using a specific logical language, labeling entities in an ontology, 
	involvement of experts in the development, validation of ontologies, presentation of ontologies to 
	users, ontology maintenance and management, why each of the aforementioned steps in the development 
	of ontologies? Which sequence of steps?    (3VWW)
	[10:28] AdrianPaschke: @DanielKless: the questions you post are addressing ontology engineering    (3VWX)
	[10:29] PeterYim: @DanielKless - MichaelGruninger: see - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit#nid3IJQ    (3VWY)
	[10:29] TaraAthan: In the geospatial community, there are approaches to working with metadata about 
	observations with location (not the geographical coordinates, but the properties associated with 
	that location e.g air temperature) that superficially look like ontologies, but on deeper 
	examination have ontological inconsistencies.    (3VWZ)
	[10:40] TaraAthan: please specialize: Geospatial -> Geospatial Metadata    (3VX0)
	[10:32] RalphHodgson: If we go meta on this subject we might discuss on ontology of a standard - I 
	did one some years ago and represented a number of standards with it - RFC standards for example. Of 
	course this is an ontology "about" standards not "of" a standard. Interesting if the work of this 
	group is to offer the world away to evaluate standards.    (3VX1)
	[10:35] TerryLongstreth: @RalphHodgson - ISO 24706 - metadata for standards - would be a source of 
	relevant concepts    (3VX2)
	[10:36] RalphHodgson: @TerryLongstreth - thx    (3VX3)
	[10:34] PeterYim: suggest those who are doing Ontology-based Standards to put their standard 
	ontologies into the Open Ontology Repository (OOR) - ref. http://oor.net    (3VX4)
	[10:35] PeterYim: ... following that, we can discuss what we can do with/about these standard now 
	that they are logically in one place    (3VX5)
	[10:35] MikeBennett: [suggestion] Synthesis of those ontologies that are either more atomic or 
	universally reusable, as a session.    (3VX6)
	[10:36] MichaelGruninger: MikeBennett: The miniseries consists of sessions on domains such as 
	Quantities / Units of Measure, Geospatial, Accounting, Manufacturing. The final session will try to 
	synthesize, harmonize, and identify common ontologies    (3VX7)
	[10:37] BillMcCarthy: Does anybody have any experience or familiarity with ontologies whose 
	categorization schemes are being grounded specifically in the refereed research literature of a 
	particular domain? For example, ISO 15944-4 is being reflected in an AAA monograph. Are there 
	others?    (3VX8)
	[10:40] SimonSpero: @BillMcCarthy: That's referred to in Information Science / Knowledge Organization 
	as "Literary Warrant" or "Scientific Warrant"    (3VX9)
	[10:40] SimonSpero: @ BillMcCarthy : See: http://www.iva.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/literary_warrant.htm    (3VXA)
	[10:29] BobbinTeegarden: @MikeBennett re upper organization: were you suggesting an uber-onto of 
	ontos? and if so, might it work to follow Steiner's lead of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, doing 
	something like an uber-ontology that recapitulates 'ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny'? Too dense? A 
	natural order to use?    (3VXB)
	[10:40] MikeBennett: @BobbinTeegarden ontogeny v phylogeny - I think this encapsulates how we've 
	always considered that OWL should be used, i.e. set theoretic abstractions, which more or less 
	drives you into wanting to find reusable general concepts. An uber ontology would firstly identify 
	these concepts and secondly use high level partitions to reference one to another in a common 
	framework (JohnSowa's ISS slides - underspecified upper ontology partitions). Is that what you meant?    (3VXC)
	[10:43] BobbinTeegarden: @MikeBennett Yes. Is there a natural, or fractal, order at the upper levels 
	for a framework, like JohnSowa's lattice of theories?    (3VXD)
	[10:40] RalphHodgson: @MarkJohnson – [ref. Mark's verbal remarks about going from prose to a formal 
	(ontology) language] this is what we did for the NASA QUDT Handbook - prose is in the ontologies - 
	PDF document is generated from the ontologies ( Semantic Web Pages, SWP, was used to generate LaTeX) 
	… also ref. Discussion below starting with [10:50] MarkJohnson: ...    (3VXE)
	[10:43] RalphHodgson: ref. SWP (SPARQL Web Pages framework ) - http://uispin.org/ui.html    (3VXF)
	[10:45] RalphHodgson: To learn more on how the NASA QUDT Handbook was generated - slide 31 (I think) 
	of the NASA QUDT presentation at http://www.scribd.com/RalphHodgsontq    (3VXG)
	[10:41] RichardMartin: In ISO TC184/SC5/WG1 we have been working on a concept for model-based 
	standards authoring that applies Object-process methodology to the creation of a standard with dual 
	mode representation - text and corresponding graphical model - with a formal language basis.    (3VXH)
	[10:43] ElisaKendall: At OMG, we generate the body of our specifications from the models that 
	specify them, including for ontologies - we're doing this for FIBO in fact.    (3VXI)
	[10:48] PeterYim: @MarkJohnson - you might be interested in the "Extracting Ontologies from 
	Standards: Experiences and Issues" work KenBaclawski, EricChan et al. presented in an earlier 
	session - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_10_25#nid3GES    (3VXJ)
	[10:44] MichaelGruninger: Peter Yim: [suggested topic] How ontologies can help with the formal 
	specification of the natural language standards    (3VXK)
	[10:42] MikeBennett: Moving away from physics based standards: see John Searle on how humanly 
	constructed "things" are still based in physics via language acts - covers legal constructs, 
	financial constructs etc., which are themselves the building blocks of human commerce and business.    (3VXL)
	[10:45] MikeBennett: That's the question. The work with FIBO and REA (several of the folks on that 
	team are on this call), identified things like "aspect" that could be framed in the upper ontology 
	partitions (aspect is a relative thing), and be used to relate terms defined in the round in one 
	standard, to terms defined from a party context in another standard.    (3VXM)
	[10:50] MarkJohnson: The SRI effort started as an attempt to address interoperability of DoD 
	Training and Testing Systems (for example, how radio-based training instrumentation can exchange 
	messages). This is a very hard problem, far from solved, and it drove us to an ontological approach 
	to developing standards, requirements and specifications. We have become very interested in best 
	practices for linking informative prose standards suitable for most stakeholders and normative 
	OWL/ontological content.    (3VXN)
	[10:56] BobYoung: @MarkJohnson, we have done some work using ontologies to specify manufacturing 
	system requirements with some success. A PhD thesis should be available in a couple of months    (3VXO)
	[10:57] PeterYim: the "natural language prose to ontology language" bridge, besides useful in 
	helping us with standards, could be useful to regulations and statutes (as indicated by the FIBO 
	folks recently)    (3VXP)
	[10:58] MikeBennett: @PeterYim agreed. The Controlled NL bridge works both ways, e.g. in presenting 
	ontology content to subject matters, you need the full range of forms they can understand: diagrams, 
	spreadsheets and natural language statements.    (3VXQ)
	[10:59] MichaelGruninger: Possible session topics (proposed so far): 
	1. Ontology-based Standards in the area of Quantities and Units of Measure
	2. Ontology-based Standards in Geospatial Domains
	3. Ontology-based Standards in Manufacturing 
	4. Ontology-based Financial Standards (e.g. ISO 15944, FIBO)
	5. Standards and Ontology Metadata
	6. Ontologies for Social Networks
	7. How ontologies can help with the formal specification of the natural language standards
	8. Synthesis and harmonization of the ontologies and standards presented in the miniseries    (3VXR)
	[10:59] ElisaKendall: SBVR is an OMG standard, and is used primarily in the EU at the moment for 
	representing business policies. While the intent is for logical precision, it has no underlying 
	model theory. Having said this, quite a bit of work in SBVR is focused on terminology, and has been 
	done through joint research in ISO TC 37, who are well recognized terminologists. The mapping that 
	Mark Linehan and I created from SBVR to OWL allows one to reason over the terminologies developed in 
	SBVR, although it's somewhat lossy.    (3VXS)
	[10:58] TerryLongstreth: @SimonSpero - [referring to Simon's verbal remarks] can you feed us a URL 
	for the Tobias Kuhn summary?    (3VXT)
	[10:59] SimonSpero: @TerryLongstreth: http://attempto.ifi.uzh.ch/site/pubs/papers/kuhn2013cl.pdf    (3VXU)
	[11:00] AdrianPaschke: @SimonSpero: you might take a look at the outcome of the European network of 
	excellence REWERSE ACE http://rewerse.net/ and the RuleML Human Rules task force. There was a 
	session about this at RuleML 2013: http://wiki.ruleml.org/index.php/Human-Rules    (3VXV)
	[11:00] SimonSpero: To appear in "Computational Linguistics"    (3VXW)
	[11:00] MikeBennett: Geospatial: what about geopolitical as well? and the common concepts of place 
	(real and virtual); addressing and the like?    (3VXX)
	[11:00] SimonSpero: AdrianPaschke: REWERSE was one of the things I was thinking of :)    (3VXY)
	[11:01] AdrianPaschke: The human rules track papers of RuleML 2013 where published in CEUR 
	proceedings: http://2013.ruleml.org/content/program-and-accepted-papers    (3VXZ)
	[11:02] AdrianPaschke: maybe there are some interesting for you. SBVR was also addressed in several 
	presentations    (3VY0)
	[11:03] SimonSpero: @AdrianPaschke: I really wanted to submit to that, alas    (3VY1)
	[11:03] FrankOlken: @AdrianPaschke, were any of the RuleML sessions taped.    (3VY2)
	[11:03] SimonSpero: I'd be willing to try and pull people together for a CNL (controlled natural 
	language) session    (3VY3)
	[11:03] MikeBennett: I'd be happy to co-champion 4 but would love to share this with BillMcCarthy if 
	you're up for it Bill. And anyone else in the accounting / XBRL space as well.    (3VY4)
	[11:03] BillMcCarthy: I would be happy to work with Mike Bennett on topic 4 (financial standards)    (3VY5)
	[11:02] BobbinTeegarden: What happened to standards in ontology visualization? Any interest?    (3VY6)
	[11:03] MichaelGruninger: Potential Champions: 
	(1) PeterYim
	(2) GaryBergCross?
	(3) BobYoung, MichaelGruninger
	(4) MikeBennett, BillMcCarthy
	(5) ElisaKendall
	(6) KenBaclawski
	(7) SimonSpero
	(8) ???    (3VY7)
	[11:03] MarkJohnson: need to drop off ... another meeting...    (3VY8)
	[11:04] TaraAthan: Add me to #2 please    (3VY9)
	[11:05] TerryLongstreth: I'd like to support Elisa on #5    (3VYA)
	[11:05] RichardMartin: I can help with 3 and 7.    (3VYB)
	[11:07] ElieAbiLahoud: I could help on 4 if needed    (3VYC)
	[11:07] MikeBennett: @ ElieAbiLahoud yes please!    (3VYD)
	[11:--] MichaelGruninger  / PeterYim: re-iterating ...
	1. Ontology-based Standards in the area of Quantities and Units of Measure [PeterYim, FrankOlken?]
	2. Ontology-based Standards in Geospatial Domains [TaraAthan, Gary Berg-Cross?]
	3. Ontology-based Standards in Manufacturing [BobYoung, MichaelGruninger, RichardMartin]
	4. Ontology-based Financial Standards (e.g. ISO 15944, FIBO) [MikeBennett, BillMcCarthy, ElieAbiLahoud]
	5. Standards and Ontology Metadata [ElisaKendall, TerryLongstreth]
	6. Ontologies for Social Networks [KenBaclawski, EricChan]
	7. How ontologies can help with the formal specification of the natural language standards [SimonSpero, RichardMartin, MarkJohnson, KenBaclawski]
	8. Synthesis and harmonization of the ontologies and standards presented in the miniseries [???]    (3VYE)
	[11:07] SimonSpero: I still believe that ontologies include rules!    (3VYF)
	[11:08] SimonSpero: so Adrian++    (3VYG)
	[11:05] RalphHodgson: @ElisaKendall - maybe you could look at VAEM and VOAG for metadata? VAEM - 
	Vocabulary About Essential Metadata, VOAG - Vocabulary Of Attribuiton and Governance (includes 
	licensing)    (3VYH)
	[11:07] RalphHodgson: VAEM - http://linkedmodel.org/doc/vaem/1.2/    (3VYI)
	[11:07] RalphHodgson: VOAG - http://linkedmodel.org/doc/voag/1.0/    (3VYJ)
	[11:09] ElisaKendall: @RalphHodgson - thank you for the links - we definitely have not done anything 
	around licensing, and most of the metadata we've incorporated to date has been specific to the OMG 
	process, as I mentioned.    (3VYK)
	[11:09] RalphHodgson: @ElisaKendall - see 
	http://spinservices.org:8080/spin/doc.swp?baseURI=http://voag.linkedmodel.org/1.0/schema/voag for 
	licenses covered - scroll down page    (3VYL)
	[11:10] RalphHodgson: @ElisaKendall - you need to go to License Model under Governed Object    (3VYM)
	[11:11] ElisaKendall: @RalphHodgson - thanks again!    (3VYN)
	[11:13] AdrianPaschke: bye    (3VYO)
	[11:13] SimonSpero: bye!    (3VYP)
	[11:15] PeterYim: Attn: All co-champions - we will try to plan out the individual sessions within 
	the next couple of weeks, so that they will be rolled-out between Sep through mid-Dec, 2013 [... 
	given to understand that there will be no events in Aug-2013, and then Jan~Apr-2014 event slots will 
	almost be fully taken up by the Ontology Summit]    (3VYQ)
	[11:05] AdrianPaschke: @SimonSpero: RuleML 2014 will again have a human rules track. It will be in 
	Prague, Czech republic collocated with ECAI 2014, http://2014.ruleml.org    (3VYR)
	[11:10] AdrianPaschke: standards addressing the combination of rules and ontologies, e.g. W3C 
	RIF/OWL which share OWL RL or SBVR which combines business rules and business vocabularies.    (3VYS)
	[11:10] AdrianPaschke: RuleML with SWRL, etc.    (3VYT)
	[11:00] PeterYim: join us again, same time next Thursday Jul-25, for the "RulesReasoningLP:
	Ontology-Rules-Reasoning-LogicProgramming-Applications" mini-series planning session -
	Chair: LeoObrst - Panelists: BenjaminGrosof, HaroldBoley, HensonGraves, JohnSowa 
	- http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_07_25    (3VYV)
	[11:16] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:13am PDT --    (3VYW)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (3VH3)

Additional Resources:    (3VH8)

For the record ...    (3VHJ)

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