OntologySummit2014 session-02 Track-A: Common Reusable Semantic Content-I - Thu 2014-01-23    (43X5)

Briefings:    (44B0)

Archives:    (44B4)

Abstract    (44CN)

Use and Reuse of Semantic Content - The Problems and Efforts to Address Them ... intro slides    (44CO)

This is our 9th OntologySummit, a joint initiative by Ontolog, NIST, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD with the support of our co-sponsors.    (44DZ)

Since the beginnings of the Semantic Web, ontologies have played key roles in the design and deployment of new semantic technologies. Yet over the years, the level of collaboration between the Semantic Web and Applied Ontology communities has been much less than expected. Within Big Data applications, ontologies appear to have had little impact.    (44E0)

This year's Ontology Summit is an opportunity for building bridges between the Semantic Web, Linked Data, Big Data, and Applied Ontology communities. On the one hand, the Semantic Web, Linked Data, and Big Data communities can bring a wide array of real problems (such as performance and scalability challenges and the variety problem in Big Data) and technologies (automated reasoning tools) that can make use of ontologies. On the other hand, the Applied Ontology community can bring a large body of common reusable content (ontologies) and ontological analysis techniques. Identifying and overcoming ontology engineering bottlenecks is critical for all communities.    (44E1)

OntologySummit2014 will pose and address the primary challenges in these areas of interaction among the different communities. The Summit activities will bring together insights and methods from these different communities, synthesize new insights, and disseminate knowledge across field boundaries.    (44CP)

Session Details    (44H5)

At the Launch Event on 16 Jan 2014, the organizing team provided an overview of the program, and how we will be framing the discourse. Today's session (OntologySummit2014 session-02) is the first virtual panel session featured by Track-A, which focuses on "Common Reusable Semantic Content."    (44CQ)

This session begins with a short introduction to the problem space of reuse, and then continues with three presentations related to differing aspects and qualities of ontologies. The first presentation is from the Earth Sciences domain. It is focused on semantic alignment of two repositories using ontology design patterns. The second presentation addresses the issue of ontological reuse. It describes how portions of the ISO 15926 and FIBO ontologies were mined to define a new ontology. And, the last presentation is concerned with analyzing the reasoning capabilities of an ontology. The goal is to present very different aspects of ontologies (alignment, patterns, reuse and reasoning) in order to start to understand what "common, reusable semantic content" is and its qualities. .    (44CR)

After the panelists briefings, there will be time for Q&A and an open discussion among the panel and all participants.    (44CS)

See more details at: OntologySummit2014 (homepage for this summit)    (44CT)

Briefings:    (44CU)

Agenda:    (44D1)

OntologySummit2014 session-01 Track-A: Common Reusable Semantic Content-I    (44D2)

Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call    (44D3)

Proceedings    (44D8)

Please refer to the above    (44D9)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:    (44DA)

 see raw transcript here.    (44DB)
 (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.    (44DC)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (44DD)
	------
	Chat transcript from room: summit_20140123
	2014-01-23 GMT-08:00 [PST]
	------    (44RS)
	[9:03] PeterYim: Welcome to the    (44RU)
	 = OntologySummit2014 session-02 Track-A: Common Reusable Semantic Content-I - Thu 2014-01-23 =    (44RV)
	Summit Theme: Summit Theme: OntologySummit2014: "Big Data and Semantic Web Meet Applied Ontology"    (44RW)
	Track-A Focus: Common Reusable Semantic Content    (44RX)
	Session Topic: Use and Reuse of Semantic Content - The Problems and Efforts to Address Them    (44RY)
	Session Co-chairs: 
	* Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council, Hypercube)
	* Ms. AndreaWesterinen (Nine Points Solutions) & 
	* Dr. Gary Berg-Cross (SOCoP; Knowledge Strategies)    (44RZ)
	Briefings:    (44S0)
	* Dr. GaryBergCross (SOCoP) - "Use and Reuse of Semantic Content: The Problems and Efforts to Address Them - An Introduction"    (44S1)
	* Professor PascalHitzler (Wright State U) - "Towards ontology patterns for ocean science repository integration"    (44S2)
	* Ms. AndreaWesterinen (Nine Points Solutions) - "Reuse of Content from ISO 15926 and FIBO"    (44S3)
	* Ms. MeganKatsumi & Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto) - "Reasoning about Events on the Semantic Web"    (44S4)
	Logistics:    (44S5)
	* Refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_01_23    (44S6)
	* (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName    (44S7)
	* Mute control (phone keypad): *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute    (44S8)
	* Attn: Skype users ... see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_01_23#nid44BM
	** you may connect to (the skypeID) "joinconference" whether or not it indicates that it is online 
	   (i.e. even if it says it is "offline," you should still be able to connect to it.)
	** if you are using skype and the connection to "joinconference" is not holding up, try using (your favorite POTS or 
	   VoIP line, etc.) either your phone, skype-out or google-voice and call the US dial-in number: +1 (206) 402-0100 
	   ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
	** 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: if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it    (44S9)
	Attendees: AleksandraSojic, AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom, AnatolyLevenchuk, AndreaWesterinen, 
	AnneThessen, BartGajderowicz, BobSchloss, ChristineKapp, ConradBeaulieu, CyndyChandler, 
	DaliaVaranka, DanielMcShan, DennisWisnosky, DennisPierson, EarlGlynn, ElieAbiLahoud, FabianNeuhaus, 
	FranLightsom, FrankLoebe, GaryBergCross, GenZou, HaroldBoley, HensonGraves, JacobusGeluk, 
	JamesOverton, JamesWilson, JennSleeman, JimSolderitsch, JoelBender, JohnMcClure, JohnYanosy, 
	JuanGomezRomero, JulienCorman, KenBaclawski, KrzysztofJanowicz, LeoObrst, LianaKiff, MariaPoveda, 
	MatthewLange, MatthewWest, MaxGillmore, MeganKatsumi, MichaelGruninger, MikeBennett, MikeCummens, 
	NaicongLi, NancyWiegand, OliverKutz, PascalHitzler, PeterYim, QuentinReul, RaminAyanzadeh, 
	RexBrooks, RichardMartin, RichardBeatch, ScottHills, ShahrulAzmanNoah, SimonSpero, SteveRay, 
	SundayOjo, TaraAthan, TerryLongstreth, TimFinin, ToddSchneider, VeruskaZamborlini, VictorAgroskin,    (44SA)
	 == Proceedings ==    (44SB)
	[8:46] anonymous morphed into ShahrulAzmanNoah    (44SC)
	[9:25] anonymous morphed into JohnYanosy    (44SD)
	[9:27] anonymous morphed into PascalHitzler    (44SE)
	[9:28] LeoObrst: Folks, unfortunately I must leave after first hour.    (44SF)
	[9:28] PeterYim: go it, Leo ... glad you can still make a portion of this session    (44SG)
	[9:30] anonymous2 morphed into JamesOverton    (44SH)
	[9:31] anonymous2 morphed into AliHashemi    (44SI)
	[9:32] anonymous2 morphed into MariaPoveda    (44SJ)
	[9:32] anonymous2 morphed into ConradBeaulieu    (44SK)
	[9:33] anonymous2 morphed into JimSolderitsch    (44SL)
	[9:33] anonymous3 morphed into MikeCummens    (44SM)
	[9:33] JamesOverton morphed into JamesOverton    (44SN)
	[9:33] anonymous4 morphed into VeruskaZamborlini    (44SO)
	[9:33] HaroldBoley morphed into HaroldBoley    (44SP)
	[9:34] anonymous2 morphed into JamesWilson    (44SQ)
	[9:35] PeterYim: == MikeBennett starts the session on behalf of the Track-A co-champions ... see 
	slides under: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_01_23#nid44B7    (44SR)
	[9:36] anonymous2 morphed into MariaPoveda    (44SS)
	[9:37] anonymous2 morphed into RichardBeatch    (44ST)
	[9:38] anonymous3 morphed into JacobusGeluk    (44SU)
	[9:38] anonymous2 morphed into NaicongLi    (44SV)
	[9:41] PeterYim: == GaryBergCross presenting ...    (44SW)
	[9:44] anonymous2 morphed into RaminAyanzadeh    (44SX)
	[9:47] anonymous2 morphed into JulienCorman    (44SY)
	[9:51] anonymous2 morphed into MaxGillmore    (44SZ)
	- [9:51] MikeBennett: @Peter, the VNC hopper seems to be showing the slide not full screen put 
	placed on top of your overall screen (bit of Session Page showing below)    (44T0)
	- [9:57] PeterYim: @MikeBennett ... I cannot reproduce your problem ... anyone else has that problem 
	Mike is mentioning?    (44T1)
	- [9:57] MikeBennett: @Peter it's OK now.    (44T2)
	- [9:59] PeterYim: @MikeBennett - it's probably because GaryBergCross' slide format (aspect ratio) 
	does not coincide with the screen's ... I show a huge "black stripe" at the top and the bottom, but 
	I suppose my "black" could have been "pixels from the previous image" in your case ... [ (comment 
	added later:) one might try clicking on the vnc viewer "refresh screen" button, that would probably 
	get rid of the "pixels from the previous image" =ppy ]    (44T3)
	- [10:00] MikeBennett: @Peter that will have been it - the slide went full width but we saw top and 
	bottom of your screen. Or I did anyway.    (44T4)
	[9:54] TaraAthan: slide 9 - an opportunity for alignment with a quantities/units of measure 
	ontology?    (44T5)
	[9:56] AndreaWesterinen: @TaraAthan Yes, I touch on this a bit also in my presentation.    (44T6)
	[9:56] QuentinReul: @GaryBergCross: Do you mean that SKOS doesn't encode the formal semantics of 
	similarity?    (44T7)
	[9:58] GaryBergCross: @Quentin I'm not sure that SKOS covers similarity in as useful a way as 
	needed. It is a thesaurus level and doesn't get in how things are similar.    (44T8)
	[9:59] QuentinReul: @GaryBergCross I agree, but it was not intended to provide similarity at the 
	conceptual level    (44T9)
	[10:00] QuentinReul: @GaryBergCross some have argued that thesauri are sufficient for most business 
	needs, which I totally disagree with    (44TA)
	[10:03] GaryBergCross: @Quentin Yes, I agree with you, I think that it is part of the need for 
	deeper knowledge on concepts P and S.    (44TB)
	[9:57] AliHashemi: Hi Gary, I find question 7 in your supplementary material to be very interesting 
	- "Is reuse about semantics alone or should it also address reasoning and data analytics?". Could 
	you elaborate a bit the difference between how one accesses the semantics of a concept vs reasoning 
	about a concept?    (44TC)
	[9:59] GaryBergCross: Ali - MichaelGruninger's talk should provide some context for this issue. So 
	let's hear that first.    (44TD)
	[10:04] QuentinReul: @GaryBergCross Did some work for my PhD where I relied on DL axioms to analyse 
	similarity between concepts, and then re-used construct to represent the similarity. Have you heard 
	of EDOAL (http://alignapi.gforge.inria.fr/edoal.html)?    (44TE)
	[10:05] GaryBergCross: @Quentin No that is a new one to me. Thanks....    (44TF)
	[9:56] PeterYim: == PascalHitzler presenting ...    (44TG)
	[9:41] PascalHitzler: While my talk will of course be self-contained, it is in a sense a different 
	slice of the same storyline as presented at ontolog last November: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?IAOA_SWAO_ConferenceCall_2013_11_25    (44TH)
	[9:42] PascalHitzler: I also regret that I will have to leave shortly after my talk because of 
	teaching duties.    (44TI)
	[9:59] MikeBennett: NSF = National Science Foundation (in the US), for those who don't know it.    (44TJ)
	[10:01] anonymous3 morphed into JuanGomezRomero    (44TK)
	[10:03] AliHashemi: @PascalHitzler, don't both extremes have their difficulties in their reuse?    (44TL)
	[10:03] AliHashemi: A theory that is underspecified may have a lot of implicit assumptions in how 
	the model is used    (44TM)
	[10:03] AliHashemi: Which would lead to unintended errors in re-use as well, no/    (44TN)
	[10:05] GaryBergCross: @Ali I hope that PascalHitzler has time to respond to this, he has to go to 
	another meeting, but perhaps KrzysztofJanowicz who is also on the call would offer some ideas here.    (44TO)
	[10:08] anonymous3 morphed into MatthewLange    (44TP)
	[10:05] MikeBennett: This (Hitzler, slide 9) ODP of Event is identical to the one in FIBO.    (44TQ)
	[10:26] PascalHitzler: @MikeBennett: I wasn't aware that this (slide 9) is as in FIBO. Thanks 
	for the pointer :)    (44TR)
	[10:06] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett Ah! A building block for reuse already!    (44TS)
	[10:06] MikeBennett: (except we refer to the concepts of place and time, rather than strings)    (44TT)
	[10:08] MikeBennett: Oh, and Place need not be spatial - there are events which occur at a virtual 
	place, e.g. a security is issued on the Global Bonds Market.    (44TU)
	[10:08] SimonSpero: It's not just a Logical Form of Action Statements; it's THE Logical Form of 
	Action Stations    (44TV)
	[10:09] SimonSpero: (Captain Donald Tiberius Davidson)    (44TW)
	[10:10] SimonSpero: Davidson paper (scanned from "Action and Events", I assume) 
	http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic638346.files/Davidson1967.pdf    (44TX)
	[10:10] anonymous1 morphed into GenZou    (44TY)
	[10:09] JohnMcClure: <class> is a template, not a pattern. A pattern is more about the way multiple 
	things are put together.    (44TZ)
	[10:27] PascalHitzler: @JohnMcClure: I'm not sure about the exact difference between template and 
	pattern, if any.    (44U0)
	[10:12] AmandaVizedom: @PascalHitzler, that's a very good and important point: patterns and 
	modularity are related. patterns increase the degree to which chunks of modeling can be plugged into 
	each other with predictable results. That enables modularity and increases reusability.    (44U1)
	[10:28] PascalHitzler: @AmandaVizedom: thanks    (44U2)
	[10:13] MatthewLange: These terms, "patterns", "model", "predictability", "axioms" etc, should be 
	captured in an ontology, if they are not already (perhaps I don't know about the source??)    (44U3)
	[10:14] MikeBennett: @MatthewLange Good agenda for a meta-ontology.    (44U4)
	[10:17] MatthewLange: @MikeBennett indeed, does such an animal exist? of course, it should also 
	contain "description logic" "OWL" , etc, etc    (44U5)
	[10:29] PascalHitzler: @MatthewLange: I agree, although it may be too early to try capture these in 
	an ontology. We definitely need to get a good understanding of notions related to pattern, and of 
	possible relationships between patterns.    (44U6)
	[10:14] SimonSpero: @PascalHitzler :Can either be expressed in OWL ?    (44U7)
	- [10:15] MatthewLange: I can't see live slides, is VNC server down?    (44U8)
	- [10:15] MikeBennett: VNC is OK here.    (44U9)
	- [10:17] PeterYim: @MatthewLange & All, vnc is strictly optional, and people behind corporate 
	firewalls would run into problems unless they try to get ready for it beforehand ... just run the 
	slides on your own desktop - the speakers will prompt everyone to advance slides    (44UA)
	[10:15] MichaelGruninger: @GaryBergCross: do you see a distinction between an ODP and a generic 
	ontology? Hitzler slide 10 is part of an event ontology. You could call it a pattern insofar as it 
	is a pair of axioms that are common across many of the existing event ontologies    (44UB)
	[10:17] GaryBergCross: @MichaelGruninger I think that ODPs are often a PART of a top-level or domain 
	ontology, but selectively and modularly so. So many patterns are pieces of DOLCE    (44UC)
	[10:16] MichaelGruninger morphed into MeganKatsumi    (44UD)
	[10:17] SimonSpero: @PascalHitzler specifically: aren't Property Chains constrained to Object 
	Properties?    (44UE)
	[10:19] QuentinReul: @PascalHitzler Are these patterns added to the ODP repository ( 
	http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Main_Page )?    (44UF)
	[10:22] SteveRay: +1 on QuentinRuel's question    (44UG)
	[10:33] PascalHitzler: our patterns are still work in progress, so they are not yet published 
	anywhere.    (44UH)
	- [10:21] PeterYim: @ALL ... when posting a link here, please leave a blank space before and after 
	the url (the chat-room tends to include your commas or close parentheses as part of the url!    (44UI)
	[10:21] MichaelGruninger: @PascalHitzler: Do you see an ontology pattern as distinct from a 
	subtheory of an ontology (along the lines of Gary's comment)?    (44UJ)
	[10:31] PascalHitzler: @MichaelGruninger: Regarding ODP versus ontology: I would argue that we need 
	to make sure that the patterns are exposed. If you publish only a large ontology, but have lost how 
	it emerges from patterns, then reuse is imo made much more difficult.    (44UK)
	[10:22] ScottHills: @PascalHitzler: Regarding question on slide 17: If you generalize the concepts 
	of TemporalThing (time) and SpatialThing (place) to allow ranges (time interval, spatial extent), I 
	don't think there's any problem considering both applicable to a cruise.    (44UL)
	[10:22] PascalHitzler: I have a few minutes, will try to catch up with chat discussion a bit    (44UM)
	[10:23] JohnYanosy: Sets of patterns to create views is an interesting approach to a situation where 
	a massive ontology might not be feasible to understand.    (44UN)
	[10:26] GaryBergCross: @JohnYanosy Yes, it has bee widely noted that domain people (and perhaps even 
	we knowledge engineers) have difficulty going through and understanding a large ontology and then 
	are faced with how to pick out useful pieces and exclude pieces that might have axioms they don't 
	agree with. A KE can't do it w/o domain knowledge and a domain person cant't understand the 
	formalisms.    (44UO)
	[10:24] MatthewWest: @AliHashemi: I think there is a difference between being able to reuse the 
	pattern, and being able to compare and use together the results of the reuse of the ontology. Reuse 
	of the ontology is eased by fewer axioms, but reuse and comparison/integration of the results of 
	using the ontology is improved if you have more axioms (less chance for unintended models). So it 
	depends what you are trying to achieve.    (44UP)
	[10:25] AliHashemi: @MatthewWest, I agree.    (44UQ)
	[10:26] QuentinReul: @MatthewWest Is it not adding fewer constraining axioms that would reduce 
	complexity and thus increase re-use?    (44UR)
	[10:25] PascalHitzler: @AliHashemi [10:03]: yes, both extremes have problems regarding reuse. 
	Implicit assumptions are a problem of course, yes. I would probably say that implicit assumptions 
	are in fact ontological commitments which have not been communicated. Of course that causes 
	problems.    (44US)
	[10:26] AliHashemi: It seems that at the extreme, a highly modularized ontology might blend into an 
	ontology pattern?    (44UT)
	[10:27] AliHashemi: @PascalHitzler, also agree. @QuentinReul, it depends on how the term is being 
	used. If the usage of the term belies unstated assumptions, then it is a superficial type of "easier 
	reuse"    (44UU)
	[10:27] GaryBergCross: @AliHashemi The modules in such an ontology might.    (44UV)
	[10:27] MikeBennett: @Gary the domain people can understand the formalisms if they are presented and 
	explained in terms of set theory. Where that falls down is with OWL Restrictions, which require some 
	notational footwork to re-frame them as refinements of re-uses of a property.    (44UW)
	[10:28] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett Good lesson from your work out there with people...    (44UX)
	[10:29] LeoObrst: @AliHashemi: yes, I think ontology modules coming mostly top-down meet at ontology 
	patterns coming mostly bottom-up. I think in fact that eventually those patterns, after greater 
	refinement, may correspond to those ontology modules.    (44UY)
	[10:31] ElieAbiLahoud: +1 @LeoObrst reply to AliHashemi    (44UZ)
	[10:29] PascalHitzler: @SimonSpero: Sorry missing reference. re. expressivity in OWL - which slide?    (44V0)
	[10:30] SimonSpero: @PascalHitzler: Slide 14    (44V1)
	[10:30] QuentinReul: @MikeBennett Did you use graphical notations to represent the info to 
	Subject-Matter Experts (SMEs)? If so, what notation did you use? I have found that set theory was 
	sometimes already too difficult for some SMEs    (44V2)
	- [10:30] MatthewLange: @Everyone, could you please use full names, there are two Matthews here, 
	it's getting confusing ;-)    (44V3)
	- [10:32] PeterYim: further to MatthewLange's [10:30], @ALL: please cite full (WikiWord name), every 
	instance that you abbreviate mean another burden on whoever is going to spend time cleaning up the 
	chat-transcript for the archives ... Thanks in advance!    (44V4)
	[10:31] GaryBergCross: Semantic overlap seems to be another way of describing the concept similarity 
	issue.    (44V5)
	[10:31] MatthewWest: @PascalHitzler: When we were developing ISO 15926, one of our primary concerns 
	was to limit the options for how things could be modelled, but at the same time to allow anything to 
	be modelled - the aim being reuse of data. These two desiderata drove a lot of the choices we made.    (44V6)
	[10:32] MikeBennett: @Quentin yes we did - but for this we used a cut-down implementation of OWL 
	which did not include restrictions. We created a nearly Visio-like presentation of nodes and edges 
	(for classes and properties), with datatype properties as textual entries within a box (very 
	UML-like but without any UML notation). Now exploring how to render Restrictions in a similar way.    (44V7)
	[10:32] PascalHitzler: @SimonSpero: I think you're right that property chains are constrained to 
	object properties (my bad). However, that may just be OWL (not sure there's a deeper reason to not 
	allow a datatype property at the end of a chain - it was probably just left out of the standard).    (44V8)
	[10:32] SimonSpero: @PascalHitzler: has an Object Property as a subproperty of a Data Property    (44V9)
	[10:33] SimonSpero: @PascalHitzler: There were some concerns about... decidability    (44VA)
	[10:33] QuentinReul: @MikeBennett I have tried a very similar approach and it didn't quite work. The 
	main issue is trying to express that certain things are together. Could you share some of your 
	diagrams?    (44VB)
	[10:33] MichaelGruninger: @PascalHitzler; Perhaps people should stop publishing LARGE ontologies, 
	and focus on publishing small ontologies that get combined as modules of larger ontologies. 
	COLORE is full of small modules which get combined into larger ontologies. In particular, you 
	can find a modularization of DOLCE    (44VC)
	[10:37] ElieAbiLahoud: @MichaelGruninger "Perhaps people..." YES, like regrouping code in functions, 
	modules, etc...    (44VD)
	[10:33] PascalHitzler: (that was @ScottHills)) we should soon be there though    (44VE)
	[10:33] PascalHitzler: @JohnYanosy: yes!    (44VF)
	[10:34] PascalHitzler: @MatthewWest: what you say is part of a discussion which we really need to 
	have. We do not yet understand these trade-offs well enough yet.    (44VG)
	[10:35] QuentinReul: @MikeBennett I would especially be interested in your current thinking about 
	representation of restrictions    (44VH)
	[10:36] MikeBennett: @Quentin the diagrams are at http://www.hypercube.co.uk/edmcouncil - the 
	current diagrams are slightly different as we have made minor changes to the metamodel (so disjoints 
	and inverses are now dashed not solid lines). These diagrams required a 1 hour explanation to 
	business domain experts before they could participate.    (44VI)
	- [10:38] PeterYim: ^ http://www.hypercube.co.uk/edmcouncil ( http:// missing earlier ) ... ( @ALL: 
	kindly use fully qualified url ... )    (44VJ)
	- [10:38] MikeBennett: Noted - sorry!    (44VK)
	- [10:39] PeterYim: @MikeBennett:, No apologies necessary ... (just trying best to cope with 
	idiosyncrasies of the tools we are living with, and still be lazy :)    (44VL)
	[10:36] MikeBennett: @QuentinReul I can mail you my current proposals (which the more technical 
	people don't like!)    (44VM)
	[10:39] QuentinReul: @MikeBennett I would like that (if not proprietary). I may not like it, but I 
	would not be the main consumer of it    (44VN)
	[10:37] PascalHitzler: @SimonSpero: regarding slide 14: the lower of the two axioms is not 
	expressible in OWL. It has been looked at, though, in research around description logics. IIRC, even 
	for relatively small logics it causes undecidability if used in an unrestricted way.    (44VO)
	[10:38] QuentinReul: Did anyone look at http://www.bit.ly/OpenContractingData ? It seems to be a new 
	standard to represent contracting info    (44VP)
	[10:38] PascalHitzler: @SimonSpero: thanks for the remark about decidability, I'd have to look into 
	this. Very interesting in fact.    (44VQ)
	[10:39] TaraAthan: Regarding the suggestion of small modules that are reused - often axioms use 
	terms that are defined in other modules. When importation of these dependencies is required, you get 
	modules that are not so small anymore. When importation of such dependencies is optional, you may 
	get a shift in semantics. And then there is the question of circular dependencies...    (44VR)
	[10:41] AliHashemi: @TaraAthan, that raises the questions of whether patterns can be that 
	self-contained... And it gets back to the crux of how modules or theories can extend one another    (44VS)
	[10:41] MichaelGruninger: @Tara: Agreed. Ontology designers and users need to be aware when another 
	ontology is being conservatively extended and when it is a nonconservative extension.    (44VT)
	[10:41] SimonSpero: @Pascal @Tara: Quasi second order axioms A la CL / IKL / CycL can capture a lot. 
	CycL macros are also nice    (44VU)
	[10:39] SimonSpero: @PascalHitzler: Right - but there were concerns for some reason about data 
	properties... I need to try and find the email thread (obviously a DPE can only be the terminal 
	property in a chain) - the discussion seemed to peter out    (44VV)
	[10:39] PascalHitzler: @MichaelGruninger: small versus large ontologies: Perhaps, if publishing 
	large ontologies, make sure that the patterns used are still well exposed and easily located.    (44VW)
	[10:43] MatthewLange: @MichaelGruninger, I agree with you about small ontologies, except that 
	sometimes we need to develop knowledge models around the larger value propositions possibly gained 
	by modeling contained domains    (44VX)
	[10:40] PascalHitzler: @SimonSpero: if you find a link, that would be tremendous!    (44VY)
	[10:41] PascalHitzler: I'm afraid I have to leave now for teaching. Thanks a lot to all, and the 
	discussion. Feel free to email me if you have further thoughts    (44VZ)
	[10:41] PeterYim: Bye, Pascal ... thank you for the great talk!    (44W0)
	[10:41] MikeBennett: Thanks Pascal - and thanks for following up the questions.    (44W1)
	[10:22] PeterYim: == AndreaWesterinen presenting ...    (44W2)
	[10:28] PeterYim: @AndreaWesterinen ... [ref. question about previous coverage of iRing in this 
	community] MatthewWest gave a talk about it at the OntologySummit2009_Symposium - see: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009_Symposium#nid1VZT    (44W3)
	[10:28] anonymous2 morphed into JennSleeman    (44W4)
	[10:37] JohnMcClure: Slide 13: Too much complexity, mindboggling tens of thousands of classes... 
	does she mean tens of thousands of Properties?    (44W5)
	[10:43] JohnMcClure: she means annotation properties are separate from the text/object properties    (44W6)
	[10:51] AndreaWesterinen: @JohnMcClure -Slide 13 - I was talking about the full process industry ISO 
	- which makes many subclasses. Sorry for not being clear.    (44W7)
	[10:43] SimonSpero: @MikeBennett: Agreement Technologies (in Springer Law, Governance and Technology 
	series): http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/book/978-94-007-5582-6    (44W8)
	[10:45] AnatolyLevenchuk: ISO 15926 self-education sequence -- 
	http://levenchuk.com/2012/10/01/iso-15926-self-education-sequence/    (44W9)
	[10:47] MatthewWest: @AndreaWesterinen: I would be very surprised if anyone reused all of ISO 15926. 
	Typically, projects use an extended subset, some of what they want is there, and some is not there. 
	The idea is to develop the extensions with reuse in mind, so they can be added back to the whole. 
	ISO 15926 is intended to be reusable and extensible.    (44WA)
	[10:53] VictorAgroskin: @AndreaWesterinen: Looks like you have used mostly data model (ISO 15926-2), 
	not Reference Data Libraries developed for it?    (44WB)
	[10:54] AndreaWesterinen: @VictorAgroskin We looked at both, but yes, mostly the data models.    (44WC)
	[10:58] MatthewWest: @Andrea and Victor: Interestingly it is the data model that contains the key 
	ontology patterns and commitments, and the Reference Data Library that contains the classes that 
	bring the specificity to the patterns. So this is not unexpected when used outside the Process 
	Industries.    (44WD)
	[10:33] MikeBennett: @Andrea when you were finding legal ontologies, did you find any ontologies 
	dealing with contracts?    (44WE)
	[10:56] AndreaWesterinen: @MikeBennett We looked at the Public Contract Ontology, 
	https://code.google.com/p/public-contracts-ontology/    (44WF)
	[10:57] AndreaWesterinen: @MikeBennett ... and ontologies/concepts summarized in the IOS Press book, 
	Law, Ontologies and the Semantic Web    (44WG)
	[10:58] AndreaWesterinen: @MikeBennett For example, they also discuss design patterns in Chapter 3.    (44WH)
	[10:46] anonymous2 morphed into CyndyChandler    (44WI)
	[11:00] AndreaWesterinen: @MatthewWest That was my experience, so thanks for confirming it!    (44WJ)
	[11:07] MatthewWest: @Andrea: if you want to work together on elucidating events/activity in ISO 
	15926 during the summit, I would be happy to help with that.    (44WK)
	[11:09] AndreaWesterinen: @MatthewWest That would be great!! Let's talk off line and then put some 
	thoughts out on the mail list.    (44WL)
	[11:10] VictorAgroskin: @Matthew, Andrea: I've noticed the wish to extend ISO 15926 ontology. It 
	will be beneficial if Andrea extends reference data as it is prescribed by ISO 15926, not data 
	model. Then we (ISO 15926 community) will be able in turn to reuse content developed by another 
	community.    (44WM)
	[11:12] AndreaWesterinen: @Victor We are looking to extend similar to Part 4, which is the reference 
	data. No?    (44WN)
	[11:02] AndreaWesterinen: Previous discussion items about "small" patterns within larger 
	ontologies/models seems like a good way to go. AND ... including mappings where semantics are taken, 
	mapped and extended.    (44WO)
	[11:05] JohnMcClure: @AndreaWesterinen - terrific talk thank you for the time you invested! I was 
	noting that Slide 11 shows three lists of properties, not classes    (44WP)
	[10:58] MikeBennett: @Andrea - cool! Thanks.    (44WQ)
	[10:46] PeterYim: == MeganKatsumi-MichaelGruninger presenting ...    (44WR)
	[10:51] SimonSpero: Ryan Shaw's Dissertation (LODE) is online at http://aeshin.org/dissertation/    (44WS)
	[10:51] SteveRay: @Megan: Where is the best place to find a copy of psl.owl?    (44WT)
	[10:52] MichaelGruninger: @SteveRay: we will be uploading all of the OWL axiomatizations into the 
	OntoHub repository    (44WU)
	[10:52] anonymous2 morphed into BartGajderowicz    (44WV)
	[10:52] AliHashemi: @Megan and Michael, are these extensions available online?    (44WW)
	[10:53] AmandaVizedom: @MeganKatsumi: re: slide 10, can you say something about why you chose SWRL 
	for this?    (44WX)
	[10:54] MichaelGruninger: @Amanda: we wanted a language that combined both OWL and rules    (44WY)
	[10:55] AndreaWesterinen: @Amanda We also are using SWRL. We have tools like Stardog that input and 
	reason with SWRL.    (44WZ)
	[10:54] FrankLoebe: @Megan @Michael: Are the translations from first-order PSL to OWL and SWRL 
	(partially?) automatic?    (44X0)
	[10:55] MichaelGruninger: @FrankLoebe: the translation definitions between the ontologies are 
	manually generated.    (44X1)
	[10:58] AmandaVizedom: @MichaelGruninger, @MeganKatsumi & AndreaWesterinen: One reason I asked is 
	that it's counter to what I perceive as dominant approach in semweb. Seems as if many OWL users 
	bypass SWRL and use SPARQL queries, and scripts executing them, in place of declarative rules. This 
	has some obvious shortcomings (loses benefits of being declarative, for example), but is common. 
	SWRL approach caught my attention.    (44X2)
	[10:58] PeterYim: @MeganKatsumi & MichaelGruninger, great talk! is there documentation that 
	elaborates on the results (at least to the extent supporting the "preliminary results" cited on your 
	slide#15?    (44X3)
	[11:03] MeganKatsumi: @PeterYim: We're finishing up a draft to submit to the Journal of Web 
	Semantics    (44X4)
	[11:04] MeganKatsumi: We can also distribute some preliminary notes    (44X5)
	[11:07] PeterYim: @MeganKatsumi, thank you ... please contribute that in time because your research 
	(and the results, even if preliminary) is so relevant to this Summit (the journal paper timeline may 
	work off a different pace)    (44X6)
	[11:02] SimonSpero: @MichaeGruninger, @Megan Ryan Shaw asked whether you also looked at F ( 
	http://west.uni-koblenz.de/Research/ontologies/events/event-model-f-kcap.pdf )    (44X7)
	[11:03] SimonSpero: @MichaeGruninger, @Megan: And points out that LODE was not explicitly designed 
	for reasoning, so the evaluation is meaningful    (44X8)
	[11:02] PeterYim: == Q & A and Open Discussion ...    (44X9)
	[11:03] DennisWisnosky: Time at the end is a shock.    (44XA)
	[11:07] GaryBergCross: PASCAL showed building the cruise pattern using the trajectory pattern which 
	in turn used an event pattern.    (44XB)
	[11:08] MichaelGruninger: @SimonSpero: Yes, we had planned on including the F-model of events; one 
	of the obstacles was its tight integration with DOLCE Ultralight. This hearkens back to the earlier 
	comments about reusing modules of ontologies rather than the entire ontology    (44XC)
	[11:08] AndreaWesterinen: @JohnMcClure Yes, slide 11 is from FIBO. Their object/data/annotation 
	properties were very well thought out and defined.    (44XD)
	[11:09] MichaelGruninger: @MikeBennett: I missed what you just said about activities and events -- 
	could you repeat in the chat?    (44XE)
	[11:11] MikeBennett: We considered Event to be something with a time and a place (and, implicitly 
	some cause therefore some causal agent). Extending this to an Event in which there is some Actor - 
	what that equates to is an Act or Activity, and Activities become (along with Events) the building 
	blocks of a Process. And so on. At this point the pattern diverges from ones that others have used, 
	but it seems to match the common sense meanings.    (44XF)
	[11:12] MikeBennett: @Michael also these concepts have mappings to concepts in REA under different 
	names (e.g. REA "Event" is an Activity).    (44XG)
	[11:13] JohnYanosy: A question for Andrea regarding Network management ontology - in this context 
	there are network elements with static performance capabilities and instances in time of dynamic 
	variables, which affect or influence higher level network performance variables, such as cost, 
	availability, utilization, etc. Many of these higher level concepts are not logical results of 
	elements but rather require higher level mathematical processing to relate them. What role do you 
	see for an ontology in this context? Possible external mathematical reasoning models may be required 
	to create network level performance instances related to dynamic network element instances?    (44XH)
	[11:13] MatthewWest: @Victor, Andrea: I agree. There is supposed to be enough data model, though 
	there is the possibility of finding other patterns in class_of_relationship which you might want to 
	give more prominence to. So a way to discover and document those for reuse might be useful. Of 
	course the templates are supposed to cover that.    (44XI)
	[11:13] AndreaWesterinen: @Victor and @MatthewWest But, there may be data model extensions.    (44XJ)
	[11:14] GaryBergCross: I agree with what MichaelGruninger just said about the limitations of 
	building blocks. It remains a challenge to understand the limits of reuse and under what conditions 
	these are reasonable.    (44XK)
	[11:15] MatthewWest: @Andrea: extensions to the data model are not in possible, but there have been 
	no updates in 10+years now.    (44XL)
	[11:15] AliHashemi: @Simon, but all. Since you mentioned in your comment that the LODE was designed 
	without reasoning in mind, could elaborate how one accesses the semantics of a concept or a term and 
	how that is different from reasoning about the term/concept?    (44XM)
	[11:17] SimonSpero: AliHashemi: I believe the focus was on Intentional descriptions - see Ryan's 
	dissertation above    (44XN)
	[11:17] AndreaWesterinen: @JohnYanosy Do you want to collaborate a bit offline and discuss this further?    (44XO)
	[11:19] AmandaVizedom: @MichaelGruninger: some of the philosophers are pragmatists. ;-)    (44XP)
	[11:20] MatthewWest: @Amanda: Yes, I sometimes describe myself as an applied philosopher :-)    (44XQ)
	[11:22] ToddSchneider: To clarify, the ability to reuse an ontology is dependent on the 'congruence' 
	of the set of intended interpretations. And (hopefully) any inferencing will preserve these interpretations.    (44XR)
	[11:22] MichaelGruninger: @AndreaWesterinen, MikeBennett, GaryBergCross -- the track questions on 
	slide 15 of Gary's slide are great!    (44XS)
	[11:23] AndreaWesterinen: @Peter I can start a thread on each question.    (44XT)
	[11:25] PeterYim: @AndreaWesterinen ... by all means, that's what the [ontology-summit] discussion 
	list and the wiki page at 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014_Common_Reusable_Semantic_Content_CommunityInput are for    (44XU)
	[11:24] GaryBergCross / MikeBennett: Please suggest speakers for the second Track A session.    (44XV)
	[11:23] VictorAgroskin: @Andrea: ISO 15926 data model has some limitations because of ontology 
	foundations. One obstacle you can meet in network-related modelling can be in the modelling of 
	"information" domain. ISO 15926 just is not designed to transparently type things like "byte", 
        "package", "file", not to say "protocol" or "handshake". If there is some established ontology for
	that - I'll really recommend to use it, just making a link to ISO 15926 ontology at very high level.    (44XX)
	[11:24] AmandaVizedom: @MatthewWest: I sometimes describe myself as an applied epistemologist, entirely 
	straightforwardly, but of course that phrase is meaningful to even fewer people than ""ontologist"" is. :-)    (44XY)
	[11:24] AndreaWesterinen: @VictorAgroskin I agree, but the team was looking to reuse tools that were 
	designed for the ISO models. We can start from class_of_class :-).    (44XZ)
	[11:25] JohnYanosy: @AndreaWesterinen I would love to collaborate off-line. My email is jyanosyjr [at] gmail.com    (44Y0)
	[11:25] MikeBennett: Modularity and re-usability as an issue to explore (see Q4 on Slide 15 of Gary's slides)    (44Y1)
	[11:25] AndreaWesterinen: @VictorAgroskin Also byte, packet, etc. are more units than specific classes.    (44Y2)
	[11:26] SteveRay: So I'm gathering that the main places to find collections of reusable ontologies 
	or patterns are: http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Ontology_Design_Patterns_._org_%28ODP%29 , 
	http://www.ontohub.org/ , and http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository . 
	Yes? Other places to start?    (44Y3)
	[11:28] PeterYim: @SteveRay - try also: http://oor.net ... note also that an ontology repository is 
	being stood up to collect ontologies that crosses path with this Summit - see: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014#nid442O    (44Y4)
	[11:27] MichaelGruninger: @SteveRay: Oliver Kutz is coordinating efforts in Track G: Community 
	Resources on uploading specific ontologies that arise thorughout the Summit into the open ontology 
	repositories, particularly OntoHub    (44Y5)
	[11:28] MariaPoveda: I guess you already know about http://lov.okfn.org for looking for ontologies    (44Y6)
	[11:33] SteveRay: For the record: I was asking for a "WordNet for ontologies"    (44Y7)
	[11:34] MeganKatsumi: @SteveRay: We also have some experiences in looking for ontologies that 
	capture the semantics of actors -- we can continue this discussion on the Track list    (44Y8)
	[11:35] AndreaWesterinen: We used annotation properties in our class definitions, wordNetSynonym, 
	wordNetHypernym and wordNetHyponym, to capture semantics for our classes in the hopes of using this 
	for mapping someday.    (44Y9)
	[11:26] GaryBergCross: MichaelGruninger I like this idea of exploring modularity... BTW AldoGangemi 
	will be a future speaker in Track C Bottlenecks, I believe..    (44YA)
	[11:26] AndreaWesterinen: @MikeBennett and MichaelGruninger +1 on modularity    (44YB)
	[11:29] JohnYanosy: I think there are some lessons to be learned from the Object Oriented community 
	who had similar problems of scope of classes by developers. In early years many very large objects 
	were created. Are there similarities?    (44YC)
	[11:29] GaryBergCross: @JohnMcClure So modularity might be necessary but not sufficient. It may get 
	us to a research space that we can understand better getting there in steps.    (44YD)
	[11:31] MatthewWest: @AndreaWesterinen: the problem with modularity is that, as you found with FIBO, 
	you find that if you try to use one bit, you quickly find you need to use many other modules to do 
	anything useful. Also the separate modules have to be consistent with each other. So I think it is 
	more useful to think in terms of core ontologies, or foundation ontologies, and domain ontologies 
	that are essentially class libraries that give you the specific vocabulary for a domain.    (44YE)
	[11:32] GaryBergCross: I have to get off for another meeting.. Thanks everyone. Let's keep the 
	discussion going on the forum.    (44YF)
	[11:33] SimonSpero: @AndreaWesterinen: So are you going to develop a BER/PER serialization for RDF?    (44YG)
	[11:33] ToddSchneider: @AndreaWesterinen, do you have an architecture for network management 
	ontologies?    (44YH)
	[11:33] AmandaVizedom: This is the direction addressed by some repositories, but only currently 
	works within those repositories. LOV most oriented toward reuse, perhaps.    (44YI)
	[11:34] PeterYim: @ALL: if you are not subscribed to the [ontology-summit] mailing list yet, please 
	do so - http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit (or drop me a line - peter.yim [at] 
	cim3.com)    (44YJ)
	[11:34] PeterYim: @all ... Session-03 will be up next Thursday- Thu 2014.01.30 (same time) - see 
	developing details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_01_30    (44YK)
	[11:34] PeterYim: Reminder to those in the organizing committee, our 5th meeting coming up tomorrow 
	- Fri 2014.01.24 - see: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014/GettingOrganized#nid44G0    (44YL)
	[11:35] PeterYim: We still need volunteers as co-champions in Public Relations and Program 
	Management, if you are interested, if indicate here, email <peter.yim@cim3.com> offline, and come to 
	our organizing committee meeting tomorrow    (44YM)
	[11:35] PeterYim: great session ... bye, everyone!    (44YN)
	[11:36] MikeBennett: Thanks all for a great session and some really directions for further 
	exploration in the area of semantics re-use!    (44YO)
	[11:36] AndreaWesterinen: I will try to publish more about the network management work over the next few weeks.    (44YP)
	[11:38] JohnYanosy: Thanks for wonderful session. I will collaborate on some Network Management 
	ontology issues on the listserv    (44YQ)
	[11:36] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:33am PST --    (44YR)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (44DE)

Additional Resources:    (44DL)

For the record ...    (44DT)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (44DU)

Conference Call Details    (44BD)

Attendees    (44CA)