OntologySummit2014 session-06: Synthesis-I & Communique Discussion-I - Thu 2014-02-20    (45M6)

Program:    (46PE)

Archives:    (46PN)

Abstract:    (45M8)

OntologySummit2014 Session-06: "Synthesis-I & Communique Outline Discussion" - intro slides    (46PW)

This is our 9th OntologySummit, a joint initiative by Ontolog, NIST, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD with the support of our co-sponsors.    (46PX)

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.    (46PY)

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.    (46PZ)

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.    (46Q0)

At the Launch Event on 16 Jan 2014, the organizing team has provided an overview of the program, and how we will be framing the discourse - namely, to pursue that along four different content tracks that address different aspects of the issue at hand.    (46Q1)

In today's session, we will take inventory of the what has transpired in the OntologySummit2014 proceedings so far, and present the syntheses of the discourse of each of the four content tracks. The co-lead Editors will be presenting a first draft of the Communique Outline. An open discussion among the editors, the track co-champions and all the participants will ensue, with an aim towards arriving at a near-final OntologySummit2014 Communique Outline, which will frame how this year's Communique will get developed by all parties concerned.    (46Q2)

More details about this OntologySummit is available at: OntologySummit2014 (homepage for this summit)    (46Q3)

Agenda:    (46Q4)

OntologySummit2014 - Panel Session-06    (46Q5)

Proceedings:    (46QH)

Please refer to the above    (46QI)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:    (46QJ)

 see raw transcript here.    (46QK)
 (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.    (46QL)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (46QM)
	Chat transcript from room: summit_20140220
	2014-02-20 GMT-08:00 [PST]
	------    (46U5)
	[9:11] PeterYim: Welcome to the    (46U6)
	 = OntologySummit2014 session-06: Synthesis-I & Communique Discussion-I - Thu 2014-02-20 =    (46U7)
	Summit Theme: OntologySummit2014: "Big Data and Semantic Web Meet Applied Ontology"    (46U8)
	Session Topic: OntologySummit2014 Synthesis-I & Communique Outline Discussion    (46U9)
	Session Co-chairs: Dr. LeoObrst and Dr. ToddSchneider    (46UA)
	PROGRAM:    (46UB)
	* Dr. LeoObrst, Professor MichaelGruninger (in absentia) & Dr. ToddSchneider 
	  - "Opening, General Assessment & Fine-tuning of OntologySummit2014 Direction & Approach"    (46UC)
	* Ms. AndreaWesterinen, Dr. GaryBergCross, Mr. MikeBennett - Track A: Common Reusable Semantic Content - Synthesis-I    (46UD)
	* Professor AlanRector, Dr. ChristophLange - Track B: Making use of Ontologies: Tools, Services, and Techniques - Synthesis-I    (46UE)
	* Dr. MatthewWest, Professor PascalHitzler, Professor KrzysztofJanowicz - Track C: Overcoming Ontology Engineering Bottlenecks - Synthesis-I    (46UF)
	* Professor KenBaclawski, Professor AnneThessen (in absentia) - Track D: Tackling the Variety Problem in Big Data - Synthesis-I    (46UG)
	** followed by an Open Discussion on what are the key take home messages, and positions we want to assume, as the Summit community (ALL)    (46UH)
	* Dr. LeoObrst & Professor MichaelGruninger (in absentia) - Approach to the OntologySummit2014 Communique and Proposed Draft Outline    (46UI)
	** followed by an Open Discussion towards finalizing the 2014 Communique Outline (ALL)    (46UJ)
	Logistics:    (46UK)
	* Refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_02_20    (46UL)
	* (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName; 
          also please enable "Show timestamps" while there.    (46UM)
	* Mute control (phone keypad): *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute    (46UN)
	* Attn: Skype users ... see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_02_20#nid45MI
	** 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    (46UO)
	* when posting in this Chat-room, kindly observe the following ...
	** whenever a name is used, please use the full WikiWord name format (every time you don't, some volunteer will have to make an edit afterwards)
	** always provide context (like: "[ref. JaneDoe's slide#12], I think the point about context is great" ... rather than "that's great!" 
	   as the latter would mean very little in the archives.)
	** when responding to a specific individual's earlier remarks, please cite his/her full WikiWord names *and* 
	   the timestamp (in PST) of his/her post that you are responding to (e.g. "@JaneDoe [11:09] - I agree, but, ...")
	** use fully qualified url's (include http:// ) without symbols (like punctuations or parentheses, etc.) right before of after that URL    (46UP)
	Attendees: AlanRector, AleksandraSojic, AmandaVizedom, AnatolyLevenchuk, AndreaWesterinen, 
	BartGajderowicz, BobbinTeegarden, BruceBray, CarolBean, ChristiKapp, ChristophLange, DennisWisnosky, 
	EarlGlynn, EdBernot, ElieAbiLahoud, ElisaKendall, EricChan, FrankOlken, GaryBergCross, HaroldBoley, 
	HensonGraves, JacoDuPreez, JonTutcher, KenBaclawski, KrzysztofJanowicz, LamarHenderson, LeoObrst, 
	LesMorgan, LianaKiff, MarcelaVegetti, MatthewWest, MikeBennett, MikeDean, OliverKutz, PeterYim, 
	SundayOjo, TerryLongstreth, ToddSchneider, UriShani, VictorAgroskin,    (46UQ)
	 == Proceedings ==    (46UR)
	[9:29] anonymous morphed into AlanRector    (46US)
	[9:31] ChristineKapp morphed into ChristiKapp    (46UT)
	[9:33] anonymous morphed into EarlGlynn    (46UU)
	[9:33] anonymous morphed into LesMorgan    (46UV)
	[9:34] anonymous1 morphed into ElieAbiLahoud    (46UW)
	[9:35] anonymous morphed into LamarHenderson    (46UX)
	[9:36] PeterYim: == LeoObrst starts the session on behalf of the Summit General Co-chairs and the 
	Session Co-chairs - see slides under: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_02_20#nid46PQ    (46UY)
	- [9:36] anonymous morphed into ElisaKendall    (46UZ)
	- [9:38] anonymous morphed into BobbinTeegarden    (46V0)
	[9:43] PeterYim: == AndreaWesterinen presenting Track-A Synthesis-I ...    (46V1)
	[9:53] LeoObrst: @AndreaWesterinen: good point about "governance". We should add this to our list of 
	important issues for the Communique.    (46V2)
	- [9:54] anonymous morphed into JonTutcher    (46V3)
	[9:54] LeoObrst: Vocabularies vs. ontologies: need both.    (46V4)
	[9:55] TerryLongstreth: @Andrea slide 4, item 7 "Can the data and its quality be trusted"- I think 
	this is one of the most important unexplored questions across all disciplines mentioned, and it's 
	not just pertinent to reuse, but to ANY use.    (46V5)
	[9:56] ChristophLange: @TerryLongstreth: our group is doing research on assessing the quality of 
	LOD, currently implementing this: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj556.pdf    (46V6)
	[9:58] ToddSchneider: Track-A: Could you explain more about the following item that was on slide 10: 
	* Each module and its concepts, properties, axioms, ... well-documented via well-established labels 
	and predicates ** SKOS, etc. ** A search for primitives "    (46V7)
	[10:05] MikeBennett: @ToddSchneider [9:58] one thing that we found with people's practical 
	experience of ontologies, was how it helps if the concepts in the ontology are well documented. for 
	example FIBO has an extended set of SKOS annotations for definitions, scope notes and the like, and 
	this was found to be helpful to someone re-using the ontology.    (46V8)
	[10:09] ToddSchneider: MikeBennett, Most assuredly the documentation of ontology and provenance of 
	sources use in the development is critical (and very tedious). Use of SKOS or similar capabilities 
	for annotations, to the extent they are relevant, would be useful.    (46V9)
	[10:05] AndreaWesterinen: @ToddSchneider, [9:58] Slide 10's reference to well-documented and 
	established labels and predicates meant to highlight the need for deciding on a set of labels and 
	primitive predicates that can be used in tooling. For example, SKOS defines a wide set of labels 
	that convey different kinds of information/documentation, and also defines simple primitives about 
	broader/more specific (superclassing/subclassing) concepts. The problem is usually not a 
	disagreement about the semantics but a disagreement about the name of it. We need to get the 
	primitives right, and then maybe define how different existing ontologies and schemas implement 
	them.    (46VA)
	[10:10] ToddSchneider: Andrea, I still not clear as to what you have in mind. What did you have in 
	mind regarding 'Primitives'? How should this be interpreted?    (46VB)
	[10:17] MikeBennett: @Todd [10:10] In terms of "Primitives" one thing that came up was the 
	comparison of the idea of discoverable ontology design patterns versus framing of semantically 
	primitive concepts as ODPs. Partly 2 ways of saying the same thing, partly something to unpack 
	further in terms of what to look for in re-usable high level concepts that can be extended or 
	re-applied in people's own ontologies.    (46VC)
	[10:18] ToddSchneider: MikeBennett, could you expand on what you mean by, or the intended 
	interpretation(s) of, "semantically primitive concepts"?    (46VD)
	[10:20] GaryBergCross: @ToddSchneider, [9:58] question on Slide 10 for track A - the idea of 
	primitives was raised in the [ontology-summit chat] Are there primitive concepts?    (46VE)
	[10:20] MikeBennett: @Todd My own take on this would be concepts which are the "Simplest kind of 
	thing" for a particular definition of a kind of thing. Example: Event. The simplest thing which is 
	an event is something with a time and a place. The simplest thing that is a contract is something 
	which, if you remove any one property, it's no longer that which is a contract (perhaps it is a deed 
	or a covenant).    (46VF)
	[10:23] ToddSchneider: Gary, MikeBennett, Got it. Thank you. I agree there should be some notions 
	that for many (most?) uses don't require further decomposition.    (46VG)
	[10:24] GaryBergCross: @Todd on this topic of primitives WernerKuhn's talk also raised this idea of 
	image schema basics.    (46VH)
	[10:28] MikeBennett: Re @GaryBergCross [10:24} WernerKuhn's talk is at 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/2014-02-06_OntologySummit2014_Overcoming-Ontology-Engineering-Bottlenecks-1/OntologySummit2014_abstracting-behavior-in-ontology-engineering--WernerKuhn_20140206.pdf    (46VI)
	[9:56] PeterYim: == ChristophLange & AlanRector presenting Track-B Synthesis-I ...    (46VJ)
	[10:02] AmandaVizedom: @AlanRector - re slide#4 -- Rather than asking about a dichotomy [ontology in 
	narrow sense|all of knowledge representation], what about looking at a spectrum of things that are 
	more or less ontological? It seems that much progress has been allowed in recent years by allowing 
	for variety among things that are properly considered ontologies, without equating that with all of 
	KR. Specifying all dimensions of such variety is hard and unsettled, but even with this vagueness it 
	has allowed for progress.    (46VK)
	[10:01] ToddSchneider: [ref. slide#4 - "Limitations of tools"] Tools? Many people would like better, 
	or perhaps some, visualization capabilities.    (46VL)
	[10:16] JonTutcher: visualisation tools may well be difficult, but they would be extremely handy in 
	demonstrating ontologies - and would dramatically help the 'buy-in' issue from industry in my 
	case...    (46VM)
	[10:05] BobbinTeegarden: @ToddSchneider Tool with real visualization capabilities, plus CRUD 
	capabilities to enable a wider group of modelers/developers to create their own ontologies.    (46VN)
	[10:06] AndreaWesterinen: @BobbinTeegarden, [10:05] +1 for CRUD    (46VO)
	[10:11] ToddSchneider: Bobbin, many people create 'ontologies' now. The quality is another issue. 
	Visualization by itself probably won't help with the quality issue.    (46VP)
	[10:13] ChristophLange: @BobbinTeegarden [10:05] "real visualization capabilities" may be hard to 
	achieve. E.g. in our research group we are working with Linked Data obtained from diverse sources 
	such as relational DB, XML, CSV, etc., which are turned into LOD to facilitate integration and 
	reuse. Fine, but when you then apply LOD visualization tools (which exist!) to such data, we are at 
	this point not sure whether they will be helpful, as representing RDB, XML, CSV, etc. in RDF graphs 
	create artifacts that hinder visualization. OTOH how _would_ you visualize "big" knowledge from 
	these diverse sources in a coherent, integrated fashion?    (46VQ)
	[10:09] BobbinTeegarden: @Todd @Andrea It would be even greater to make CRUD into CRUDE -- the E for 
	Execute, the ability to trigger a 'uri' such as ...url.fooJavaCode.exe to actually execute, 
	surrounded by properties and data it needs in the ontology. Too far out?    (46VR)
	[10:13] ToddSchneider: Bobbin, the ability to integrate an ontology into an operational system to 
	allow the scenario you suggest is still an open problem.    (46VS)
	[10:14] AmandaVizedom: @BobbinTeegarden [10:09] -- Not too far out, depending on what you mean by 
	"Execute." IMHO, ontology development and evaluation (including for potential use), work best when 
	the tool environment enables testing out the behavior of some executable application using the 
	ontology. Some environment do provide the ability to trigger indexing, reasoning, or q&a types of 
	tests manually or automatically on ontology revision. In principle, many other types of application 
	could be hooked in. Unfortunately the environments that do this are mostly proprietary / in-house. 
	But it can be done, and it isn't too soon. {nid 46VT}

	[10:23] BobbinTeegarden: @Amanda thanks, and true. But is there were a development tool that lets 
	you model 'executable' things (via URIs) into your ontology, then add an E capability even to the 
	Sparql CRUD, you can almost get to a new generation of 'executable' ontologies. And I agree, there 
	are a few tools that almost get there; maybe it's emergent? 

	[10:06] MatthewWest: What are the tools that are being used for Big Data? 

	[10:09] AmandaVizedom: @MatthewWest [10:06] - I think you've just nailed a question we could do 
	better with: we've sampled some tools, but we don't have a good sense of the range of what's out 
	there. Even just focusing on tools used to bring elements of Big Data, Sem Web, and Ontology 
	together, I think we don't yet have an overall sense of what is in use. 

	[10:11] GaryBergCross: [ref. the Track-B slide#9 re. UML issues] Alan There was discussion on the 
	Ontolog Forum of grounding UML - e.g. JohnSowa and WilliamFrank had an exchange on UML See 

	[10:09] PeterYim: == MatthewWest presenting Track-C Synthesis-I ... 

	- [10:13] PeterYim: ... now on slide#7 (labeled "8") ... [I have since renumbered the slide. =ppy] 

	- [10:16] PeterYim: ... now on slide#8 (labeled "7") ... [I have since renumbered the slide. =ppy] 

	[10:17] PeterYim: == KenBaclawski presenting the Track-D Synthesis-I ... 

	- [10:25] KrzysztofJanowicz: (I have to leave now) 

	[10:28] PeterYim: == Open Discussion on what are the key take home messages, and positions we want 
	to assume, as the Summit community ... 

	[10:26] LamarHenderson: Paper on visualization tools: Simon Suigen Guo and Christine W. Chan - "A 
	Comparison and Analysis of Some Ontology Visualization Tools" (2011) 

	[10:19] BobbinTeegarden: @Christoph Would love URLs to visualization tools. The one's I've seen 
	present 'isA' trees, which don't really show the rich ontology around them. In the presence of the 
	plethora or Big Ontologies, it would be great to see a target item plus a few 'rings' out from that 
	focal point, with the ability to refocus on other things presented. 

	[10:31] ChristophLange: @BobbinTeegarden [10:19] But doesn't the thing that you wish for sound like 
	the "touch graph" visualization that has been around for RDF for quite a while? 

	[10:32] BobbinTeegarden: @Christoph Tool(s)? 

	[10:35] ChristophLange: @BobbinTeegarden [10:32] not sure what you mean by "Tool(s)"? If you are 
	referring to "thing" in my question, yes, this word should have been "tool(s)    (46Y9)
	[10:40] BobbinTeegarden: @Christoph I was looking for a URL to tools such as TouchGraph, found lots 
	for TouchGraph, thanks.    (46WA)
	[10:45] ChristophLange: @BobbinTeegarden [10:40] actually I haven't _used_ a touch graph browser for 
	a while. If you found anything particularly useful, you might want to post the link    (46WB)
	[10:31] AndreaWesterinen: @ToddSchneider, MikeBennett and GaryBergCross "Primitives" (IMHO) are not 
	just concepts but predicates and properties too. So, you get the generalization/inheritance concepts 
	in OWL, ISO 15926, SKOS, ..., labels and concepts like events. They are the semantics that are not 
	broken down further.    (46WC)
	[10:32] MikeBennett: @Andrea good way of putting it.    (46WD)
	[10:32] GaryBergCross: One observation which reflects what KenBaclawski said - the 4 tracks have 
	interesting overlaps. Tools are needed for reuse and to handle variety and bottlenecks.    (46WE)
	[10:33] GaryBergCross: We in Track A have made an effort in our 2nd session to have speakers address 
	LOD and Big Data issues more directly.    (46WF)
	[10:23] (repeating) BobbinTeegarden: @Amanda thanks, and true. But is there were a development tool 
	that lets you model 'executable' things (via URIs) into your ontology, then add an E capability even 
	to the Sparql CRUD, you can almost get to a new generation of 'executable' ontologies. And I agree, 
	there are a few tools that almost get there; maybe it's emergent?    (46WG)
	[10:35] AmandaVizedom: @Bobbin [10:23] - Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, that's a bit different. There 
	are tools that recognize some kinds of documents and will open them with appropriate software if 
	clicked on. That suggests execution hooks that may (depending on tool architecture) be readily 
	extensible, but I don't know. Some environments have an architecture that allows for the 
	representation of tests and execution from within the KB browser / ontology environment (Cyc has 
	this). Some have the ability to do a two-layer thing, in which you represent an executable thing and 
	what it does (especially what it knows about, if it is an information source), and then a code 
	plug-in is needed to provide translations to-from the objects input language, enabling integrated 
	querying. Otherwise, I think that the kind of thing you're talking about is present in many specific 
	integrated Semantic Information Systems, but not general tools for building new ones.    (46WH)
	[10:35] GaryBergCross: MichelDumontier Associate Professor of Medicine at Stanford Center for 
	Biomedical Informatics Research Stanford University will speak at the Track A session. He has worked 
	in Drug Discovery area and serves as a co-chair for the World Wide Web Consortium Semantic Web for 
	Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group (W3C HCLSIG) and is the Scientific Director for 
	Bio2RDF, a widely recognized open-source project to create and provide linked data for life 
	sciences. ... [ref. also MichelDumontier's talk he gave at the last OntologySummit - 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_03_21#nid3NSX ]    (46WI)
	[10:38] TerryLongstreth: @Christoph [9:56] & [10:13] The work you describe is useful for particular 
	contexts, but I'm more concerned with trust and trustworthiness. We continue to receive lessons from 
	day-to-day life about how little control there is in simple things like protecting personal data 
	(credit card numbers for example). Not all breaches of trust are intentional or malicious, but any 
	breach can create problems for processes relying on the affected intensional or extensional data. If 
	you establish that certain LOD instances properly represent the intension or extension to be used in 
	some circumstance, what measures are in place to prevent changes to those instances (or to 
	communicate necessary changes). Also the source of the information has its own 
	quality/trustworthiness questions. When the OOR, or github or CYC or NIH goes out of business, what 
	guarantees can dependent processes have that the information in question won't be breached. 
	Admittedly that's a little far-fetched, but I'm sure this forum can bring forward other, more 
	subtle, examples as for example, changes in medical knowledge that may not have been properly 
	included in some central data source.    (46WJ)
	[10:42] TerryLongstreth: For an example of evaluating trustworthiness, see AUDIT AND CERTIFICATION 
	http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/652x0m1.pdf    (46WK)
	[10:44] ChristophLange: @TerryLongstreth [10:38] Trust (but rather trust_ability_ of datasets, not 
	really the "preventing change"/"dependent processes" aspects _you've_ just mentioned) is named as 
	one dimension of "data quality" in http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj556.pdf 
	section 4.3. However I can't say much more as I'm not personally a trust expert.    (46WL)
	[10:51] TerryLongstreth: Thanks Christoph.    (46WM)
	[10:38] AndreaWesterinen: It is important to get "concrete" and not just discuss the problems in 
	general, but specific examples and solutions.    (46WN)
	[10:41] GaryBergCross: One small caution on "concrete" and "specific." One may cite work that is 
	both but it may not be clear how to reuse or build on these. I like it when a speaker bridges from 
	specific work to show how it might be a building block or lever for other efforts.    (46WO)
	[10:42] DennisWisnosky: I believe that spending at least as much time on success stories such as the 
	Encyclopedia of Life talk[1] and the where is the ice talks[2] that we heard last week, and mining 
	them for incremental progress as we spend on identifying problems and making wishes would well serve 
	the community. ... [1] ref. 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_02_13#nid468J ; [2] ref. 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_02_13#nid468L    (46WP)
	[10:45] ToddSchneider: Dennis, many of the success stories are hidden behind corporate policy.    (46WQ)
	[10:50] KenBaclawski: @Todd [10:45] One cannot expect to get open source software from corporations 
	(although sometimes they do release software this way), but they frequently seem to be very willing 
	to say quite a lot about their projects, as we have seen from IBM and Oracle.    (46WR)
	[10:52] ToddSchneider: Ken, my experience suggests that IBM, Oracle, Wells Fargo may be in the 
	minority w.r.t. their willingness to provide public information about their projects.    (46WS)
	[10:43] PeterYim: == LeoObrst presenting the proposed OntologySummit2014 Communique draft outline on 
	behalf of the co-lead editors ... see: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/2014-02-20_OntologySummit2014_Synthesis-1/Communique_OntologySummit2014_draft-outline--LeoObrst-MichaelGruninger_20140220c.pdf    (46WT)
	[10:49] ToddSchneider: Andrea, [10:31] AndreaWesterinen: @ToddSchneider, MikeBennett and 
	GaryBergCross "Primitives" (IMHO) are not just concepts but predicates and properties too." My 
	interpretation of 'concept' is not constrained to types/classes/categories. I usually use the term 
	'notion' to avoid mis-interpretation.    (46WU)
	[10:50] MikeBennett: @Todd surely there a concept and there are ways in which you represent that 
	concept.    (46WV)
	[10:55] ToddSchneider: MikeBennett, The notion of 'concept' is itself 'fuzzy' and open to multiple 
	interpretations.    (46WW)
	[10:57] AndreaWesterinen: @ToddSchneider [10:55] Agree that the word "concept" is overloaded. Is 
	your use of "notion" = the more general concepts, predicates, etc.?    (46WX)
	[10:58] ToddSchneider: Andrea, Yes. I try to avoid specificity as long as possible.    (46WY)
	- [10:58] ElieAbiLahoud: Thank you Leo and all for this session, I have to drop off now.    (46WZ)
	[10:56] AndreaWesterinen: @Leo, slide #5 Track A and B certainly align on the need for tooling and 
	ontologies assisting in Big Data annotation or understanding/aligning the data.    (46X0)
	[10:58] ChristophLange: @AndreaWesterinen: not yet sure how we'll resolve this in the final document 
	-- maybe by the Track A champions and the Track B champions each writing up on their view on tools, 
	and then moving text between the sections and/or cross-referencing as appropriate?    (46X1)
	[10:59] AndreaWesterinen: @ChristophLange [10:58] Or, we outline and split up the work - making the 
	discussions relevant/tuned to the different foci?    (46X2)
	[11:00] AndreaWesterinen: @ChristophLange [10:58] I see your discussion as more general and Track A 
	as more focused on reuse.    (46X3)
	[11:03] AndreaWesterinen: @LeoObrst, slide #7 Again, there is lots of overlap but Track D seems more 
	tuned to specific, concrete uses and expanding on the Big Data issues, while Track A is again more 
	about reuse.    (46X4)
	[11:09] GaryBergCross: Expanding on my comment of [10:32] I would expect that Track A would broach 
	the topic of Tools and Tooling but do this in coordination with Track B and help introduce what they 
	might elaborate on.    (46X5)
	[11:05] AndreaWesterinen: Slide #9 - It might be better to talk about governance in #4 AND curation.    (46X6)
	[11:06] PeterYim: == Open Discussion towards finalizing the 2014 Communique Outline ...    (46X7)
	[11:06] TerryLongstreth: @LeoObrst - slide 9, item 4 - Crowdsourcing curation has major implications 
	for content quality and trustworthiness of the content and the source/supplier.    (46X8)
	[11:12] TerryLongstreth: Experiences with the Delphi technique might inform our crowdsourcing 
	discussion. Assuming that the goal of crowdsourcing is consensus, it certainly is vulnerable to the 
	same pitfalls as Delphi.    (46X9)
	[11:13] KenBaclawski: @TerryLongstreth [11:06] Maintaining provenance information is especially 
	important for crowdsourcing so that one can develop and apply tools that can help determine quality 
	and trustworthiness. The results of such analyses are themselves subject to testing for quality and 
	trustworthiness.    (46XA)
	[11:17] TerryLongstreth: @KenBaclawski [11:13] Good. Would the communique perhaps discuss approaches 
	to recording and managing provenance information?    (46XB)
	[11:18] AndreaWesterinen: @TerryLongstreth [11:17] Provenance is one of our (Track A) key points for 
	reuse.    (46XC)
	[11:22] KenBaclawski: @TerryLongstreth [11:17] Provenance cross-cuts many of the tracks. It is a 
	good candidate for a theme of the communique.    (46XD)
	[11:24] TerryLongstreth: @KenBaclawski [11:22] - Provenance is a necessary but not a sufficient 
	condition for evaluating and maintaining quality    (46XE)
	[11:04] PeterYim: @LeoObrst and Track Champions - ref. the Communique Outline slides#4~6 - I think 
	that captures the track synthesis (so far) quite well, but also shows signs of incoherence, given 
	the fact that the original track syntheses were developed separately (each being complete and 
	self-consistent by itself). Granted that each track is addressing a totally different aspect of the 
	overall theme, it might still be useful if we can develop a generalize sub-section outline, that 
	consistently address each track's goals, issues, challenges, solutions, success stories, best 
	practices, etc.    (46XF)
	[11:09] MatthewWest: A common framework would be helpful for us too.    (46XG)
	[10:59] ToddSchneider: A major challenge to this year's communique will be an ability to integrate 
	the large range of material.    (46XH)
	[11:10] MatthewWest: I agree with Todd that the shear breadth of this years summit is daunting.    (46XI)
	[11:11] MatthewWest: I think Amanda may have a point in merging input from the tracks. However, it 
	is probably better to do that as a second step after producing track based output.    (46XJ)
	[11:14] AmandaVizedom: @MatthewWest [11:09] That was AndreaWesterinen, actually.    (46XK)
	[11:13] AndreaWesterinen: Can we update the Communique outline to introduce the common themes 
	(reuse, tooling, intersection with big data, ...) and then move into the particular foci of the 
	tracks. These will both support the common themes and then get more specific, or expand on the 
	themes where they are unique to the foci.    (46XL)
	[11:14] AmandaVizedom: I agree with need to pare down what the communique covers. Fabian & I faced a 
	similar issue last year, and concluded that there was no way to cover everything with any 
	effectiveness. The consequence was that we focused the communique tightly, including setting aside 
	discussion of the track structure. We focused on one set of issues and pulled them together 
	regardless of how they were distributed across tracks. I think the approach worked, and the 
	alternatives wouldn't have.    (46XM)
	[11:14] TerryLongstreth: @Amanda +1    (46XN)
	[11:15] MatthewWest: @Amanda. Yes. We need to remember we are not trying to produce a "This is what 
	we did" type document.    (46XO)
	[11:18] MatthewWest: Common themes include re-use, patterns, processing issues, change management...    (46XP)
	[11:18] AndreaWesterinen: Tooling is a key message ... Tooling brings in key notions (for definition 
	and searching), provenance and curation, etc.    (46XQ)
	[11:19] TerryLongstreth: @Andrea - good, but it's not just for reuse. It's also important for 
	conflict resolution, change management, ...    (46XR)
	[11:19] MatthewWest: On bottlenecks we tend to take a view on some of these things overlapping with 
	other tracks, rather than doing something entirely distinct.    (46XS)
	[11:21] AndreaWesterinen: @TerryLongstreth [11:19] +1. That is why I said that there are different 
	foci, and why it is important to present the big picture and then specifics.    (46XT)
	[11:20] GaryBergCross: Our theme is where ontologies meet Big Data and LOD so we start with a vision 
	of this and then proceed to discuss how we can overcome bottlenecks using tools and reusing 
	knowledge for various type of domains.    (46XU)
	- [11:21] GaryBergCross: Have to leave....    (46XV)
	[11:21] MatthewWest: [ref. KenBaclawski's verbal suggestion to keep the number of common themes to 7 
	+/- 2; ToddSchneider concurred and suggested "more close to 5"] Agree we need to keep the number of 
	themes limited. Otherwise by talking about some we effectively detract from others. We should be 
	happy to prioritize ruthlessly. The sooner the better too.    (46XW)
	[11:22] AndreaWesterinen: @MatthewWest [11:21] +1 on priorities and "the sooner the better".    (46XX)
	[11:24] MatthewWest: I think paring things down is the editors job. We will reserve the right to 
	discuss and disagree.    (46XY)
	- [11:30] ToddSchneider: I have to go. Thank you all. Cheers.    (46XZ)
	[11:31] AndreaWesterinen: Thanks Leo, Todd, and all.    (46Y0)
	[11:31] AnatolyLevenchuk: Please, remember about Hackathon!    (46Y1)
	[11:32] ChristophLange: thanks to the chairs and all others!    (46Y2)
	[11:32] BobbinTeegarden: Enterprise/system architects and business modelers designing implementable 
	systems are yearning to incorporate ontologies. Right now the tools are holding them back; but if 
	you open that logjam, we will see many trials and errors -- i.e. not great quality ontologies in our 
	terms; and in this scenario, maybe quality is not the primary criteria for (eventual) wide ontology 
	usage.    (46Y3)
	[11:33] PeterYim: ref. narrowing down the scope of the Communique (maybe to 5 +/- 2 key themes) ... 
	I'd suggest we focus (among others) on the "outreach" aspect, and try to use the Communique to 
	convince practitioners in "Big Data and Semantic Web" information systems (designers and developers) 
	that the use of ontologies is viable and will contribute to their solution approach    (46Y4)
	[11:34] AndreaWesterinen: @PeterYim [11:33] I disagree, a bit ... We also need to focus on 
	ontology/schema developers and get them to develop and document reusable content.    (46Y5)
	[11:33] PeterYim: Please mark you calendars and reserve this time, every Thursday, for the 
	OntologySummit2014 virtual panel session series. In particular ... Session-07 will be up next 
	Thursday - Thu 2014.02.27 (same time) - OntologySummit2014: "Track E: Hackathon - Launch" - see 
	developing details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_02_27 and 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014_Hackathon    (46Y6)
	[11:34] PeterYim: great session!    (46Y7)
	[11:34] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:30 am PST --    (46Y8)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (46QN)

Additional Resources:    (46QU)

For the record ...    (46R4)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (46R5)

Conference Call Details    (45M9)

Attendees    (45N6)