OntologySummit2014 session-13: Communique Draft Review - Thu 2014-04-10    (4AVP)

Reference:    (4C0V)

Archives:    (4C1B)

Abstract:    (4C37)

OntologySummit2014 Session-13: "OntologySummit2014_Communique: Draft Review"    (4C38)

This is our 9th OntologySummit, a joint initiative by Ontolog, NIST, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD with the support of our co-sponsors.    (4C39)

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.    (4C3A)

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.    (4C3B)

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.    (4C3C)

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.    (4C3D)

In today's session, our Lead Editors will be presenting, for the first time, a working draft of the OntologySummit2014_Communique for review and discussion. We will not be wordsmithing yet (that will be part of next week's agenda), but will be doing a higher level review, to make sure we have included everything we want to see in the Communique, and will attempt to expose and close all gaps.    (4C3E)

More details about this OntologySummit is available at: OntologySummit2014 (homepage for this summit)    (4C3F)

Agenda:    (4C3G)

OntologySummit2014 - Panel Session-13    (4C3H)

Proceedings:    (4C3N)

Please refer to the above    (4C3O)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:    (4C3P)

 see raw transcript here.    (4C3Q)
 (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.    (4C3R)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (4C3S)
	Chat transcript from room: summit_20140410
	2014-04-10 GMT-08:00 [PDT]
	------    (4CBO)
	[9:20] PeterYim: Welcome to the    (4CBP)
	 = OntologySummit2014 session-13: Communique Draft Review - Thu 2014-04-10 =    (4CBQ)
	Summit Theme: OntologySummit2014: "Big Data and Semantic Web Meet Applied Ontology"    (4CBR)
	Session Topic: Session Topic: OntologySummit2014_Communique: Draft Review and Discussion    (4CBS)
	Session Co-chairs & Communique Co-Lead Editors: Professor MichaelGruninger and Dr. LeoObrst    (4CBT)
	Agenda:    (4CBU)
	* 1. Opening (MichaelGruninger, LeoObrst) ... see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n_28fM0GpEkp9Y_y1dUmHbCY0phjiF-1S8wrz32EtfQ/edit?usp=sharing    (4CBV)
	* 2. Presentation of first draft of the communique (co-lead editors: MichaelGruninger, LeoObrst)
	** snapshot of working draft before this Communique Draft Review session -    (4CBW)
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/OntologySummit2014_Communique/wip/OntologySummit2014CommuniqueDraft_snapshot_20140410-0845.pdf    (4CBX)
	* 3. Review by section and open discussion
	** Review and discussion will be at a higher level to ensure we have capture all of the material. In particular.
	*** The section related to Barriers and Bottlenecks has been particularly challenging due to the wide range of topics that have arisen from the Track C discussions.    (4CBY)
	One of the objectives will be to develop a clearer picture of the ideas that we want to cover in this section.
	*** also, the section on Recommendations still needs to be written, and this will be a major point for discussion.
	*** ...    (4CBZ)
	* 5. Summary/wrap-up/announcements    (4CC0)
	Logistics:    (4CC1)
	* Refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_04_10
	** Prepared Material - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_04_10#nid4C1E
	** References - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_04_10#nid4C0V    (4CC2)
	* (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.    (4CC3)
	* Mute control (phone keypad): *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute    (4CC5)
	* Attn: Skype users ... see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_04_03#nid4B66
	** 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    (4CC6)
	* 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    (4CC7)
	Attendees: AlexShkotin, AmandaVizedom, AndreaWesterinen, AnneThessen, BartGajderowicz, 
	BobbinTeegarden, CarolBean, ChristophLange, DennisPierson, EdBernot, HensonGraves, LamarHenderson, 
	LesMorgan, MatthewWest, MeganKatsumi, MichaelGruninger, MikeBennett, MikeDean, NancyWiegand, 
	PeterYim, RamSriram, RexBrooks, SteveRay, SundayOjo, TerryLongstreth, ToddPehle, ToddSchneider, 
	TorstenHahmann, UriShani,    (4CC8)
	 == Proceedings ==    (4CC9)
	[9:29] MichaelGruninger: Agenda: 
               1. Overview of Communique rough draft 
               2. Discuss Bottlenecks and Barriers section 
               3. Identify any missing material or ideas that need to be emphasized 
               4. Discuss recommendations 
               5. Action Items    (4CCA)
	[9:28] AlexShkotin: Hi All!    (4CCB)
	[9:31] AmandaVizedom1 morphed into AmandaVizedom    (4CCC)
	[9:33] anonymous morphed into LamarHenderson    (4CCD)
	[9:36] PeterYim: == MichaelGruninger starts session on behalf of the co-chairs ... see prepared 
	material under: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_04_10#nid4C1E    (4CCE)
	[9:40] anonymous morphed into LesMorgan    (4CCF)
	[9:40] anonymous morphed into MeganKatsumi    (4CCG)
	[9:43] ... AnneThessen: Sorry I'm late    (4CCH)
	[10:04] MichaelGruninger: the draft on google-doc is at: 
	https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n_28fM0GpEkp9Y_y1dUmHbCY0phjiF-1S8wrz32EtfQ/edit?usp=sharing ... 
	it is configured so anyone who has the link can view and comment    (4CCI)
	[9:45] AmandaVizedom: If you want leave a comment on the Google Doc, it is helpful if you can make 
	it non-anonymous so that editors can come back to you for clarification. To become non-anonymous: At 
	top right of page, to left of "Comments" button, there is a little chat icon. Click that (it will 
	say something like "join chat" on hover-over). It will pop open a chat window, which you can 
	minimize. The main consequences will be that any comment you leave now will be attributed to you, 
	and also that other participants will see your name & icon (instead of anonymous) in the pull-down 
	list of viewers.    (4CCJ)
	[9:58] SteveRay: @Peter, @Amanda: A logistics question. I tried to add a comment, but the pop-up 
	says I don't have permission to add comments. Any ideas how to change that?    (4CCK)
	[9:59] AmandaVizedom: @Steve: Michael said he'd changed it to "Anyone with the link can comment," so 
	I don't know why it would do that.    (4CCL)
	[10:12] SteveRay: Mystery solved on the comments addition. I was also logged in on another tab with 
	a different account. Once I logged out of that account, it worked.    (4CCM)
	[10:14] AlexShkotin: @SteveRay, I do not have different account but "You do not have permission to 
	add comments." :-( ... [(subsequent comment) you might want make sure you have already signed into 
	the google work environment with your gmail (or gmail associated) account first. =ppy]    (4CCN)
	[9:34] EdBernot: Please note the typo "reasoner on a small ontologies" in section 1.    (4CCO)
	[9:45] ToddSchneider: Some description of 'reuse' needs to be included.    (4CCP)
	[9:45] AndreaWesterinen: Track A tried to define what reuse is... Should that discussion be included?    (4CCQ)
	[9:45] AndreaWesterinen: @ToddSchneider [9:45] Yes, that is my question as well.    (4CCR)
	[9:46] ToddSchneider: Well, at least the different ways ontologies could be reused.    (4CCS)
	[9:47] ToddSchneider: As example, an ontology may not be able to be reused 'directly', but the fact 
	the certain notions are represented or the way they're represented.    (4CCT)
	[9:48] SteveRay: I think Section 2.1.2 should include the notion of "acceptance by the community". 
	That is, "I found this random ontology on the web - how does it rate in the eyes of the ontology community?"    (4CCU)
	[9:49] ... anonymous morphed into BobbinTeegarden    (4CCV)
	[9:49] AndreaWesterinen: Also, a lot of time was spent on defining the conditions for reuse and best 
	practices. The current best practices is a bit behind the synthesis page. I think that MikeBennett 
	updated recently (Wednesday?).    (4CCW)
	[10:02] MikeBennett: Re @Andrea [0:49] I added two sentences in Wednesday. Will review.    (4CCX)
	[9:51] PeterYim: == Q & A and Open Discussion ...    (4CCY)
	[9:53] ... anonymous morphed into LamarHenderson    (4CCZ)
	[9:52] PeterYim: @ALL contributors - e.g. re. @AndreaWesterinen [9:49] ... it would be great if you 
	have made a major update to the wiki, to draw people's attention to it on the [ontology-summit] list 
	to notify everyone (especially the editors)    (4CD0)
	[9:55] PeterYim: Further to the PeterYim [9:52] comment ... @ALL contributors, the best place to get 
	the editors attention would probably be making a comment on the google-doc working draft of the 
	Communique ... please do that    (4CD1)
	[9:57] ChristophLange: Re @PeterYim [9:55] one can also force comments to be sent as emails to some 
	people by including +email@addre.ss in the comment    (4CD2)
	[9:54] AmandaVizedom: IMHO, one of the barriers to reuse is the state of tools (lack of mature (or 
	any) tools to facilitate use of the ontology features and processes that create reusability and/or 
	support evaluation for reuse.    (4CD3)
	[9:50] HensonGraves: On the face of it, it seems that section 3 (use) should precede section 2 
	(reuse)    (4CD4)
	[9:54] SteveRay: @Henson: It is true that when Michael introduced the sections, he started 
	with "What ontologies are out there" (Section 3), and then "How to use them" (Section 2). 
	I can see either ordering working.    (4CD5)
	[9:56] HensonGraves: I like the "what are out there, how to use them,and potential places where they 
	could be used to come before the more detailed resuse, tools, etc    (4CD6)
	[10:00] MikeBennett: I'm having connection issues, but just to say that re-use has been considered 
	more broadly than just getting an ontology and using it. We need to review and make sure that's 
	clear, as it certianly was to us    (4CD7)
	[10:00] MatthewWest: [I found I did not have permission to add comments (... subsequently fixed)] so 
	just to say that when you do decide to create yet another ontology, that you are adding to the list 
	of ontologies others may need to integrate with, adding to the work of those that come after you, 
	even if it reduces work for you.    (4CD8)
	[10:00] MikeBennett: We included re-use by inspiration (ref. ToddSchneider's verbal comment) in the 
	Hackathon    (4CD9)
	[10:00] TerryLongstreth: Doesn't reuse imply usage beyond the required applicability of the ontology?    (4CDA)
	[10:01] ToddSchneider: Terry, yes.    (4CDB)
	[10:01] MikeBennett: @Terry certainly. That's a major factor since the requirements for a given use 
	case are narrower than being able to re-use it elsewhere.    (4CDC)
	[10:05] AndreaWesterinen: @MikeBennett [10:01] I will include in comments and Mike indicated that he 
	would pull them.    (4CDD)
	[10:01] RamSriram: ToddSchneider brought up an important issue on the semantics of Reuse    (4CDE)
	[10:05] TerryLongstreth: Then, perhaps the essence of reuse is the unanticipated application of an 
	ontology in an unexpected way or to an unforeseen purpose. For example, using a formal (OWL, CL ...) 
	ontology to instruct a programming staff.    (4CDF)
	[10:15] AndreaWesterinen: @TerryLongstreth [10:05] Unexpected use MAY result from reuse, but does 
	not have to. Reusing an event ODP would not be unexpected.    (4CDG)
	[10:22] TerryLongstreth: I was going to say that 'Use' specifies an intended purpose -that satisfies 
	some requirement(s)- while reuse suggests anything beyond requirements. The conundrum is how to deal 
	with the requirement that "X shall be reusable", but that's equivalent to the old systems 
	engineering shibboleth that a product "shall be user friendly."    (4CDH)
	[10:22] AndreaWesterinen: @TerryLongstreth Can you look at the reuse definition on Track A's 
	synthesis page? The first 2 paragraphs of the Synthesis deal with the definition. And, I just 
	updated it to reflect the conversation in this call.    (4CDI)
	[10:23] TerryLongstreth: @Andrea - I'll look at it    (4CDJ)
	[10:05] RamSriram: I think the recommendations section should probably say something useful that the 
	reader can take away with. We should provide some answers -- based on the presentations in the 
	tracks -- to the questions posed in this section.    (4CDK)
	[10:07] ... RamSriram: Need to go out for 30mins. Will be back at 1:30pm    (4CDL)
	[10:09] HensonGraves: agree with 3.1 first    (4CDM)
	[10:10] ChristophLange: Suggestion was: put 3.1 "What Ontologies are Needed?" (or, in other words 
	why ontologies?") before "reuse    (4CDN)
	[10:12] ChristophLange: Regarding "what did section 3 miss from the Track B synthesis": I forgot 
	to _say_ it, but I scattered a few more such comments over the document. Over sections _other_ than 3.    (4CDO)
	[10:14] MikeBennett: One issue with tools for me (relating to re-use and beyond) is the abscence of 
	tools at the level of a "system" design of a group of ontologies and the relationships (imports) 
	among them.    (4CDP)
	[10:17] ChristophLange: @TorstenHahmann @MichaelGruninger I'm currently looking up whether/where 
	TillMossakowski mentioned visualization in Track B    (4CDQ)
	[10:18] ChristophLange: @ChristophLange [10:17] See TillMossakowski slide 17 and 18 on visualizing 
	ontology module imports and other links 
	- http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/2014-01-30_OntologySummit2014_Using-Ontology-Tools-Services-Techniques-1/OntologySummit2014_Scaling-Tools--Experiences-with-Hets-n-OntoHub--TillMossakowski_20140130.pdf    (4CDR)
	[10:21] TorstenHahmann: visualization is mentioned quite frequently in the track B summary: 
        ... Partiuclar examples mentioned are OntoIOp and the Open Semantic Framework    (4CDS)
	[10:25] HensonGraves: second Michael's comment on need to discuss reuse and other issues in context of big data.    (4CDT)
	[10:26] AndreaWesterinen: MichelDumontier talked about reuse and big data.    (4CDU)
	[10:26] AndreaWesterinen: Michel's talk was during Track A's second session.    (4CDV)
	[10:26] MikeBennett: [I think my sound must be one way at the moment. Anyway,] I think on re-use 
	there are issue around what the ontology was created for versus what it's used for, which I think 
	goes beyond simply whether the creator thought about Big Data and Linked Data contexts. For example, 
	the levels of abstraction of the concepts may have been very specific to the creator's use case, and 
	it's not a criticism to say that they won't have had the budget / justification to think about the 
	broader meanings of the concepts in their ontologies - i.e. no reason they should think about the 
	re-usability of their ontology unless it's intended as an industry standard.    (4CDW)
	[10:28] AmandaVizedom: FYI, I have been putting most of my comments in comments on the Google doc, 
	rather than here.    (4CDX)
	[10:28] AndreaWesterinen: @Steve Track A recommends examining the content to make sure that they 
	address their competency questions.    (4CDY)
	[10:29] ... MikeBennett: @Amanda my bandwidth today is too narrow for me to contribute to the Google area.    (4CDZ)
	[10:30] AndreaWesterinen: @Amanda [10:28] I will add later when I am not multi-tasking on the call 
	and chat. :-)    (4CE0)
	[10:30] MikeBennett: We have barely scratched the surface in the area of re-use. We need to make 
	sure the Communique catalogues the questions that are out there.    (4CE1)
	[10:31] TerryLongstreth: @Andrea - from Synthesis Para 1 "The reuse may directly align with the 
	original intentions of the developers" -- I'd maintain that direct alignment should fall within the 
	intended use requirements. Finding the discontinuity between intended use and unintended reuse is 
	probably in NP.    (4CE2)
	[10:35] AndreaWesterinen: @TerryLongstreth [10:31] But reuse for the intended design is still reuse 
	... and builds trust in the original content.    (4CE3)
	[10:35] AndreaWesterinen: @TerryLongstreth [10:31] Just like reuse of software.    (4CE4)
	[10:35] PeterYim: I still think we need to be more convincing to the Big data community, especially 
	those in data analytics which makes up the bulk of commercial applications now (than the one 
	paragraph under 3.1) ... Ontology can give them much more than that. ... [I looked through, say the 
	attendees in today's session, and I can't even be sure if we have any representation from that group 
	here ... which means we *really* have a gap to close (starting from grabbing their attention and 
	getting them interested).]    (4CE5)
	[10:34] ToddSchneider: For the challenge problems, what about the challenge of building/designing 
	ontologies for reuse?    (4CE6)
	[10:35] MikeBennett: @Todd but does anyone want to design ontologies for re-use? Other than industry 
	standards ontologies, what cost justification is there?    (4CE7)
	[10:36] AndreaWesterinen: @Mike [10:35] Even ontologies defined for standards are usually specific-to-purpose.    (4CE8)
	[10:41] MikeBennett: @Andrea +1 and sometimes too much so. (my detailed response here got eaten)    (4CE9)
	[10:36] SundayOjo: Reusability is constrained by semantic compatibility of the intended use 
	application domain and the unintended reuse application domain    (4CEA)
	[10:37] AndreaWesterinen: @SundayOjo [10:36] +1. Track A's synthesis tries to say this. If it can be 
	made better, please let us know.    (4CEB)
	[10:39] BartGajderowicz: Regarding finding ontologies on crowd sourced websites like stackoverflow, 
	the purpose is also for experimentation, not just design or implementation. Analogous to software 
	engineering, ontologies fall somewhere between software and data. To ensure a copy/pasted algorithm 
	does what you want, you run it against some input values and compare the output to what was 
	expected. With data you run queries in a more structured environment (think SQL). I think ontologies 
	work in the same way. We currently have a set of tools that we can use to quickly verify an ontology 
	against some set of queries. The gap exists in helping engineers identify and create the queries 
	they need to ensure an ontology is right for them.    (4CEC)
	[10:41] BartGajderowicz: The main benefit of this is that it allows engineers to experiment before 
	committing to a more in depth analysis and verification.    (4CED)
	[10:46] PeterYim: === MichaelGruninger: soliciting input - if you have one "recommendation" what 
	would it be - please enter into chat or verbally say it    (4CEE)
	[10:46] AndreaWesterinen: Standard, searchable metadata    (4CEF)
	[10:46] ToddSchneider: Documentation of ontologies: Assumptions, requirements, scope, intent, ....    (4CEG)
	[10:47] MikeBennett: Recommendations: Metadata: include details of intended use case of ontology.    (4CEH)
	[10:48] MikeBennett: Recommendation: Tooling: model driven, top down tooling with TBox and ABox 
	level visualisation, need to exist.    (4CEI)
	[10:48] TorstenHahmann: my #1 recommendation: tools all the way down, including for designing, 
	publishing, finding, understanding, visualizing, verifying, maintaining, translating, integrating 
	ontologies on the web    (4CEJ)
	[10:50] BartGajderowicz: Adding to @TorstenHahmann's point regarding tools, tools for 
	experimentation with ontologies on the web, to promote reuse.    (4CEK)
	[10:47] SteveRay: Suggestion for recommendation: You don't need to jump in the deep end of the pool 
	to use ontologies. "A little semantics goes a long way" Try it.    (4CEL)
	[10:49] ChristophLange: @SteveRay [10:47] I think somewhere in the Track C (?) synthesis (from 
	OscarCorcho's talk IIRC) I saw a reference to the importance of noting down a commonly agreed-upon 
	vocabulary in whatever tool, even Excel, and that capturing such information is more important than 
	first discussing what ontology engineering methodology to use    (4CEM)
	[10:50] SteveRay: @Christoph: Agreed.    (4CEN)
	[10:50] PeterYim: +1 to earlier discussed recommendation (verbal: Vizedom-Gruninger-Yim) that there 
	needs to have better communication/dialog/collaboration at the community level    (4CEO)
	[10:51] PeterYim: @ALL: Please mark your calendars and reserve this same time for the next Thursday, 
	when we will, hopefully, be finalizing the OntologySummit2014_Communique, after the editors have 
	incorporated all the input from this session into that document - ref. developing details at: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2014_04_17 and 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014_Communique/Draft    (4CEP)
	[10:51] EdBernot: Thanks all. Good session!    (4CEQ)
	[10:52] PeterYim: @ALL: as announced by our Symposium co-chairs, Dr. Ram Sriram & Professor TimFinin 
	our Apr 28~29 Symposium (at NSF in Greater Washington DC) is now open for registration. Please 
	register yourself ASAP, as capacity is limited - see OntologySummit2014_Symposium details at: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014_Symposium ... Register for the Symposium 
	NOW, if you haven't already! - see: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014/WorkshopRegistration    (4CER)
	[10:52] PeterYim: -- session ended: 10:49am PDT --    (4CES)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (4C3T)

Additional Resources:    (4C40)

For the record ...    (4C4A)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (4C4B)

Conference Call Details    (4C1K)

Attendees    (4C2H)