Conference Call 2003-03-20

UBL-Ontology Project Conference Call - Thu 2003-03-20    (5VU)

• Conference Call Details:    (5VV)
  • Subject: [ubl-ontology] project conference call    (5VW)
  • Comments/Agenda:    (5VX)
    • Agenda Comments: ... build rapport; ... sync up; ... distribute, assign or arbitrate virtual ownership of tasks; ... and use it to deal with emergencies. ... Also, try to bring closure to project startup chores, so that we can really start doing project work. Agenda to be confirmed on the [ontolog-forum]    (5VY)
    • Please post you suggested agenda items if you would like to see anything put onto the agenda    (5VZ)
    • please post or upload any material to be shared to the list, to the wiki or by ftp upload prior to the meeting    (5W0)
    • VNC session will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc3.cim3.net:5800/    (5W1)
      • view-only password: "ontolog"    (5W2)
      • view-and-control pw: "ontology"    (5W3)
  • Date:Wednesday, March 20, 2003    (5W4)
  • Start Time: 10:30 AM Pacific Std Time    (5W5)
  • End Time: 11:25 AM Pacific Std Time    (5W6)
  • Dial-in Number: 1-702-851-3330 (Las Vegas, Nevada)    (5W7)
  • Participant Access Code: "030320"    (5W8)

• Attendees: - expecting -    (5W9)

•    (5WA)
  • BoNewman    (5WB)
  • BobSmith    (5WC)
  • PeterYim    (5WD)
  • MichaelDaconta    (5WE)
  • SamHunting    (5WF)
  • BillMcCarthy    (5WG)

•    (5WH)
  • Regrets:    (5WI)
    • KurtConrad (last minute, but made suggestion for the meeting by post)    (5WJ)
    • NormaSlattery (last minute)    (5WK)
    • JohnYunker (made contribution to the discussion by post)    (5WL)
    • LeoObrst (last minute)    (5WM)

Agenda Ideas    (5WN)

• Standards for regular conference calls:    (5WO)
  • build rapport;    (5WP)
  • sync up;    (5WQ)
  • distribute, assign or arbitrate virtual ownership of tasks;    (5WR)
  • and use it to deal with emergencies.    (5WS)
• try to bring closure to project startup chores, so that we can really start doing project work. Agenda to be confirmed on the [ontolog-forum]    (5WT)
• establishing project goals    (5WU)
  • through focusing conversation on "Why develop an ontology based on the UBL schemas?" (ref. KurtConrad's post)    (5WV)
  • Ideally, the answers will be diverse and rich enough to serve as the raw material for establishing the initial set of project goals (after review and discussion by the full group).    (5WW)
• we might be able to seed the forum discussion by starting some key ones at the weekly calls    (5WX)
• coordinate with UBL's timelines    (5WY)

Agenda    (5WZ)

  (1) Welcome    (5X0)

  (2) Identify a volunteer to take minutes of the meeting    (5X1)

  (3) Discussion: Project Goals    (5X2)

•    (5X3)
  • Question: "Why develop an ontology based on the UBL schemas?"    (5X4)

  (4) Discussion: more on the process    (5X5)

•    (5X6)
  • Question: "What does it take to get process out of the way, so that we can get on to 'real work'?"    (5X7)

  (5) Discussion: identifying a set of deliverables and a timeline    (5X8)

  (6) Discussion: our approach    (5X9)

  (7) AOB    (5XA)

Proceedings    (5XB)

1) Peter Yim started the meeting. MikeDaconta volunteered to take minutes on the wiki in real time.    (5XC)

2) Things we try to cover today include:    (5XD)

•    (5XE)
  • Question posed by KurtConrad: "Why develop an Ontology based on the UBL Schemas?"    (5XF)
  • use results of the disucssion to help focus the project and develop a set of goals.    (5XG)
  • Peter asks what it would take to get the process "out of the way" so we can get to real work.    (5XH)
  • Need to develop project milestones.    (5XI)
  • Considering various approaches or methodologies    (5XJ)

3) On the issue of project goals and "Why develop an ontology based on the UBL schemas?"    (5XK)

• JohnYunker's input    (5XL)
  • UBL is based on generic UN/CEFACT Core Components and Business Information Entities (rather than industry specific vocabulalries)    (5XM)
  • This conceptual space (ebusiness message content and structure) would benefit from the development of an ontology. I hope that research conducted by this group would be submitted to UN/CEFACT for consideration and use in the construction of the core set of conceptual business information blocks and conceptual business objects.    (5XN)

• MikeDaconta suggested:    (5XO)
  • suggestion 1: Create an ontology so that software agents can carry out a UBL transaction in an automated fashion.    (5XP)
  • suggestion 2: a boostrap task to agent automation would be a simpler ontology to enable automated validation of an Invoice to its associated order.    (5XQ)

• PeterYim had several answers to that question:    (5XR)
  • to provide input to the UBL TC, which is part of this group's charter.    (5XS)
  • this is an opportunity to influence future standards (with potentials of UBL's work merging into UN/CEFACT and adoption by ISO)    (5XT)
  • cross-pollination between the Ontology community and XML standard community.    (5XU)
  • great opportunity to learn about building ontologies and semantic web concepts.    (5XV)
  • by having done it, we can full substantiate our input to UBL (instead of drawing upon theoretical of speculative answers).    (5XW)
  • through the UBL TC, our work can get validated by being exposed and critiqued by a larger body, and potentially even by other standards body they are associated with.    (5XX)

• BoNewman stated that:    (5XY)
  • this project can be a valuable model to other virtual volunteer projects.    (5XZ)
  • This entire process covers a lot of unchartered ground.    (5Y0)
  • The process itself will evolve as the ontology does.    (5Y1)

• SamHunting added the comment:    (5Y2)
  • he was just at the open source conference in Washinton DC and heard a presentation by BrianBehlendorf on how the Apache open source project managed itself.    (5Y3)
  • several of us at the call agreed that the Apache project would be a good model for this project.    (5Y4)
  • SamHunting will post relevant resources from that conference to our forum.    (5Y5)
    • BoNewman agreed and asked if they documented their process. Sam said yes.    (5Y6)
  • SamHunting stated that it is clear that XML markup has no semantics. He sees the ontology as a way to bring formalism to    (5Y7)

the meaning of the markup.    (5Y8)

•    (5Y9)
  •    (5YA)
    • PeterYim agrees with that, although that is where UBL comes in. The incorporation of ontological approaches may help UBL in expressing the semantics inherent complex business processes and contexts.    (5YB)

• BillMcCarthy stated that:    (5YC)
  • it is necessary to bring together the academic and implementation (business) community.    (5YD)

4) PeterYim mentioned that LeoObrst recommended giving ourselves two weeks or so to nail down the process and goals and then start work. (As implied in LeoObrst's repsonse to PatrickCassidy's process and approach suggestions. See thread    (5YE)

5) PeterYim then asked the next question -- "What does it take to get process out of the way, so that we can get on to 'real work'?"    (5YF)

•    (5YG)
  • After we establish the goal, we should define the deliverables.    (5YH)
  • define some timelines and some milestones.    (5YI)
  • identify the team and team structure in terms of leadership roles. Suggestions:    (5YJ)
    • always identify a champion/owner for any task    (5YK)
    • pair or small task-force assigned to each task    (5YL)
  • setting up project communications    (5YM)
    • transact via email forum    (5YN)
    • brainstorm, cull ideas and document on wiki    (5YO)
    • draft proposal, review/comments, finalize proposal, adopt through consensus (preferred) or vote (by active members    (5YP)
  • we should also revisit the PatrickCassidy / LeoObrst thread on process and approach mentioned above    (5YQ)

6) MikeDaconta asked if a milestone schedule and assigning tasks is practical? PeterYim mentioned that he has seen it work in OASIS. Obviosuly "assignment" is more like having people "volunteer" themselves for certain tasks or assignments.    (5YR)

7) The issue of approach (or methodology) came up next.    (5YS)

•    (5YT)
  • MikeDaconta suggested that we go with the Noy and McGuinness Ontology 101 approach and get a volunteer to put up a methodology page on the Wiki.    (5YU)
  • PeterYim reminded us we are not trying to conduct business on the teleconference but just seed discussions so that they can be more fully discussed and deliberated over the forum.    (5YV)
  • Consider also LeoObrst's suggestion of the Guarino & Welty OntoClean/Methontology approach.    (5YW)
  • MikeDaconta suggested we get the community to read up and then put the ontology building process to a vote on the forum. The group agreed that we should get this done by next Wednesday 3/26/03 (one day prior to the next conference call).    (5YX)

8) PeterYim suggested that we can possibly develop the ontology on multiple tools and should not have to be confined to selecting just a single tool (or method) if there is enough interest and resources. Since this is an open and organic process, everyone should just feel free to push for whatever they are passionate about, as long as we have a shared commitment to a common goal.    (5YY)

•    (5YZ)
  • the group agreed.    (5Z0)

9) PeterYim stated we should move to the next item: Identifying a set of deliverables and a timeline.    (5Z1)

•    (5Z2)
  • develop an ontology on one or more tools.    (5Z3)
  • The deadline for input to the UBL 0p70 is Mon April 14th, 2002. It would be good for us to have formal comments to UBL committee.    (5Z4)
  • The UBL group is then meeting in London in Apr. 28 - May 2, 2003. It would be great for us to have a participant in that meeting and deliver a briefing on our findings.    (5Z5)
  • Another UBL meeting on August 28 - Sep 1, 2003 in Montreal.    (5Z6)
  • There is also a UN/CEFACT meeting in September 2003 (and an interim meeting in June).    (5Z7)
  • Maybe we should aim at having a first-cut release of our UBL-Ontology completed one week before the UBL August 28, 2003 meeting. Get a slot to present it there, and possibly also at the UN/CEFACT meeting that follows shortly afterwards.    (5Z8)
  • Possibly provide input into the OWL group too (let's find out from Leo).    (5Z9)

10) BoNewman and BobSmith suggested we could start the ontology in Wiki. The group agreed that general concepts could be captured in Wiki, at least initially. To this, PeterYim pointed out that we are chartered to explore BOTH formal and informal ontologies.    (5ZA)

11) Meeting concluded at/about 11:30am PST. Meeting will be the same time next week.    (5ZB)

 --minutes taken by MikeDaconta on the wiki in real time
 --updated: PeterYim / 2003-03-20_16:00PST    (5ZC)