OpenOntologyRepository: OOR Metadata Workshop-II - Fri 2011_05_13    (2T62)

Topic: OOR Metadata Workshop-II    (2T63)

Session Chair: MichaelGruninger    (2T64)

Archives:    (2T65)

Conference Call Details:    (2TKM)

Attendees    (2T69)

Agenda Ideas    (2TLC)

please insert agenda ideas below ...    (2TLD)

References:    (2TLH)

Agenda & Proceedings    (2TLP)

1. Meeting called to order:    (2TLQ)

2. Roll Call:    (2TLU)

3. Key items for review and discussion today:    (2TLW)

3.1 Opening: - by MichaelGruninger    (2TLX)

The objective of this workshop is to address the following questions:    (2TQM)

These are empirical questions that we can answer, given some effort.    (2TQP)

3.2 Discussion:    (2TLY)

3.3 IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:    (2TM6)

 see raw transcript here.    (2TM7)
 (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.    (2TM8)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (2TM9)
	PeterYim: Welcome to the    (2UKV)
	OpenOntologyRepository: OOR Metadata Workshop-I - Fri 2011_05_13    (2UKW)
	Topic: OOR Metadata Workshop-II    (2UKX)
	Session Chair: MichaelGruninger    (2UKY)
	see details on the session page at:    (2UKZ)
	anonymous morphed into MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa    (2UL0)
	MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa: Bodil Nistrup    (2UL1)
	JouniTuominen: As a reference, in ONKI we describe ontologies with following metadata:    (2UL2)
	JouniTuominen: When we designed the metadata schema, we weren't aware of the OMV. It would be 
	reasonable to make it OMV-compatible, by using OMV properties when possible, and extending it when 
	necessary.    (2UL3)
	MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa: do you have documentation about those metadata? Any document, or figure?    (2UL4)
	MikeBennett: Just a heads-up: we have started joint work with the OMG on Semantics Repository 
	standardization; a major component is how to socialize the middle/upper ontology content. We would 
	expect to leverage OMV terms.    (2UL5)
	MichaelGruninger: What metadata do we require to support modularity?    (2UL6)
	MichaelGruninger: What extensions to OMV are needed to support additional ontology representation 
	languages such as Common Logic?    (2UL7)
	MikeBennett: We are still working out what is the best formal approach - at present we've got 
	placeholder terms for most content, will look at how to align with external ontologies. In 
	particular, not ontology-level terms but terms about terms (SKOS type of terms etc.).    (2UL8)
	TimDarr: This is the only relationship between ontologies that we would be interested in. We 
	typically decompose our ontologies as taxonomies, relations, and rules.    (2UL9)
	TimDarr: A query, it seems to me, should match against the "composition" as opposed to the 
	individual components.    (2ULA)
	PeterYim: [action] JouniTuominen will do a comparison of the ONKI metadata schema with OMV and 
	report back (at the next workshop)    (2ULB)
	MichaelGruninger: @Tim: The modularity I was thinking about is along the lines of an ontology that 
	combines a time ontology, a product ontology, and a business process ontology, which in turn extends 
	a generic process ontology. How are all of these ontologies related to each other?    (2ULC)
	TimDarr: @Mike Is that different from the OMV import relations?    (2ULD)
	MikeBennett: THe kinds of ontologies we are looking at include UN-FAO, REA, XBRL (probably XBRL-GL), 
	OWL Time, OMG's Time model,    (2ULE)
	TimDarr: OMV provides a way to list the ontologies that are imported    (2ULF)
	MikeBennett: Future one would include GeoNames, any ISO standards that are 
	ontologies;    (2ULG)
	PeterYim: maybe we can take MikeBennett's use cases ... and see if OMV suffices (or what extensions 
	are necessary to meet his needs)    (2ULH)
	MikeBennett: Units of Measure    (2ULI)
	MikeBennett: Action on me: Define Use Case    (2ULJ)
	MikeBennett: @Michael at 14:33 this is very much our use case    (2ULK)
	MichaelGruninger: @Tim: In COLORE, we make distinctions between conservative and nonconservative 
	extensions. In the latter case, some modules allow the entailment of new axioms    (2ULL)
	MikeBennett: I am working through an example with the REA ontology to see what approaches work best.    (2ULM)
	TimDarr: Use vs. extend, for example?    (2ULN)
	MikeBennett: I have a draft paper on that which might be useful.    (2ULO)
	TimDarr: Yes    (2ULP)
	TimDarr: That sort of ontology-to-ontology relationship seems to me to be useful: what you are doing 
	with the ontology that you import.    (2ULQ)
	MikeBennett: Our challenges are two-fold: The SR ontology adds decorative terms (Archetypes) which 
	are not an OWL concept, and it disposes all high level terms under 3 top level lattices. So most 
	(not all) external ontologies which have owl:Thing at the top, would be redisposed under the 
	Sowa-derived lattice    (2ULR)
	MichaelGruninger: Would it make sense to focus on a particular domain or a particular set of 
	ontologies such as time?    (2ULS)
	MikeBennett: Time ontology efforts: W3C time; OMG draft work; Mayo Clinic (Cui Tao, paper at ICBO in 
	Buffalo in July); FpML derived time terms; our own draft terms    (2ULT)
	MikeBennett: PatHayes: Catalog of Temporal Theories    (2ULU)
	MikeBennett: One thing we are thinking of is separating business domain specific (Legal, Accounting) 
	versus domain neutral things like time and math and units of measure which are not related to any 
	industry    (2ULV)
	MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa: Related to TimDarr's comment: with OMV you can describe the relationships 
	between two ontologies (imports, versions, compatibility); and if more are needed OMV can be 
	extended.    (2ULW)
	PeterYim: In the interest (and urgency) of our need to stand up a "production" instance of the OOR 
	... noting that we only have a "sandbox" instance of OOR now, and that the key differentiation 
	between the two is the implementation of "Gate Keeping" which, among other things, *requires* anyone 
	who uploads an ontology to OOR to populate the metadata (which is not required for the OOR-sandbox - 
	Question: can we just go ahead and implement the "Gate Keeper" with OMV (as is) or (we here, take 
	the time to) specify a "minimal required subset" ... can we discuss this?    (2ULX)
	MikeBennett: Tree analogy: mid level is under-specified. things like legal, country, legal entity, 
	are owned by some industry but are terms which other industry need to refer to (financial: 
	securities are contracts; insurance: risk etc.    (2ULY)
	MichaelGruninger: @MikeBennett: Which of the ontologies that you mention in your chat posts can be 
	submitted to OOR Sandbox?    (2ULZ)
	MikeBennett: @MichaelGruninger the thing that can be submitted at present: OMG time work when this 
	is done. The Mayo work definitely. Need to deduplicate these two    (2UM0)
	MichaelGruninger: Action Item 1: Focus on time ontologies as a testbed for exploring relationships 
	between ontologies    (2UM1)
	KenBaclawski: The OMV would have to be extended to deal with the gatekeeping metadata such as the 
	owner, group, status, rights, etc. I noticed that the onki ontology has some properties dealing with 
	these issues.    (2UM2)
	MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa: Metadata such as status, developers, rights, etc. are also covered by OMV. 
	We can analyse which ones from ONKI are not covered yet by OMV.    (2UM3)
	MikeBennett: Accounting: XBRL and REA which have related but different terms and ontological 
	commitments    (2UM4)
	TimDarr: How about something like SPIN?    (2UM5)
	MichaelGruninger: Action Item: Contact GaryBergCross (SOCoP) to contribute geospatial ontologies to 
	OOR Sandbox    (2UM6)
	MikeBennett: Geographical ontologies would be a very useful area to align and cross reference 
	ontologies (for instance UN-FAO has very specific scope; ISO 3166 has no axioms; 
	GeoNames?...    (2UM7)
	MikeBennett: Geographical is a good one to focus on because it is more like an "industry" vertical 
	(there are expert bodies, standard bodies etc. specific to it) but it is a set of terms which almost 
	any ontology will need to refer to (securities; buildings management; etc.)    (2UM8)
	MikeBennett: And if anyone wants to be involved in the OMG joint work drop me a mail    (2UM9)
	PeterYim: Next session: Fri 5/20 "Architecture & API - V" ... then Fri 5/27 "Metadata III"    (2UMA)
	PeterYim: -- session ended: 7:01am PDT --    (2UMB)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (2TMA)

4. Any Other Business:    (2TMB)

5. Action items:    (2TMC)

6. Schedule Next Meeting & Adjourn:    (2TMD)

 notes taken by: PeterYim / 2011.05.13-___am PDT
 All participants, please review and edit to enhance accuracy and granularity of the documented proceedings.    (2TMJ)

Resources    (2TMK)