OpenOntologyRepository: OOR "Strategy (and Funding)" Discussion Session - Tue 2012_11_06    (3DY6)

Key Topic for Discussion: OOR Strategy and Funding - "A mini Strategic Planning Brainstorm Session"    (3DY7)

Session Chair: PeterYim & KenBaclawski    (3DY8)

This is also consider a regular monthly OOR Team meeting. Therefore, please refer also to proceedings from last month's team meeting at OOR/ConferenceCall_2012_08_07, and possibly also our last "OOR Funding" session at OOR/ConferenceCall_2012_08_21    (3HL4)

Conference Call Details:    (3HL5)

Attendees:    (3HM2)

Agenda Ideas:    (3HMH)

Agenda & Proceedings    (3HML)

Archives:    (3HMM)

1. Meeting called to order:    (3HMP)

2. Roll Call:    (3HMT)

3. Key discussion: OOR Strategy and Funding - "A mini Strategic Planning Brainstorm Session"    (3HMW)

3.1 The "classic" (7-step) Strategic Planning process:    (3HMX)

3.2 Let's focus today's discussion on (ii), (iii) & (iv)    (3HN6)

3.3 (ii) Strategic Analyses - SWOT: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats    (3HN7)

3.4 For (iii) & (iv), let us make sure we stay "relevant" - and shape ours using the Curt Carlson / SRI "NABC" model ...    (3HN8)

3.5 Discussion: strategically, what shall we be doing differently in the next 12 to 36 months    (3HND)

3.6 Discussion: tactically, what shall we be doing differently in the next 6 to 12 months    (3HNE)

3.7 Discussion: how shall we get our resources / funding    (3HNF)

3.8 Action Plans    (3HNG)

3.9 Setting the metrics - what does "success" look like    (3HNH)

4. References: most of the content below are inherited from the previous call(s), and will be edited/updated as this meeting progresses ...    (3HNI)

5. IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:    (3HPA)

 see raw transcript here.    (3HPB)
 (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.    (3HPC)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (3HPD)
	PeterYim: welcome to the    (3HU5)
	 = OpenOntologyRepository: OOR "Strategy and Funding" Discussion Session - Tue 2012_11_06 =    (3HU6)
	session page:    (3HU7)
	 == Proceedings: ==    (3HU8)
	[07:33] PeterYim: Ken is in! Let's get started    (3HU9)
	[07:46] PeterYim: == brainstorming - on the steps (ii) (iii) & (iv) of a strategic planning exercise 
	- ref.    (3HUA)
	[07:47] PeterYim: ALL: please approach this wearing your hat as a Designer, Planning and Convening 
	the OOR Initiative    (3HUB)
	[07:54] PeterYim: personally, I see OOR as a community driven "collaborative" effort in (A) 
	infrastructure, (B) software/system development, and (C) content    (3HUC)
	[07:43] MichaelGruninger: What is the role of OOR sessions: (1) distributed software development of 
	OOR as an artifact. (2) Forum for general issues related to ontology repositories, such as 
	modularity, provenance, versioning.    (3HUD)
	[07:47] KenBaclawski: @Michael I would add these: (3) OOR as a standard API for the purposes of 
	interoperability and federation (i.e., operationally), (4) Increasing content.    (3HUE)
	[07:45] MichaelGruninger: With respect to content, OOR will be most successful when it plays a role 
	in ontology best practices. For example, encouraging authors of ontology papers in conferences (such 
	as FOIS, WOMO, FOMI) and journals (Applied Ontology, Artificial Intelligence, ...) to submit their 
	ontologies to an OOR instance.    (3HUF)
	[07:47] MichaelGruninger: OOR needs to more actively engage other projects that are related to 
	ontology repositories    (3HUG)
	[07:45] ToddSchneider: Project Management    (3HUH)
	[07:46] BobSmith: What is the primary purpose of an OOR Strategy? (Assumes variety of audience: Such 
	as Big BUILDING and City DATA MODELS with the Natl Institute of Building Standards' National 
	Building Information Modeling Standard 3.0 (just starting)    (3HUI)
	[07:50] BobSmith: A "current" and perhaps temporary "Threat" to Seaboard Cities such as NYC Atlantic 
	City, Huntington Beach, San Francisco is Sea Level Rise and rethinking City Building Codes and 
	infrastructure requirements at Federal, State, Regional, and Local levels. Some States, such as 
	Calif., have a Chief Enterprise Architect and a Chief GIS Officer with potential great needs for OGC 
	- like ontology references    (3HUJ)
	[07:48] CoryCasanave: Eventually this would need to be done under some standards org like OMG, W3C or OASIS    (3HUK)
	[07:50] KenBaclawski: Related standards already exist: MDR, OMV; and others are in progress: MFI. No 
	doubt there are others. It should be a standard built on existing standards.    (3HUL)
	[07:52] ToddSchneider: Cory, couldn't we continue with our development and then at some point in the 
	future approach a standards body?    (3HUM)
	[07:56] FrankOlken: Technically, W3C is not an accredited standards organization like ANSI, ISO, or OMG.    (3HUN)
	[08:04] FrankOlken: Many of the standards organizations (e.g., ANSI L8 and ISO SC32 for Metadata 
	Registry Std) have preexisting commitments to possibly overlapping standards (such as ISO/IEC 11179 
	or various OMG standards) which they may want us to conform to.    (3HUO)
	[07:53] anonymous morphed into JohnSowa    (3HUP)
	[07:56] JohnSowa: The best standards are almost always a clean up of some de facto standard. A good 
	example is ECMAScript, which cleaned up JavaScript.    (3HUQ)
	[08:08] MichaelGruninger: I'm not sure that OOR should be considered as a standards project. We are 
	providing infrastructure that uses existing standards for ontology representation and relationships.    (3HUR)
	[08:09] MichaelGruninger: We only need to guarantee that ontologies in different repositories can be 
	uniformly accessed and described; standards for these aspects already exist    (3HUS)
	[08:00] JohnSowa: I don't believe that any technology should be proposed as a standard until there 
	are some successful applications. The standards organizations once tried the idea of "proactive 
	standards". But without some practical applications, it's a bad idea to propose any design as a standard.    (3HUT)
	[08:01] KenBaclawski: John, would you regard BioPortal as an example of a successful repository project?    (3HUU)
	[08:00] PeterYim: who could be our "role models" for (A), (B) and (C)?    (3HUV)
	[08:01] PeterYim: MikeDean has suggested, previously, that the Apache Foundation would be a good 
	role model for (B)    (3HUW)
	[08:08] ToddSchneider: Have to go. Cheers.    (3HUX)
	[08:10] PeterYim: update: incorporating Gruninger and Baclawski's inputs above: look at the OOR 
	Initiative as a community driven "collaborative" effort in: (A) infrastructure, (B) software/system 
	development, (C) content development, (D) standards (architecture, API, protocol, metadata, etc.) 
	development, and (E) a community Forum for general issues related to ontology repositories ... (in 
	no particular order)    (3HUY)
	[08:11] CoryCasanave: In summary: I support continuing with the implementations track and that 
	implementation work may best be done under Apache or something similar. These implementations will 
	use existing standards but may also indicate the need for others. We should consider collaboration 
	with an SDO and think about the roadmap to do so.    (3HUZ)
	[08:11] MichaelGruninger: To some extent, OOR should be involved in a bit of a culture change -- 
	rather than everyone developing their ontologies in isolation, OOR should provide the infrastructure 
	that will finally deliver the promise of ontology sharing and reuse.    (3HV0)
	[08:12] MikeBennett: @Michael agreed. That seems to suggest two distinct threads of activity: 
	- 1. syntactic; 2. semantic.    (3HV1)
	[08:14] CoryCasanave: @Michael: Much of the tooling and infrastructure is centered on developing 
	ontologies rather than reusing them.    (3HV2)
	[08:14] CoryCasanave: @Michael: So yes, focusing on the collaboration and reuse is very important    (3HV3)
	[08:20] TillMossakowski: OOR has a nice infrastructure diagram (see ), the only 
	drawback being that it has not been implemented so far. The only existing implementation seems to be 
	BioPortal, but BioPortal does not follow the OOR architecture. To remedy this situation, we have 
	started Ontohub ( - sources at ), which starts 
	with an architecture simpler than OOR's, but with the goal to be eventually extended to that 
	architecture. The semantic background is provided by the OntoIOp ISO standard initiative, providing 
	a semantics for federated ontologies involving different languages like OWL, RDF, Common Logic, UML. could be federated with BioPortal in the future.    (3HV4)
	[08:12] JohnSowa: I support Till's idea.    (3HV5)
	[08:13] JohnSowa: If and when Bioportal is extended to support Ontoiop + Common Logic + other 
	standards, then it would be a good example.    (3HV6)
	[08:15] JohnSowa: There is no difference between development, maintenance, and reuse. All large 
	development projects build on and extend other implementations.    (3HV7)
	[08:19] JohnSowa: I have also spoken with some people in medical informatics, who have been very 
	unhappy about the "pressure" they have felt to use ontologies in BioPortal. That is a serious danger 
	of premature standards -- they can block innovation.    (3HV8)
	[08:26] MichaelGruninger: References to standardization in OOR are premature and/or misdirected. The 
	only standards that are relevant (for ontology representation, ontology relationships, ontology 
	metadata) already exist or are under development. We only need to guarantee that ontologies can be 
	imported/exported between repositories and that there are protocols for software applications to 
	uniformly access ontologies within ontology repositories.    (3HV9)
	[08:27] TillMossakowski: is there a list of these standards (also explaining their use for OOR)?    (3HVA)
	[08:27] MichaelGruninger: Ontology representation language standards: RDF, OWL, Common Logic    (3HVB)
	[08:28] MichaelGruninger: Ontology relationship standards (under development): OntoIOp    (3HVC)
	[08:28] MichaelGruninger: Ontology metadata standards: OMV (?)    (3HVD)
	[08:31] TillMossakowski: probably also REST or SOAP for communication among repository components 
	(although I am not sure whether these are standards...)    (3HVE)
	[08:31] PeterYim: if we were to tweak our strategy, and bring us from moving toward irrelevance to 
	moving towards the center of attention - I suggest we re-focus our OOR efforts to revolve around 
	(hot themes like) (I) BigData-BigSystems (ref. ), 
	and (II) Ontology-based Standard (ref. )    (3HVF)
	[08:32] PeterYim: ALL: please suggest how that "re-focus" or "tweak" would look like    (3HVG)
	[08:32] PeterYim: ALL: also, there may be similar themes that are just as compelling, please suggest 
	what they are?    (3HVH)
	[08:49] MikeBennett: I would strongly support (II) at least    (3HVI)
	[08:32] TillMossakowski: sorry, have to leave now, will read chat later, so please go on capturing 
	the discussion...    (3HVJ)
	[08:33] PeterYim: thanks for joining us, Till. Before you go, please list times on Tuesdays that 
	might work well for you (1 to 1.5 Hr slots)    (3HVK)
	[08:33] PeterYim: @Till - we do hope you can join us regularly on future OOR meetings    (3HVL)
	[08:34] TillMossakowski: yes, sure. Generally anything before 6 pm CET works for me on Tuesdays.    (3HVM)
	[08:35] PeterYim: @Till - thanks    (3HVN)
	[08:35] FrankOlken: By John's logic SQL would have adopted some sort of backward compatibility to CODASYL databases.    (3HVO)
	[08:38] FrankOlken: Rules folks also have RuleML.    (3HVP)
	[08:45] FrankOlken: As I recall, Datalog is more expressive than SQL, i.e., with respect to recursive queries.    (3HVQ)
	[08:46] FrankOlken: (ref. JohnSowa's verbal suggestion that the industry should go with "Typed 
	Datalog") Typed Datalog would be interesting. I am not sure this is the right setting to develop (or 
	standardize) such a thing.    (3HVR)
	[08:58] JohnSowa: ... the typed Datalog would include the SQL WHERE-clause as a proper subset. It 
	would also include SPARQL as a proper subset -- except for the FILTER and OPT abominations.    (3HVS)
	[08:54] PeterYim: proposal: we re-focus our OOR efforts to revolve around: (I) BigData-BigSystems 
	(ref. ), and (II) Ontology-based 
	Standards (ref. )    (3HVT)
	[09:00] PeterYim: we have consensus on the above, but will need to elaborate and work on the details 
	on how adopting (I) & (II) would impact (A) thru (E)    (3HVU)
	[09:02] KenBaclawski: The meeting time was moved to 7:30am PST.    (3HVV)
	[09:04] PeterYim: [consensus] going forward, regular OOR meetings will be on Tuesdays, starting 
	7:30am PST / 10:30am EST / 4:30pm CET / 15:30 GMT/UTC (like today, which is one hour earlier than 
	before) - session duration: ~1.5 Hours.    (3HVW)
	[09:05] PeterYim: no meeting next Tuesday, as ISWC is in session    (3HVX)
	[09:06] PeterYim: therefore, our next OOR meeting will be on Tue Nov-20, starting 7:30am PST / 
	10:30am EST / 4:30pm CET / 15:30 GMT/UTC ... we will continue today's conversation, and will drill 
	down (go more granular) until we get to specifics on tactics and action plans given the re-focused 
	short/medium-term direction    (3HVY)
	[09:06] PeterYim: great meeting!    (3HVZ)
	[09:07] PeterYim: -- session ended: 9:03am PST --    (3HW0)
	[09:08] List of attendees: BobSmith, CoryCasanave, FrankOlken, JohnSowa, KenBaclawski, 
	MichaelGruninger, MikeBennett, MikeDean, PeterYim, TillMossakowski, ToddSchneider.    (3HW1)
 -- end in-session chat-transcript --    (3HPE)

6. (Other) Action items:    (3HPF)

7. Any Other Business:    (3HPH)

8. Schedule Next Meeting & Adjourn:    (3HPJ)

 notes taken by: PeterYim / 2012.10.30-11:57am PST
 All participants, please review and edit to enhance accuracy and granularity of the documented proceedings.    (3HPO)

Resources    (3HPP)