OOR/ConferenceCall 2013 10 08

slides
slides
(long distance cost may apply)
(generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer ... ref.)
(ref.)
[ 1:16:32 ; mp3 ; 8.76 MB ]
 see raw transcript here.    (3YBB)
 (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.    (3YBC)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (3YBD)
 	------
	Chat transcript from room: oor_20131008
	2013-10-08 GMT-08:00
	------    (3YBE)
	[6:57] PeterYim: Welcome to the    (3YJW)
	 = OOR Development Session: "Meta-Ontology for Ontology Categories" - Tue 2013_10_08 =    (3YJX)
	Session Topic: Meta-Ontology for Ontology Categories: Developing a consensus for categorization of ontologies 
                       in an (Open) Ontology Repository instance    (3YJY)
	Session Co-chairs: Professor Dr. TillMossakowski (U of Magdeburg) & Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto)    (3YJZ)
	Briefings:
	* Dr. AleksandraSojic (U of Bremen) - "Meta-Ontology for Ontology Categories" - opening brief
	* Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto) - "Ontology Categories in COLORE"    (3YK0)
	Session page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2013_10_08    (3YK1)
	Attendees: AleksandraSojic, ChristophLange, DanielCoutoVale, FrancescaQuattri, HensonGraves, 
	JulienCorman, MariaKeet, MichaelGruninger, OliverKutz, PatCassidy, PeterYim, PeterYim, RayMartin, 
	RobertRovetto, TillMossakowski, ToddSchneider, TorstenHahmann    (3YK2)
	 == Proceedings ==    (3YK3)
	[6:59] anonymous morphed into AleksandraSojic    (3YK4)
	[7:04] anonymous morphed into JulienCorman    (3YK5)
	[7:05] DanielCoutoVale: I cannot join the conference. Something wrong is happening to 
	the "joinconference" account.    (3YK6)
	[7:06] anonymous morphed into TorstenHahmann    (3YK7)
	[7:06] ChristophLange: The account might appear offline in Skype. I was able to dial in nevertheless.    (3YK8)
	[7:07] PeterYim: @Aleksandra, Till and anyone else having trouble connecting - Please use skype-out 
	and dial the telephone number instead (of the "joinconference" user) of you can    (3YK9)
	[7:07] DanielCoutoVale: For me, it appears offline and the only option is to "Call Phone". There is 
	no "Call" as usual.    (3YKA)
	[7:09] TorstenHahmann: Hi - I got to call in with skype by using "call" in the menu instead of the button.    (3YKB)
	[7:10] MariaKeet: I keep on being disconnected (but that's also for the chatroom, so its not due to skype)    (3YKC)
	[7:11] anonymous morphed into PatCassidy    (3YKD)
        [7:16] ChristophLange: [in response to PeterYim's query on whether the work ChristophLange is committing 
        to the OOR-Ontohub-API github repository would be good material for the next OOR-Hackathon session] 
        Summary: I don't currently have time to follow all OOR activities full-time. But my connection to 
        Till is reliable. Whenever something needs to be done where I can help (such as the stuff I prepared 
        for today), he will let me know.    (3YN1)
	[7:16] DanielCoutoVale: I'm in.    (3YKF)
	[7:20] ChristophLange: Till will be with us in a few minutes.    (3YKG)
	[7:20] MariaKeet: sorry, but the network isn't handling the voice well. I'd like to participate a 
	next time, and in the meantime can provide input via email w.r.t. ROMULUS and our experiences with 
	the metadata.    (3YKH)
	[7:21] PeterYim: sorry about this, Maria ...    (3YKI)
	[7:22] anonymous morphed into FrancescaQuattri    (3YKJ)
	[7:21] PeterYim: == MichaelGruninger starts the session ...    (3YKK)
	[7:24] DanielCoutoVale: Please, where is the link?    (3YKL)
	[7:25] ChristophLange: Slides are at 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2013_10_08#nid3YFE    (3YKM)
	[7:25] List of members: AleksandraSojic, ChristophLange, DanielCoutoVale, FrancescaQuattri, 
	HensonGraves, JulienCorman, MichaelGruninger, OliverKutz, PatCassidy, PeterYim, RayMartin, 
	TillMossakowski, ToddSchneider, TorstenHahmann, vnc2    (3YKN)
	[7:26] PeterYim: == AleksandraSojic presenting the opening brief ...    (3YKO)
	[7:29] PeterYim: @Aleksandra - slide#3: what do you mean by "OOR Independent" & "OOR Aligned"    (3YKP)
	[7:33] TillMossakowski: I think "OOR independent" means "sub-ontologies developed by specific 
	communtites", while "OOR Aligned" means "sub-ontologies (typically the upper part) developed 
	centrally by OOR"    (3YKQ)
	[7:33] HensonGraves: do you include standard metadata attributes such as where it came from, who did 
	it, when was it done, etc.    (3YKR)
	[7:36] PeterYim: @Aleksandra et al. - are most ontology repository categorization implementations 
	hierarchical now, or do some of them support the assignment of multiple categories to an ontology 
	(multiple inheritance allowed in the sturcture)?    (3YKS)
	[7:40] MichaelGruninger: Actually, COLORE is restricted to Common Logic ontologies -- I think that 
	OntoHub is the only effort that supports multiple ontology languages    (3YKT)
	[7:40] ToddSchneider: Are we clear on the intent of providing a categorization for OOR (or other 
	ontology repositories)?    (3YKU)
	[7:40] ToddSchneider: Is there a focus on 'findability' or 'search'?    (3YKV)
	[7:42] ToddSchneider: Following up on Peter's comment, would it be better to provide a lattice view?    (3YKW)
	[7:45] TillMossakowski: Aleksandra's domain fields ontology involves multiple inheritance at a few places    (3YKX)
	[7:46] ToddSchneider: Till, how is multiple inheritance presented (i.e., visualized) to a user?    (3YKY)
	[7:48] TillMossakowski: basically as in Protégé: classes appear multiple times in the hierarchy    (3YKZ)
	[7:47] anonymous1 morphed into RobertRovetto    (3YL0)
	[7:49] TorstenHahmann: With COLORE we are moving in the direction of multiple classifications 
	("views") in addition to the main hierarchies (which are based on the set of primitive concepts & 
	relations). E.g. based on whether they can be reduced to others (core vs. non-core) or whether they 
	are generic or domain ontologies, and what larger ontologies they are part of (e.g. PSL or DOLCE). I 
	don't think displaying it as a lattice makes much sense.    (3YL1)
	[7:49] ToddSchneider: Till, understood (about Protege), but what would be presented on a UI (for the 
	repository)?    (3YL2)
	[7:56] TillMossakowski: Todd, in the UI we present it in a similar way as Protégé does.    (3YL3)
	[7:49] ToddSchneider: What is the problem that needs to be solved?    (3YL4)
	[7:56] ChristophLange: Seems that not everyone can hear me    (3YL5)
	[7:56] ChristophLange: Should I type into the chat?    (3YL6)
	[7:56] TillMossakowski: yes    (3YL7)
	[7:56] ChristophLange: OK    (3YL8)
	[7:56] ChristophLange: The main thing about LoLa is that it is independent from concrete ontology 
	languages. E.g. OMV and the BioPortal-Protege ontologies have a lot of OWL-specific things 
	hard-coded (classes, subproperty axioms, etc.)    (3YL9)
	[7:57] ChristophLange: LoLa as an ontology abstracts from that, but as an _instance_ of the LoLa 
	ontology we also maintain a _registry_ of concrete ontology languages.    (3YLA)
	[7:57] ChristophLange: The Lo/La (Logic/Language) level of LoLa can be seen here: 
	http://www.slideshare.net/langec/linked-open-geodata-and-the-distributed-ontology-language-a-perfect-match/26    (3YLB)
	[7:58] ChristophLange: The inner-ontology level can be seen here: 
	http://www.slideshare.net/langec/the-distributed-ontology-language-dol-use-cases-syntax-and-extensibility/10 
	What we show here is not exactly an excerpt from the LoLa ontology, but from the Ontohub 
	database schema, which is modelled after LoLa. (One minor thing is obsolete: we now call "entity" "symbol".)    (3YLC)
	[8:00] ChristophLange: Yesterday I reviewed the OMV, BioPortal, Protege, etc. ontologies, which 
	Aleksandra has imported into the current draft of the "Ontohub Metadata Ontology", and came up with 
	some concrete ideas for aliging LoLa to the former ones: 
	https://github.com/ontohub/OOR_Ontohub_API/issues (most of the issues so far deal with this; maybe I 
	should assign further tags to them to keep alignment tasks separate from other tasks).    (3YLD)
	[8:01] ChristophLange: The question from an Ontohub perspective is: We could do without OMV etc.; we 
	could simply "steal" the best ideas from OMV and incorporate them into LoLa. However if we agree 
	that OMV etc. will be of interest to other OOR repositories (maybe particularly the OWL-specific 
	ones), we should rather aim at backwards compatibility and thus at an alignment.    (3YLE)
	[8:02] ChristophLange: For Ontohub's core purpose (managing ontologies across languages/logics), 
	LoLa is more precise in any case. But LoLa is currently missing 
	metadata/repository/maintenance-related vocabulary, which does exist in OMV etc.    (3YLF)
	[8:02] ChristophLange: That's it for now about LoLa :-)    (3YLG)
	[8:03] ChristophLange: Oh, the full background about LoLa is available here: 
	http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~till/papers/womo2012.pdf    (3YLH)
	[7:58] PeterYim: == MichaelGruninger presenting "Ontology Categories in COLORE" ...    (3YLI)
	[8:02] MichaelGruninger: [the other view on how ontologies are categorized in COLORE]
	- see: http://stl.mie.utoronto.ca/colore/org.html    (3YLJ)
	[8:05] PatCassidy: Michael: re slide 2 -- in addition to those two characteristics, it could be important 
	to specify *how* an ontology is used, i.e. is it used in some application(s), and if so, which?    (3YLK)
	[8:06] PeterYim: == open discussion ...    (3YLL)
	[8:08] ChristophLange: If there are any questions about SKOS, I'll be happy to answer them. For now 
	we have a GitHub issue about this:    (3YLM)
	[8:09] ChristophLange: https://github.com/ontohub/OOR_Ontohub_API/issues/6 - in a nutshell: I think 
	1. SKOS is semantically more appropriate for domain categories. 2. a lot of category schemes (e.g. 
	librarians') exist in SKOS already, accessible on the Web, and can be linked to.    (3YLN)
	[8:10] DanielCoutoVale: I would like to comment on search and findability    (3YLO)
	[8:12] TillMossakowski: Peter, you can assign multiple categories in Ontohub    (3YLP)
	[8:16] TillMossakowski: where can I find more about the difference between search and findability?    (3YLQ)
	[8:18] PeterYim: @Todd - how about "discoverability" ... that too, I think (or is that synonimous 
	with one of those two - "search" and "findability"    (3YLR)
	[8:22] ToddSchneider: The enterprise search crowd views discoverability as an aspect of search, a by-product.    (3YLS)
	[8:21] PeterYim: looks like the topic today has two prongs - should we be dealing with the two 
	issues - "metadata" and "UI" - separately    (3YLT)
	[8:29] MichaelGruninger: @Peter -- the two issues are merged if we are developing a UI that is 
	driven by metadata    (3YLU)
	[8:29] PeterYim: sounds great, Michael!    (3YLV)
	[8:21] DanielCoutoVale: I would like to place the question again about the function of the 
	categorisation.    (3YLW)
	[8:22] ChristophLange: In my review (see GitHub issues) I found nothing really in OMV that 
	I _disagree_ with. Just lots of aspects where OMV is insufficient.    (3YLX)
	[8:23] ChristophLange: @TillMossakowski: good point about OMV restricting dual licenses. My view was 
	that on a higher level I found nothing to disagree with; but certainly there might be finer details 
	that we don't accept.    (3YLY)
	[8:23] FrancescaQuattri: the topic is highly interesting. Maybe the best way to find out the 
	difficulties that users may find in searching ontologies might be solved by asking the users 
	themselves. I know that some unis here run surveys online to work on more user-friendly search 
	systems. questionnaires are also run via crowdsourcing.    (3YLZ)
	[8:23] FrancescaQuattri: our community is quite large, maybe we can run a survey of the major 
	encountered difficulties    (3YM0)
	[8:26] RayMartin: For many topics there are multiple dimensions or viewpoints. Take the topic of 
	life safety - one could develop an ontology of the fundamentals, a scientific perspective. Others 
	may need an engineering perspective. and yet others would utilize a business ontology. i know there are
	times when i would like to know this type of categorization prior to delving deeply into a given ontology.    (3YM1)
	[8:30] FrancescaQuattri: @Ray. exactly. Alexandra made a good point with Arabic. Let's say one is 
	not interested in all the categories presented in the slides, but let's say in specific ones (even 
	in relation with other languages). the width and depth of the ontology might change considerably.    (3YM2)
	[8:32] ToddSchneider: How could 'tags' be coupled to a 'better' classification?    (3YM3)
	[8:33] DanielCoutoVale: about keyword tagging    (3YM4)
	[8:33] ToddSchneider: How to go. Thank you.    (3YM5)
	[8:33] ChristophLange: SKOS provides means for connecting keywords to a topic hierarchy    (3YM6)
	[8:33] MichaelGruninger: @Torsten -- is this a meta-ontology or a folksonomy for ontology description    (3YM7)
	[8:34] TorstenHahmann: more of a folksonomy - let it grow through how people annotate ontologies    (3YM8)
	[8:34] ChristophLange: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-skos-reference-20090818/#labels 
	(notice, e.g., skos:hiddenLabel - something that's never displayed, but accepted as a query string)    (3YM9)
	[8:35] FrancescaQuattri: @Torsten: it might be also interesting to let it grow through what users 
	are looking after/search    (3YMA)
	[8:36] FrancescaQuattri: @Daniel: basically what Daniel is saying. Using frequency    (3YMB)
	[8:37] TorstenHahmann: @Francesca: I totally agree - not just the ontology owner/devleoper should be 
	able to tag, but also all users; they provide probably better tags (how they found it)    (3YMC)
	[8:38] FrancescaQuattri: @Tosten: agreed. Also thinking that developers might estimate a 
	tag/category, users relate the choice -even semantic one for the tag- to their need.    (3YMD)
	[8:38] ChristophLange: Let me type. I think SKOS answers many of our questions.    (3YME)
	[8:38] ChristophLange: It allows for combining a formal category hierarchy with informal labels    (3YMF)
	[8:39] ChristophLange: As soon as we represent "folksonomy tags" with URIs, we can link them to an 
	existing SKOS scheme    (3YMG)
	[8:45] DanielCoutoVale: Documenting my comment: the kind of user interaction that we want to allow 
	is dependent on whether we have a folksonomy or a controlled taxonomy. On the one hand, because 
	users tend to be unsure about the tags that would promote their content or be confident in the wrong 
	direction, suggesting the most commonly searched and used tags to the annotator and suggesting the 
	existent tags to the searcher might be a necessary convergence step if we go for an open set of 
	tags. On the other hand, not offering the freedom of choosing any tag might allow us to offer other 
	kinds of user face interaction which are not text fields.    (3YMH)
	[8:41] FrancescaQuattri: hey Everyone, thanks, great talk!    (3YMJ)
	[8:41] ChristophLange: Thanks, bye!    (3YMK)
	[8:--] MichaelGruninger: would be good to have a "Metadata" session to follow-up on today's discussion    (3YMI)
	[8:42] PeterYim: no OOR session next Tue 2013.10.15 - there will be a Common Logic (CLv2) meeting that day    (3YML)
	[8:42] PeterYim: no OOR session on Tue 2013.10.22 either, ISWC will be in session that week    (3YMM)
	[8:43] PeterYim: @Michael, Todd, Ken, Till, et al. - let's work on the details about the program for 
	the Tue 2013.10.29 session offline    (3YMN)
	[8:44] PeterYim: -- session ended: 8:41am PDT --    (3YMO)
 -- end in-session chat-transcript --    (3YBF)
 --
 notes taken by: PeterYim / 2013.10.08-9:00am PDT
 All participants, please review and edit to enhance accuracy and granularity of the documented proceedings.    (3YBT)

OOR/ConferenceCall 2013 10 08

OOR Development Session (n.09): "Meta-Ontology for Ontology Categories" - Tue 2013_10_08 (3X96)

Conference Call Details: (3Y9D)

Attendees: (3YAA)

Agenda Ideas (3YAN)

In-session Resources (3YAR)

Agenda & Proceedings (3YAU)

4. IM Chat Transcript captured during the session: (3YB9)

Resources (3YBU)

Your Visited Pages

View Backlinks

Wiki Search