OntologySummit2012: Suggestions    (31AO)

This is a workspace collecting suggestions on how to better organize, coordinate and facilitate OntologySummit2012 activities. While mainly intended for the use by the organizing committee, this is an open page, and contributions from other summit participants who are not on the organizing committee are welcome.    (31AP)

OntologySummit2012: Ontology for Big Systems    (31AQ)

7th in the series of a 3-month open annual event by and for the Ontology Community. This Summit is co-organized by Ontolog, NIST, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD    (31BG)

ref. OntologySummit    (31AR)

Ideas on How to Frame the Discourse    (31AU)

From the 2011_12_08 Pre-launch Community Session prep work:    (31AV)

ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_12_08#nid30GJ    (31AW)

Systems engineering focuses on the interactions of people with their systems, so includes information technology, data and metadata, socio-technical and cultural aspects including institutional, legal, economic, and human-centered design requirements.    (31AX)

o Software engineering    (31AY)

o Business rules and enterprise issues    (31AZ)

o Socio-technical environment    (31B0)

o Big Data    (31B1)

o Ontology Quality in Context    (31B2)

"Big Data" to include several dimensions:    (31B3)

o Complexity of collections    (31B4)

o Large quantities of data    (31B5)

o Heterogeneity of data (e.g. 600 different representations of patient records)    (31B6)

o Federation of distributed data sources    (31B7)

o Extracting (useful) knowledge out of big data (using ontology to UNDERSTAND data)    (31B8)

From the 2011_12_08 community brainstorm input - items to note for action:    (31BH)

ref. under: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_12_08#nid3085    (31BI)

From JackRing / 2012.01.05    (31D8)

ref. http://interop.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit-org/2012-01/msg00016.html    (31D9)

JackRing: I suggest a System Engineering (SE) track that    (31DA)

From EricChan / 2012.01.05    (31CJ)

EricChan: I have in mind about a track for "ontological information model for cloud infrastructure" with focus on "complex event processing of high-volume, high-velocity, monitoring data (Big Data)" in different layers of the infrastructure. This ontology can enable effective use of Business Activity Monitoring (BAM) tool in cloud infrastructure. ... I will be happy to support others who would like to chair this track.    (31CK)

From HensonGraves / 2012.01.02~05    (31CC)

HensonGraves: Tracks should be designed to produce usable work products for the engineering and well as the ontology community    (31CD)

My suggestion is that the summit develop a collection of challenge problems which different tracks work on. A track representing an interest group could take a problem and have its members propose approaches and solutions which would be critiqued by the group. A track would not have to come to a consensus solution only produce as a work product proposed solutions and critiques. Here are some examples of the kind of thing that I have in mind, based on by experience and interests. Other examples would work as well.    (31CE)

If this approach with the challenge problems were to be attractive then I would be willing to participate with the proviso that I could get some folks from the ontology community to join the INCOSE Model-Based System Engineering Ontology Action Team (OAT).    (31CI)

From: NancyWiegand / 2011.12.17    (31CN)

NancyWiegand is the PI for the NSF funded SOCoP_INTEROP Project    (31CO)

NancyWiegand: [Part of the OntologySummit2012 focus looks] ... similar to what I was thinking about for an INTEROP workshop, maybe along with an EarthCube Cyberinfrastructure (ref. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/) workshop?    (31CP)

[ppy] indeed ... as all these things are quite interrelated. ... The (community's) choice of the theme: "Ontology for Big Systems" does give us enough latitude to try to reach out to other Systems communities (enterprise architecture, conceptual modeling, software engineering, etc.) and team up with them to tackle "Big Systems" -- not pilot system, but real life, complex, heterogeneous, distributed system ... and not the least, the "hot-button" issues facing those who are dealing with "Big Data." ... While the Ontology Summit would come from a vantage point of Ontology (teamed up with collaborators in Systems Sciences and Engineering,) the kind of "Big Systems" as exemplified by, say, the Earth Cube Cyberinfrastructure (ref. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/) would obviously be a great application that can be examined. Therefore, if the timing is right, and you could put in the bandwidth to contribute to a track (and portions of a track), let's talk some more about possible collaboration and your (+your team's) involvement in the coming Ontology Summit.    (31CQ)

Recap: AmandaVizedom and JoanneLuciano / 2011.12.06    (31CL)

An Objective Metrics for Understanding Ontology Quality in Context - Towards Objective Metrics for Understanding Ontology Quality in Context (AmandaVizedom and JoanneLuciano) Picking up threads from several prior Summits, armed with the progress made in distinguishing families of ontology application use cases (see, e.g., the Application Cases and Usage Framework Syntheses from OntologySummit2011, at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ApplicationCases_Synthesis and http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ApplicationFramework_Synthesis, respectively), we are now in a position to push beyond the agreement to disagree that has characterized discussions of ontology quality to date. Specifically, we can work as a community to identify ontology quality characteristics relevant to (families of) ontology applications. We take this suggestion to be compatible with LeoObrst's suggestion at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions#nid2YXA, FabianNeuhaus's suggestion at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions#nid2YXC, MichaelUschold's suggestion at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions#nid2YXE, the quality and requirements aspects of OntologySummit2010, and other suggestions made at various times in the Ontolog community. We believe that our suggested topic focuses these energies on a circumscribed and yet broadly-applicable step in making progress toward ontology quality across domains and lifecycle stages (e.g. development, evaluation, reuse, and ontologist training). (See also Slideshare presentation by Joanne Luciano http://www.slideshare.net/joanneluciano/luciano-pr-08849ontologyevaluationmethodsmetrics-8294436 T    (31CM)

Recap: CoryCasanave / 2011.10.27    (31CR)

OMG-SIMF collaboration - Suggested Theme: Either "Information Federation with Ontologies" or "Solving the Data Problem". A focus on the practical application of ontological methods and tools to a problem facing every large organization - understanding and using data from independently conceived resources together. The concerns of information federation are not the same as the concerns of these other ontology use cases (such as proof) and this may result in differences in ontological approach, languages, notations, tooling and even theories. Federated data is inherently distributed, uncoordinated, messy and conflicting - yet there is value in leveraging these disparate data resources in a more unified way. It is not always clear how "neat" solutions work in this unstructured world, yet the very "scruffy" solutions seem to be insufficient. A position of the community on this question could help the application of ontologies, ontological tooling and ontological approaches to this important problem. CoryCasanave / 2011-10-27 T    (31CT)

ref. also http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2011-12/msg00089.html    (31CS)