OntologySummit2013 Symposium

The culmination of OntologySummit2013 - a 2-day workshop and symposium event at the Gaithersburg campus of NIST that supported both face-to-face and virtual (remote) participation!

[more pics]
[ Archives ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ] . [ survey ] . [ responses ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ]
[ Archives ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ] .  [ OntologySummit2013_Communique ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ]
[ slides ]
 see raw transcript here.    (3P73)
 (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.    (3P74)
    -- begin of chat session --    (3P75)
	[06:03] PeterYim: Welcome to the    (3SU8)
	 = OntologySummit2013 Symposium (Day-1) 2-May-2013 =    (3SU9)
	 Session details: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Symposium    (3SUA)
	 Dial-in details: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013/WorkshopRegistration#nid3P38    (3SUB)
	 Agenda: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Symposium#nid3P64    (3SUC)
	Attendees: AdrianBaranyuk, AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom, AstridDuqueRamos, BarrySmith, BenBovee, 
	BobSchloss, BobbinTeegarden, BruceBray, CarmenChui, ChristianHempelmann, ChuckWard, DougFoxvog, 
	ElizabethFlorescu, FabianNeuhaus, FouadRamia, FrankOlken, GaryBergCross, GaryGannon, JimJacobs, 
	LaVernPritchard, MichaelBarnett, MarcHalpern, MatthewKaufman, MatthewWest, MikeBennett, MikeDean, 
	OliverKutz, PavithraKenjige, PeterYim, SimonSpero, SteveRay, SylviaSpengler, Symposium (SteveRay), 
	TerryLongstreth, TillMossakowski, TorstenHahmann, anonymous, anonymous1, mpavel, vnc2    (3SUD)
	 == proceedings: ==    (3SUE)
	[05:54] anonymous morphed into SylviaSpengler    (3SUF)
	[05:56] Symposium (SteveRay): Welcome everyone.    (3SUG)
	[06:09] SylviaSpengler: can people hear on the phone?    (3SUH)
	[06:09] TillMossakowski: not very well    (3SUI)
	[06:10] Symposium (SteveRay): I will go check with the A/V folks.    (3SUJ)
	[06:11] TillMossakowski: I have to put my local volume at maximum, and then I still the outcome is 
	so low-volume that it is hard to understand everything.    (3SUK)
	[06:11] SylviaSpengler: I thought it was my phone but nothing works.    (3SUL)
	[06:12] anonymous morphed into DougFoxvog    (3SUM)
	[06:13] PeterYim: more slides uploaded ... please refresh your agenda page to see their active links    (3SUN)
	[06:15] Symposium (SteveRay): OK, sound should be good now. Is it OK?    (3SUO)
	[06:16] Symposium (SteveRay): Also, could the call-in folks please mute your phones when you aren't 
	speaking? We had some microphone rustling sounds earlier.    (3SUP)
	[06:16] TillMossakowski: yes, better now    (3SUQ)
	[06:17] SylviaSpengler: much better now    (3SUR)
	[06:19] TillMossakowski: currently, I cannot understand a word...    (3SUS)
	[06:20] TillMossakowski: better again    (3SUT)
	[06:20] Symposium (SteveRay): OK, let us know if there are problems during the day.    (3SUU)
	[06:25] anonymous morphed into FrankOlken    (3SUV)
	[06:25] FrankOlken: Sylvia, Can you hear now??    (3SUW)
	[06:26] SylviaSpengler: yes, but some speak much more quietly....    (3SUX)
	[06:27] anonymous morphed into ChuckWard    (3SUY)
	[06:27] TillMossakowski: is there a vnc screen, or do we have to download each slide set 
	individually?    (3SUZ)
	[06:30] Symposium (SteveRay): Regarding VNC, yes, it is the same VNC as our normal Thursday calls.    (3SV0)
	[06:27] FrankOlken: PeterYim & GeorgeStrawn announced that next year's Ontology Summit Symposium 
	will be held at NSF/NITRD near Ballston Metro station in Arlington, VA.    (3SV1)
	[06:30] PeterYim: next year's Ontology Summit Symposium will be hosted by NCO/NITRD ...    (3SV2)
	[06:31] anonymous morphed into ElizabethFlorescu    (3SV3)
	[06:40] anonymous morphed into JimJacobs    (3SV4)
	[06:43] PeterYim: == JamesWarren giving the Keynote-1 talk on the Material Genome Initiative (MGI)    (3SV5)
	[06:44] SylviaSpengler: can the speaker please speak up?    (3SV6)
	[06:50] Symposium (SteveRay): Is that better? They turned up the gain on his mic.    (3SV7)
	[06:51] Symposium (SteveRay): Question on the relationship with DARPA's manufacturing program    (3SV8)
	[06:52] DougFoxvog: Remote users should turn off their microphones. We're getting some clicks and 
	noises over the loudspeakers at NIST.    (3SV9)
	[07:07] TerryLongstreth: Q: J. Warren - did the conference/MGI itself deal with Intellectual 
	property, patents and copyright ?    (3SVA)
	[07:08] SylviaSpengler: Can presenters please repeat the questions!!    (3SVB)
	[07:09] DougFoxvog: The question was what Terry put on the chat.    (3SVC)
	[07:09] Symposium (SteveRay): This last question was Terry's question above    (3SVD)
	[07:09] Symposium (SteveRay): Terry is raising the issue that, for example, seismic data is hard to 
	get from oil companies?    (3SVE)
	[07:10] BobSchloss: There is a multi-national initiative starting, called the Research Data 
	Alliance, http://rd-alliance.org that is in the organizing stage. Some of the technical conventions 
	about metadata etc they are addressing would also be relevant to MGI. Also, the World Wide Web 
	consortium is planning to increase their work on representations of web-accessible data collections 
	(I was at their "Open Data" meeting in London last week), and could help on some of this work.    (3SVF)
	[07:27] PeterYim: == AldenDima giving a brief on CALPHAD, a project in the Material Genome area 
	where ontologies are coming into play    (3SVG)
	[07:27] PeterYim: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Symposium#nid3RSZ ... 
	slides will be uploaded later    (3SVH)
	[07:36] anonymous morphed into MarcHalpern    (3SVI)
	[07:40] Symposium (SteveRay): Break until 11am Eastern time (10:40 EDT now).    (3SVJ)
	[07:44] PeterYim: Slides from AldenDima is now online ... please refresh the agenda page (url above) 
	to see it. His questions on the last slide will be part of the panel discussion that follows after 
	the break    (3SVK)
	[08:09] PeterYim: == session resuming - Panel Discussion - 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Symposium#nid3Q0N    (3SVL)
	[08:28] anonymous morphed into TorstenHahmann    (3SVM)
	[08:31] anonymous morphed into MatthewKaufman    (3SVN)
	[08:41] Symposium (SteveRay): == Track A session - Intrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - 
	LeoObrst presenting    (3SVO)
	[08:45] DougFoxvog: The panel discussion brought up the question as to what the requirements are for 
	an ontology being developed. Often it turns out that ontology development is part of requirements 
	analysis or modeling. So one requirement for developing the ontology is to develop a subset of the 
	requirements for the system and to develop a model of an area.    (3SVP)
	[08:51] Symposium (SteveRay): Remote participants please mute your microphones. Lots of rustling 
	sounds. Thanks    (3SVQ)
	[08:52] DougFoxvog: Leo discusses OntoClean methodology. OntoClean says a role, e.g., Employee, 
	should not be a subclass of Person because the role is dynamic, but Person is static. This is valid 
	in a 4D theory, but in a 3D+1 system, is not a necessary restriction. This suggests that at least 
	some of the rules should depend upon the broader model, e.g., 4D vs. 3D+1 the ontology is based on.    (3SVR)
	[08:53] MikeBennett: @Doug interesting point. In FIBO we use the "Relative Thing" partition which 
	has a similar effect - so it's not only a 4D thing - but it reinforces your opinion that some of 
	these considerations are to do with the theories in the upper ontology partitions    (3SVS)
	[09:00] DougFoxvog: @Mike: This brings up the point that "upper-level" decisions are not always 
	necessary to be made in an ontology. One could identify from an ontology whether the ontology 
	intrinsically includes such a decision -- in which case it should be identified, perhaps by 
	#including an "upper-level" ontology with that model. It might be useful to create an agnostic 
	relation that would map to different relations in (in this case) 4D and 3D+1 ontologies.    (3SVT)
	[09:02] MikeBennett: @Doug yes, it occurs to me that there is a connection between upper ontology 
	use, and semantic conformance criteria. Some folks have suggested that we should not use the 
	Independent / Relative / Mediating partitions because it's easy for modelers to get it wrong. 
	Conversely, something which is easy for a modeler to get wrong, is one where you have a means to 
	test when the meaning has been consistently understood and applied.    (3SVU)
	[08:54] anonymous morphed into mpavel    (3SVV)
	[08:54] anonymous morphed into FouadRamia    (3SVW)
	[08:54] anonymous1 morphed into AdrianBaranyuk    (3SVX)
	[08:55] JimJacobs: What evaluation methods speak to the strength of the property or relation side of 
	an ontology (as opposed to class taxonomy issues)? The relative "flatness or bushy-ness" of the 
	property set greatly affects reasoning power.    (3SVY)
	[08:56] MikeBennett: @JimJacobs the OQuaRE toolset has measures for that and similar things.    (3SVZ)
	[08:58] AstridDuqueRamos: @JimJacobs In OQuaRE, the subcharacteristic "Formal relations support". 
	and the metric RROnto is related with that.    (3SW0)
	[09:00] TerryLongstreth: IMO flatness or bushyness affects the utility of the ontology, in much the 
	same way as abstraction does. If the ontology detail is elided, then it's utility is equivalently 
	reduced. If the requirement exists for the greater utility, then the ontology fails.    (3SW1)
	[09:00] SteveRay: Regarding question #2, one piece of evidence leading toward a larger ROI is if you 
	answer "yes" to question 1. In that case, the "I" (investment) part of ROI is small, thus the 
	chances of the ROI will be large increases.    (3SW2)
	[09:02] DougFoxvog: FWIW, the question numbers that are referred to above are to Leo's questions on 
	his Slide 5. // 1) Structural evaluation tests are the easiest set of tests to apply. Agree or 
	disagree?    (3SW3)
	2) Structural evaluation provides the greatest ROI during ontology development. Agree or disagree?    (3SW4)
	3) Is ontology quality always relative to some external criteria? Can an ontology intrinsically be 
	of high quality without respect to some criteria? Is ontology quality inherently second-order?    (3SW5)
	4) Does ontological analysis in terms of relatively agreed upon and sound theories (e.g., 
	mereotopology, a theory of parts; distinguishing semantic vs. metaphysical analyses or commitments, 
	a theory of referring expressions and their referents; 3D vs. 4D analyses; parsimony of 
	representation; explicit intentional and causal focus; etc.) enable a better ontology?    (3SW6)
	5) If we were to rank criteria that a good ("quality") ontology would have, what would be the first 
	five criteria in order of importance? //    (3SW7)
	[09:03] SylviaSpengler: thanks...hard to tell on some things....    (3SW8)
	[09:04] JimJacobs: With respect to Q3, there seems to be a distinction between intrinsic quality and 
	utility for any particular purpose. In both cases it seems critical to have meta information 
	regarding the intended context for use. I believe specificity of context to the "next big thing" in 
	this area.    (3SW9)
	[09:05] SylviaSpengler: Very nice point.    (3SWA)
	[09:07] DougFoxvog: @JimJacobs: I suggest that the intended context of an ontology should be 
	reified. I.e., statements in the ontology language should be made providing information about the 
	intended context. Thus a knowledge base about the ontology!    (3SWB)
	[09:09] DougFoxvog: We could create standards for what sort and breadth of statements should be 
	included for best practice ontologizing.    (3SWC)
	[09:11] MikeBennett: Indeed. Then extending that, whether the ontology merits the use of upper 
	ontology partitions (e.g. reference ontology Yes, application ontology No), and then quality 
	measures follow from the due application of these.    (3SWD)
	[09:12] Symposium (SteveRay): == Beginning Track B - Extrinsic Aspects of Ontology Evaluation - 
	ToddSchneider presenting    (3SWE)
	[09:12] BobSchloss: I would like to see any ideas about evaluation of ontologies that takes place 
	over time -- watches the dynamics of requests for modifications, and whether those modifications are 
	the kind the require more-expensive changes to producing or consuming software or information 
	repositories (databases).    (3SWF)
	[09:17] MatthewKaufman: It sounds to me like Operational Aspects are Merging Much with Development 
	Aspects in many domains; such as Ontology Versus Real-Life Use as in: Dev-Ops is Merging with 
	Software Pragmatics/Development -- http://itrevolution.com/the-convergence-of-devops/    (3SWG)
	[09:18] MatthewKaufman: Software Engineering + Dev-Ops = Future (Now; i.e., the Cloud)? It is 
	merging.    (3SWH)
	[09:28] MatthewKaufman: Requirements for Ontology: 1) Business Requirements (Opportunity Discovery, 
	Due Diligence, or Regulatory/Compliance Checks) -- 2) Regulatory / Legal: Sarbanes-Oxley is a 
	wonderful example of how operational can fit in to the abstracted design of the ontology -- 3) The 
	last phase IMO: Is the User Scenario / Use Cases of the software itself that the ontology is created 
	for    (3SWI)
	[09:30] JimJacobs: @ToddSchneider wrt "intended interpretation" almost suggests a requirement for a 
	"SKOS-type"" descriptive document to go along with the actual detailed ontology (""OWL-level""). Having 
	a recommended set of metadata descriptions to go with ontologies intended for re-use ... this would 
	be a valuable thing.    (3SWJ)
	[09:30] AmandaVizedom: RE Regression Testing for ontologies - this does exist in some places, but 
	needs to be adopted much more broadly. RE: current practices: see Mar-7 presentation by 
	MariaCopeland [1], Feb-14 by GavinMatthews [2]. ... ref. [1] 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_03_07 ; [2] 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_02_14    (3SWK)
	[09:31] SteveRay: I don't see why much of what comprises requirements engineering cannot also apply 
	to ontology development ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requirements_engineering )    (3SWL)
	[09:32] MatthewKaufman: @JimJacobs: ""Having a recommended set of metadata descriptions to go with 
	ontologies intended for re-use"" ---- I was just going to say this: ***I BELIEVE BEFORE THE 
	REQUIREMENTS; IT IS REQUIRED AND ESSENTIAL TO FIRST GATHER AND DEFINE AND *KNOW* WHAT THE 
	""DEFINITIONS"" ARE OF YOUR DOMAIN***    (3SWM)
	[09:32] MatthewKaufman: http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/soa2002.pdf    (3SWN)
	[09:32] MatthewKaufman: Sec. 2. Definitions. Sec. 3. Commission rules and enforcement    (3SWO)
	[09:33] MatthewKaufman: I.e., the Ontology is built on: ""Commission rules and enforcement""; but 
	first Definitions are required to know the domains and scopes?.    (3SWP)
	[09:34] MatthewKaufman: (c) DEFINITIONS.In this section (1) the term securities analyst means any 
	associated person of a registered broker or dealer that is principally responsible for, and any 
	associated person who reports directly or indirectly to a securities analyst in connection with, the 
	preparation of the substance of a research report, whether or not any such person has the job title 
	of securities analyst; and (2) the term research report means a written or electronic communication 
	that includes an analysis of equity securities of individual (..)    (3SWQ)
	[09:35] SteveRay: @MatthewKaufman: Would you agree that one of the main uses of ontology is to 
	provide the definitions?    (3SWR)
	[09:37] SteveRay: @MatthewKaufman: It is looking like you are getting circular: You want definitions 
	before composing the requirements for an ontology, whose purpose is to provide the definitions.    (3SWS)
	[09:38] AmandaVizedom: @MatthewKaufman - many of us view that as an essential part of the 
	requirements development process, not something which is separate and before it.    (3SWT)
	[09:38] MatthewKaufman: @AmandaVizedom: Okay, point taken. Correct. I'd agree and encourage that.    (3SWU)
	[09:40] MatthewKaufman: @SteveRay: I see what you are saying; but I think the definitions are in the 
	""context"" itself; i.e., I see an ontology in being a ""LINKER"" between 2 ""Definitions"" or ""sources""
	or "frames". I see an ontology as providing the *links* and or relational connections between 1 or 
	sources and or concepts/entities/things.    (3SWV)
	[09:41] JimJacobs: This reminds me of why some folks have suggested that in system architecture 
	frameworks like DODAF or MODAF an "AV-2" document should be quite ontological in its list of 
	defining terms for system designers and developers to use during system development.    (3SWW)
	[09:42] MatthewKaufman: I am not familiar with DODAF or MODAF. AV-2 sounds familiar; but still 
	unknown. I think GNUStep is the closest thing I have seen to an ontological type concept in systems.    (3SWX)
	[11:07] TerryLongstreth: @MatthewKaufman: For an overview of MODAF work products see 
	https://www.gov.uk/mod-architecture-framework#viewpoints-and-views    (3SWY)
	[11:21] GaryBergCross: DODAFia a DoD Architectural Framework...and Enterprise Architecture.    (3SWZ)
	[11:39] MatthewKaufman: Thanks Terry    (3SX0)
	[11:40] TerryLongstreth: ;})    (3SX1)
	[10:19] AliHashemi: are people breaking atm?    (3SX2)
	[10:35] AstridDuqueRamos: has the conference re-started?.    (3SX3)
	[10:40] SylviaSpengler: (1:40pm EDT now) 2:00pm EDT is what I have on my agenda copy    (3SX4)
	[10:45] AstridDuqueRamos: Thanks.    (3SX5)
	[10:52] anonymous morphed into CarmenChui    (3SX6)
	[10:55] AmandaVizedom: People are re-gathering. We should be starting shortly.    (3SX7)
	[11:01] anonymous morphed into BarrySmith    (3SX8)
	[11:05] MikeBennett: We are standing in little clumps chatting, but nearly everyone is here.    (3SX9)
	[11:06] anonymous1 morphed into Symposium (SteveRay)    (3SXA)
	[11:07] anonymous morphed into LaVernPritchard    (3SXB)
	[11:08] Symposium (SteveRay): == DavidNewman giving the keynote-2    (3SXC)
	[11:15] Symposium (SteveRay): We can hear keyboard activity. Please try to mute when not speaking.    (3SXD)
	[11:22] anonymous morphed into ChristianHempelmann    (3SXE)
	[11:28] anonymous morphed into BenBovee    (3SXF)
	[11:31] List of cuurent members in the chat-workspace: AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom, AstridDuqueRamos, 
	BarrySmith, BenBovee, BobbinTeegarden, BobSchloss, CarmenChui, ChristianHempelmann, DougFoxvog, 
	FouadRamia, GaryBergCross, JimJacobs, LaVernPritchard, MatthewKaufman, MatthewWest, MikeBennett, 
	MikeDean, mpavel, PeterYim, SimonSpero, SteveRay, SylviaSpengler, Symposium (SteveRay), 
	TerryLongstreth, TorstenHahmann, vnc2    (3SXG)
	[11:32] LaVernPritchard: slides are not being advanced    (3SXH)
	[11:32] PeterYim: ran into a technical issue; vnc service is back now    (3SXI)
	[11:33] LaVernPritchard: thank you    (3SXJ)
	[11:47] GaryBergCross: How would you describe the method by which you arrive at community agreed 
	upon standard definitions of business terms? And what were the challenges along the way?    (3SXK)
	[11:47] anonymous morphed into PavithraKenjige    (3SXL)
	[11:48] DougFoxvog: Mention of use of other standards. Are there mappings to EDI terms? ... either 
	X12, EDIFACT, SWIFT, ...?    (3SXM)
	[11:56] anonymous morphed into GaryGannon    (3SXN)
	[12:02] MikeBennett: @GaryBergCross for the most part, we took definitions in the corresponding data 
	standards e.g. ISO20022, adapted so they describe the thing rather than the data about the thing, 
	and then present this for review and validation. The main challenge is that people prefer to tell 
	you about new terms than to formally validate the existing ones.    (3SXO)
	[12:04] MikeBennett: @DougFoxvog in the FIBO "Foundations" specification we have defined 
	abstractions which are necessarily outside of the financial industry, and tried to find standard 
	ontologies which cover the same ground (only a few so far). For the industry content, most terms 
	originate as a reverse engineering of logical (ISO 20022) or physical (e.g.FpML) model standard, 
	refactored to describe the actual thing. We hope to map to more standard ontologies in the future as 
	these emerge.    (3SXP)
	[12:04] anonymous morphed into FabianNeuhaus    (3SXQ)
	[12:06] MikeBennett: For example when we model loans, we want to align with the MISMO standard for 
	loans, but that only deals with physical and logical data model components, so with their blessing 
	we aim to create the corresponding ontology - but where MISMO deals with terms about real estate, we 
	would expect to use formal ontologies developed in and by the real estate community of practice.    (3SXR)
	[12:08] MikeBennett: For definitions, if there isn't a pre-existing industry data model standard, we 
	tend to use a wikipedia or Investopedia definition, as long as the subject matter experts agree on 
	the use of a given definition and source.    (3SXS)
	[12:10] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett did you run into situations where there was a conflict of 
	ontology quality, say a real taxonomy, vs. domain definitions that seemed to want it another way? 
	Did you ever have to resolve conflicts between 2 or more conflicting taxonomies from the various 
	domains?    (3SXT)
	[12:12] DougFoxvog: @MikeBennett: SWIFT has been sending financial messages with formally defined 
	terms for over 40 years. X12 & EDIFACT have had such messages since the 1980s. These messages have 
	transferred 10s (100s? more?) of trillions of US dollars over the years. They are certainly used in 
	the financial industry    (3SXU)
	[12:14] MikeBennett: Not as such, but we have had to work out what treatments to take on external 
	ontologies e.g. when to use a snapshot or when to refer to the ontology direct. Quality, and 
	knowledge of maintenance of other ontologies, is quite variable. In reality, we have only so far 
	make such reference to a small number of ontologies, and this sort of material is outside the scope 
	of the OMG submission, which is restricted to what is our own, stable set of terms and definitions. 
	So this is an aspect of the ontology that we can expect to develop further as time goes on.    (3SXV)
	[12:14] GaryGannon: (responding to the moderator's verbal question) yes I am speaking    (3SXW)
	[12:14] SylviaSpengler: you seem muted, Gary    (3SXX)
	[12:14] AliHashemi: Gary you're likely still muted.    (3SXY)
	[12:14] AliHashemi: Try *7    (3SXZ)
	[12:15] MikeBennett: @DougFoxvog indeed. We made reference to the ISO 20022 FIBIM model component 
	(the remaining aspects of SWIFT are more in the transaction space, which we haven't modeled yet. At 
	the end of May, SWIFT (in their capacity as RA of ISO 20022) are releasing a new interface and more 
	semantic terms for their material - worth a look.    (3SY0)
	[12:15] AliHashemi: @MikeBennett, any work towards using Controlled English for the natural language 
	definitions?    (3SY1)
	[12:17] MikeBennett: Not at this point, but we are considering in a future iteration, having a layer 
	of SBVR terminology, which is a sort of CNL. I'd like to look at more formal use of something like 
	ACE as well. This wouild be a different set of definitions to the industry ones, which are 
	deliberately intended to be the ones which business folks themselves are comfortable with.    (3SY2)
	[12:19] AliHashemi: Do you think there'll always be a divide b/w these languages? (in this context 
	at least)    (3SY3)
	[12:19] AliHashemi: )// always --> for a long time*    (3SY4)
	[12:16] SimonSpero: @AliHashemi: there was a quick look at ACE in the hackathon    (3SY5)
	[12:20] Symposium (SteveRay): All remote attendees: The audio bridge only lasts for 4 hours, so 
	please hang up your audio connection and dial back in at 3:30pm Eastern. Thanks!    (3SY6)
	[12:20] SimonSpero: Engineers, physicists, architects, and mathematicians demonstrate that all odd 
	numbers greater than 1 are prime:    (3SY7)
	[12:20] SimonSpero: Mathematician: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, and 7 is prime. By induction, all the odd 
	integers are prime.    (3SY8)
	[12:20] SimonSpero: Physicist: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is experimental error, 11 is 
	prime, 13 is prime, 15 is experimental error, 17 is prime, 19 is prime. The empirical evidence is 
	overwhelming    (3SY9)
	[12:21] SimonSpero: Engineer: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is a good approximation, 11 is 
	prime    (3SYA)
	[12:21] SimonSpero: Architect: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, the engineers will figure out how 
	to make 9 prime, 11 is prime, ...    (3SYB)
	[12:29] BobbinTeegarden: Thank you, Simon. ;0)    (3SYC)
	[12:31] AliHashemi: if people are speaking, the audio is not working properly    (3SYD)
	[12:33] AliHashemi: wait,    (3SYE)
	[12:33] Symposium (SteveRay): people ... please re-dial into the conf call again, the bridge is up 
	now    (3SYF)
	[12:33] AliHashemi: I could only hear Steve. If others are speaking, still only faint audio.    (3SYG)
	[12:34] AliHashemi: (ah nm)    (3SYH)
	[12:36] AliHashemi: no it's fine!    (3SYI)
	[12:37] BruceBray: that's better    (3SYJ)
	[12:38] Symposium (SteveRay): == Track-C - Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - report 
	starting, MikeBennett presenting    (3SYK)
	[12:46] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett Concepts can, and should, also be grounded in data. So if we are 
	talking about a contract, what data do we have on a contract.    (3SYL)
	[12:51] SimonSpero: GaryBergCross: see 
	http://www.iva.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/CONCEPTS/literary_warrant.htm    (3SYM)
	[12:54] GaryBergCross: @SimonSpero This provides great intensive defs, but less of the type of 
	instance data that I was thinking of...    (3SYN)
	[12:55] SimonSpero: Scientific Warrant is close    (3SYO)
	[12:51] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett @DavidNewman another part of development would be the in the 
	integrating of ontology modules / ODPs from the Base as mentioned earlier.    (3SYP)
	[12:55] PeterYim: == Track C - Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria - session continues - 
	MatthewWest posing questions to the participants    (3SYQ)
	[12:55] PeterYim: === Matthew: Q1. why have an ontology development methodology? [Symposium 
	(SteveRay) and PeterYim capturing some of the verbal responses below ... ]    (3SYR)
	[12:56] DougFoxvog: Why have an ontology development methodology? To ensure that the ontology is 
	consistent with itself, included ontologies, and to ensure the lack of large gaps.    (3SYS)
	[12:56] Symposium (SteveRay): Easier to teach people to develop ontologies    (3SYT)
	[12:56] PeterYim: to develop a repeatable pattern    (3SYU)
	[12:56] ChristianHempelmann: If you don't know on what basis you're making choices, you can't 
	correct them in an informed manner.    (3SYV)
	[12:56] BobbinTeegarden: Reuseability    (3SYW)
	[12:57] JimJacobs: Answer to Q1: "You need an ontology development methodology to "raise the quality 
	floor" of ontology work yielding a well-framed artifact."    (3SYX)
	[12:57] TerryLongstreth: re: MatthewWest question 1 - requires first answering the question 'Why 
	have an ontology', the answer to that will guide the selection of (a) methodology    (3SYY)
	[12:57] BobSchloss: Why have an ontology development methodology? - To not miss anything critical 
	and have visibility of where you are toward "Completion - Ready for Use" (so the methodology implies 
	a repeatable process in my mind)    (3SYZ)
	[12:57] PeterYim: making out current implicit methodology explicit, and therefore repeatable and 
	reusable    (3SZ0)
	[12:57] Symposium (SteveRay): Makes collaboration between people much easier to develop the ontology    (3SZ1)
	[12:58] SimonSpero: If you don't know have a methodology, you have no idea what you're going to do, 
	or if you've done it    (3SZ2)
	[12:58] SteveRay: For consistency in quality and design    (3SZ3)
	[12:58] JimJacobs: 2nd answer to Q1: to embody and clarify development assumptions.    (3SZ4)
	[12:58] AliHashemi: Q1 Answer: A development methodology is instrumental in providing insight into 
	whether the resulting ontology is appropriate, and how to best manage the ontology as a resource / 
	asset. Helps make ontologies more measurable, comparable and understandable.    (3SZ5)
	[12:58] Symposium (SteveRay): Provides a framework for completeness and learning    (3SZ6)
	[12:58] AmandaVizedom: Sometimes to make ontology development effective quality-wise. Sometimes to 
	make team development possible.    (3SZ7)
	[12:59] GaryBergCross: To help diverse people produce ontologies with similar, good 
	qualities...Ontologies become more reproducible.    (3SZ8)
	[12:59] Symposium (SteveRay): === MatthewWest: Q2. What should an ontology development methodology 
	cover?    (3SZ9)
	[12:59] JimJacobs: Q2: The frame of analysis, the epistemology used, the intended purpose.    (3SZA)
	[13:00] TorstenHahmann: second question: it should include milestones and activities    (3SZB)
	[13:00] SimonSpero: What should methodology cover: do you need an ontology,    (3SZC)
	[13:00] GaryBergCross: A development methodology would cover the class of tools and standards that 
	should help.    (3SZD)
	[13:01] GaryBergCross: Development methodology should include how phases of work are related.    (3SZE)
	[13:02] GaryBergCross: Development methodology should include guidance on how quality is gauged 
	during each phase.    (3SZF)
	[13:00] AliHashemi: Q2 Answer - Should offer a set of optional (but normative) best practices, 
	aggregating the collective wisdom of practitioners and lessons learned. Suggestions for different 
	methodologies depending on the intended usage.    (3SZG)
	[13:01] AliHashemi: Q2A addendum - ability to gauge and measure the ontology as it is being 
	developed.    (3SZH)
	[13:00] SylviaSpengler: How about giving the online folks a chance to sound off? This feels like 
	sheep and goats..    (3SZI)
	[13:01] TorstenHahmann: should offer criteria to track the progress of the development    (3SZJ)
	[13:01] PeterYim: ... from HansPolzer: methodology should include techniques for how upper 
	ontologies can be used to analyze a domain to support development of a consistent domain ontology    (3SZK)
	[13:01] DougFoxvog: An ontology development methodology should cover a technique for covering a 
	topic, what kinds of assertions are required for each class, individual, and relation defined in the 
	ontology, including documentation. It should include (how to select) which higher ontologies to 
	include.    (3SZL)
	[13:01] AmandaVizedom: Methodology should cover & guide development-time decisions, including how to 
	choose between logically equivalent solutions to a modeling problem (for consistency & 
	collaboration)    (3SZM)
	[13:01] AmandaVizedom: How to scope (what to include and when to stop)    (3SZN)
	[13:02] AmandaVizedom: A methodology should include specification of its own applicability 
	conditions.    (3SZO)
	[13:03] DougFoxvog: @Amanda: +1    (3SZP)
	[13:04] AmandaVizedom: Where, when, & how to test your work    (3SZQ)
	[13:04] Symposium (SteveRay): Should use a process language to specify the kinds of tasks needed in 
	a development methodology    (3SZR)
	[13:05] PeterYim: an improvement methodology to fix things when things don't work    (3SZS)
	[13:05] SimonSpero: Stand Up for SCRUM    (3SZT)
	[13:05] AmandaVizedom: should be specified clearly enough to track - whether automatically or 
	manually    (3SZU)
	[13:05] DougFoxvog: An ontology development methodology should include a technique for analyzing 
	that no logically inconsistent assertions are made. Including inconsistency between assertions made 
	by different members of the development team.    (3SZV)
	[13:06] DougFoxvog: I mean *automatic* analysis of assertions as made.    (3SZW)
	[13:05] Symposium (SteveRay): Need to distinguish between the tool-set and the methodology. Might 
	have a good methodology and bad tools.    (3SZX)
	[13:06] GaryBergCross: How to engineering an ontology from an existing vocabulary and/or data model.    (3SZY)
	[13:06] Symposium (SteveRay): Separately evaluate the tools against the methodology that is 
	separately defined.    (3SZZ)
	[13:06] PeterYim: === MatthewWest: Q3. How do you know if an ontology development methodology is delivering?    (3T00)
	[13:07] AliHashemi: Q3A: The intended uses and functionality of the ontology are satisfied with 
	"minimal" amount of (re)work.    (3T01)
	[13:07] PeterYim: if people are using your ontology    (3T02)
	[13:07] Symposium (SteveRay): If it reduces the number of errors in an ontology    (3T03)
	[13:07] AmandaVizedom: should include acknowledgement of possible need to handle situations the 
	methodology doesn't cover, and enough rationale and principles to help figure out how to do so. 
	(still q2)    (3T04)
	[13:07] JimJacobs: Q3: if it encourages ontology reuse, and endurance    (3T05)
	[13:07] Symposium (SteveRay): Continuity - allows others to step in and pick up if one person leaves 
	a team.    (3T06)
	[13:07] GaryBergCross: If you are asked to present at the Ontology summit    (3T07)
	[13:07] PeterYim: manageability, scalability, efficiency, repeatability,    (3T08)
	[13:07] Symposium (SteveRay): Consistently good and useful ontologies on multiple projects.    (3T09)
	[13:08] AmandaVizedom: Q3: do the developers find that it guides their decision? do the results of 
	those decisions meet ontology requirements?    (3T0A)
	[13:08] SimonSpero: If the mission is achieved on time and within budget    (3T0B)
	[13:08] Symposium (SteveRay): Consistency the first time through    (3T0C)
	[13:09] GaryBergCross: If it subsumes, integrates and rationalizes other methods. If IT or Domain 
	people can work with it with modest help.    (3T0D)
	[13:09] GaryBergCross: If people start to build tools to support the method.    (3T0E)
	[13:09] RamSriram: go through the design literature ... can probably pick up a lot there    (3T0F)
	[13:09] SimonSpero: RamSriram: Fred Brooks (2010). The Design Of Design.    (3T0G)
	[13:09] DougFoxvog: == Track D - Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - KenBaclawski presenting    (3T0H)
	[13:17] GaryBergCross: There is some possible overlap in the tools responded...CALORE for example 
	and OOR of which it is a part. 
	[ ... the OOR response is in reference to the OOR-sandbox instance. =ppy]    (3T0I)
	[13:18] anonymous morphed into MichaelBarnett    (3T0J)
	[13:22] PeterYim: see the software survey result summary at: 
	http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2013_SurveySummary    (3T0K)
	[13:19] PeterYim: === soliciting answers from participants: Q1. 
	// 
	(1) What are the greatest barriers today to having
	(i) system architects/designers, and
	(ii) software engineers,
	 employ ontology in their work 
	//    (3T0L)
	[13:21] PeterYim: again Symposium (SteveRay) and PeterYim capturing some of the verbal the answers 
	from the participants    (3T0M)
	[13:20] GaryBergCross: Barrier for tools...lack of easy and effective training on the tool which 
	takes people thru the ontology lifecycle.    (3T0N)
	[13:22] GaryBergCross: Embed ontology tools and integrate them with traditional SW dev 
	tools/environments.    (3T0O)
	[13:20] SteveRay: To answer the first question (slide 7) on Track D: We need tools where the UI is 
	designed for non-ontologists to use.    (3T0P)
	[13:21] MatthewKaufman: @SteveRay can you describe some of the UI examples that you mean by 
	'non-ontologists'? What are some good application models or UI methodologies or IA (information 
	architectures) to model after?    (3T0Q)
	[13:22] MatthewKaufman: there is a lot of cross work between the W3C and the DOM in the structure 
	that looks to be pointing towards entity and ontological relations more so. I have not had time to 
	look completely but I like to model my frontends in XPath similarly to the ontological (I believe 
	imo) structure itself .    (3T0R)
	[13:24] SteveRay: @MatthewKaufman: The UI would allow a user to pull down a pick-list for 
	constraining, say, the range of an association, which might be labelled "Values for this association 
	MUST be of type:" (rather than a user declaring a restriction class in the "subClassOf" attribute of 
	a class definition    (3T0S)
	[13:22] GaryBergCross: Lots of hands up out there!!!    (3T0T)
	[13:23] PeterYim: ... have processes on incorporation of ontology built into their IDE or tools    (3T0U)
	[13:24] PeterYim: ... better and more friendly user interfaces to the tools    (3T0V)
	[13:26] PeterYim: ... LeoObrst: training, formal training ...    (3T0W)
	[13:28] GaryBergCross: @LeoObrst Put more training online...    (3T0X)
	[13:29] PeterYim: ... DennisWisnosky: tools like BPMN, DoD's DM2 ... tools are out there    (3T0Y)
	[13:29] JimJacobs: Q2: strong need for clear examples of real-world threads of people using sound 
	ontology methodology.    (3T0Z)
	[13:30] PeterYim: ==== Q2: (2) what features need to be improved/added to software tools and IDE's to take down the above barriers    (3T10)
	[13:30] Symposium (SteveRay): Interesting that CS graduates are expected to know the formal 
	mathematics behind their programs, but are not trained on the formal semantics of data    (3T11)
	[13:30] PeterYim: ... Matthew: documenting change    (3T12)
	[13:31] JimJacobs: Q2: would be good to have tool support for the distinction between ontology as 
	the "worldview philosophy" of the system under development and the actual implementation level 
	knowledge representation ontology.    (3T13)
	[13:31] PeterYim: ... MichaelGruninger: traceability and provenance of ontology requirements    (3T14)
	[13:31] GaryBergCross: MOOCs are Massive Open Online Courses. There are MOOCs for Computing for Data 
	Analysis (Coursera) Data Analysis (Coursera) Network Analysis in Systems Biology (Coursera) 
	Information Visualization (IU)    (3T15)
	[13:35] GaryBergCross: Dr. Harald Sack ran a MOOC on Semantic Web Technologies is now in archive 
	mode. 5,692 learners were registered Duration: 6 weeks Course language: English 
	https://openhpi.de/course/semanticweb    (3T16)
	[13:32] PeterYim: ... MikeBennett: drag and drop UI, two views - UML-model and Conceptual-model    (3T17)
	[13:38] AmandaVizedom: The open world assumption just says that unknown/unprovable assertions should 
	not be assumed to be false. That's quite compatible with saying that modeling what you know, you 
	should aim for consistency and pay attention to what *is* entailed (according to your chosen 
	language & associated reasoning) by what you assert.    (3T18)
	[13:44] SteveRay: @AmandaVizedom: Of course I agree, otherwise what would be the use of tools to 
	check for "errors". I suppose what I should have said is that the tool should not PREVENT you from 
	doing bad things, but should let you know that you are doing bad things. Or perhaps there could be a 
	novice setting that does in fact constrain what could be valid but not-encouraged OWL 
	statements/patterns.    (3T19)
	[13:50] AmandaVizedom: @Steve, I guess what I meant is that distinguishing between unknown things 
	and things known to be false (which is what OWA does) does not mean that there aren't any inferrably 
	false things, or that inconsistencies won't lead to contradictions. It just rules out one particular 
	line of inference.    (3T1A)
	[13:39] GaryBergCross: The tools should allow leveraging existing ontologies an their parts in a 
	manageable way.    (3T1B)
	[13:42] GaryBergCross: For people's information there will be a "Semantics For Big Data" session at 
	AAAI Fall Symposium, Arlington, VA, November 15-17, 2013 Details: 
	http://stko.geog.ucsb.edu/s4bd2013/    (3T1C)
	[13:48] SimonSpero: Tools should not let you produce syntactically invalid OWL. like a certain 
	Library on Capitol Hill does    (3T1D)
	[13:46] PeterYim: == Website team presentation is on - AliHashemi presenting (remotely)    (3T1E)
	[13:50] PavithraKenjige1 morphed into PavithraKenjige    (3T1F)
	[13:52] SteveRay: @Ali: Very nice presentation. Where do I go to find out more about applying a 
	SPARQL query against the wiki?    (3T1G)
	[13:54] AliHashemi: Hi Steve, there are a number of different extensions. The SMW contains a lot of 
	pages and information about the different extensions, their development status and so on. A good 
	place ot start would be: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SparqlExtension    (3T1H)
	[13:53] Symposium (SteveRay): == AmandaVizedom now presenting on the Community Library    (3T1I)
	[13:55] AliHashemi: Am I the only remote person who lost audio?    (3T1J)
	[13:56] PeterYim: probably ... I am monitoring here, and I seem to be doing ok    (3T1K)
	[13:56] PeterYim: anyone else having audio problems?    (3T1L)
	[13:57] BruceBray: audio is fine now    (3T1M)
	[13:57] AliHashemi: i had to dial back in. ok now.    (3T1N)
	[14:01] JimJacobs: Many thanks to all the support folk that enabled the remote participation. Cheers!    (3T1O)
	[13:58] SteveRay: Hello to all the Bobbins.    (3T1P)
	[14:02] BobbinTeegarden13 morphed into BobbinTeegarden    (3T1Q)
	[14:03] Symposium (SteveRay): == the day-1 program is adjorned ... see you all tomorrow at 9:00am    (3T1R)
	[14:03] List of current members in the chat-room: AliHashemi, BarrySmith, BenBovee, BobbinTeegarden, 
	BruceBray, CarmenChui, ChristianHempelmann, DougFoxvog, GaryGannon, JimJacobs, MarcHalpern, 
	MatthewKaufman, MikeDean, mpavel, OliverKutz, PavithraKenjige, PeterYim, SimonSpero, SteveRay, 
	SylviaSpengler, Symposium, vnc2    (3T1S)
    -- end of chat session --    (3P76)
 see raw transcript here.    (3P78)
 (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.    (3P79)
    -- begin of chat session --    (3P7A)
	[05:45] Symposium (SteveRay): = Welcome to Day 2 of the Ontology Summit Symposium 2013 =    (3T1T)
	[05:26] anonymous morphed into BruceBray    (3T1U)
	[06:01] SylviaSpengler: Must better sound today...thank you    (3T1V)
	[06:02] SteveRay: Please move over to the May 3rd chat room. Just change the URL to end in 0503 
	instead of 0502. The rest of us are over there.    (3T1W)
	[06:04] SylviaSpengler: sorry wasn't paying attention...thanks Steve    (3T1X)
	[06:04] SteveRay: See you on the other side!    (3T1Y)
	[06:00] == OlivierBodenreider presenting Keynote-3    (3T1Z)
	[06:05] SylviaSpengler: could you remind the speaker about saying changed slide or its title..    (3T20)
	[06:06] Symposium (SteveRay): Currently on slide 5    (3T21)
	[06:22] GaryBergCross: It is interesting to see that under organizing principles there is no 
	hierarchical structure among the major concepts.    (3T22)
	[06:25] anonymous morphed into FrankOlken    (3T23)
	[06:26] HansPolzer: Interesting that the assessment approach doesn't include anything about the 
	purpose of the assessment or the context/perspective from which the assessment is being made    (3T24)
	[06:28] TerryLongstreth: Hans - sometimes it does, abstractly, as in chart 26    (3T25)
	[06:40] GaryBergCross: Anatomy point seemed like a problem identifying parts vs. object in region of 
	pelvis.    (3T26)
	[06:41] SteveRay: [ref. slide #49] +1 to that.    (3T27)
	[06:41] GaryBergCross: [ref. slide #50] @MikeDean Another use to test our Path ODP!!    (3T28)
	[06:43] SteveRay: [ref. slide #51] Intrinsic evaluation!    (3T29)
	[06:45] Symposium (SteveRay): slide#55    (3T2A)
	[06:46] GaryBergCross: In a way these quality measures set Requirements" for the ontology    (3T2B)
	[06:47] SteveRay: I think the heading should be Diabetic patients rather than Pediatric patients    (3T2C)
	[06:48] SylviaSpengler: not according to the ages    (3T2D)
	[06:48] BruceBray: in this case it is diabetic pediatric patients    (3T2E)
	[06:49] SteveRay: Ah    (3T2F)
	[06:49] SylviaSpengler: agree    (3T2G)
	[06:49] SteveRay: Ah    (3T2H)
	[06:49] GaryBergCross: @ Steve Does age 5-17 set this as pediatric?    (3T2I)
	[06:49] BruceBray: yes    (3T2J)
	[06:51] BruceBray: in this application the age specifies the denominator or cohort specification for 
	the measure (ie. eliminate very young children and adults)    (3T2K)
	[06:55] GaryBergCross: For me OlivierBodenreider's talk brings some of the quality discussion into 
	focus via real examples of what had been discussed generally.    (3T2L)
	[06:55] TerryLongstreth: Thought experiment - does updating their ontology periodically create new 
	ontologies every time? Are the ramifications of all changes communicated to all dependent 
	applications/users/uses?    (3T2M)
	[06:55] GaryBergCross: @Terry maybe it is just versioning.    (3T2N)
	[06:56] SteveRay: @Gary: This underscores my belief that most benefit can be derived from the 
	simpler problems (i.e. "intrinsic" error checking), much of which can be automated.    (3T2O)
	[06:57] MikeBennett: Change management in ontologies sounds like another very important aspect of 
	the ontology development lifecycle. We've considered the lifecycle for the initial development of 
	the thing, but with any engineering artifact, changes into subsequent versions is also part of the 
	process (and arguably the rationale for having a good process to begin with).    (3T2P)
	[06:57] BruceBray: @gary, I agree - it would be very interesting to apply some of the tools/methods 
	discussed in this summit to the biomed domain    (3T2Q)
	[06:57] SteveRay: The change management problem looks identical to the problem handled in code 
	development.    (3T2R)
	[06:57] TerryLongstreth: @Gary - whatever it's called, dependencies against the prior version are in 
	an unknown state after the changes are applied    (3T2S)
	[06:57] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett Since ontology development is never complete the versioning 
	problem is intrinsic to the effort.    (3T2T)
	[06:58] AmandaVizedom: Very important thing to note, IMHO: The need to support changing codes that 
	Olivier just mentioned (and language use, in other cases) is among the reasons to observe discipline 
	in representing concept/entity structure centrally, and map to different code systems (i would 
	include NL terminologies among code systems, here). Updating mappings is very different that 
	updating concept/entity structure or names, and updating mappings is a much more manageable process.    (3T2U)
	[06:59] GaryBergCross: @Terry The relations need not be unknown, but in practice this quality may 
	not be realized because of lack of resources and standard methods and tools.    (3T2V)
	[07:01] DougFoxvog: Change management should include policies for handling changed codes. Those 
	removed have recommendations for replacement codes (sometimes one replacement, sometimes more). KBs 
	need to be scanned for the changed codes and the recommendations for changes for specific assertions 
	need to be generated.    (3T2W)
	[07:01] anonymous morphed into Misha    (3T2X)
	[07:02] AmandaVizedom: Another suggestion to support ease of updates *and* preserve interpretability 
	of older data: If code mapping include explicit naming of the code system *and version*, mapping to 
	new code systems can be added in new versions of the ontology in a way that facilitates detection 
	when out of date, tracking, etc.    (3T2Y)
	[07:06] GaryBergCross: I wonder if anything analogous to regression testing makes sense and/or is 
	done?    (3T2Z)
	[07:07] AmandaVizedom: @OlivierBodenreider - thank you for presenting this. It's an excellent 
	example of good, integrated evaluation practices that have concretely improved specific ontologies. 
	The detailed look is wonderful to have.    (3T30)
	[07:08] == The OntologySummit2013_Communique - FabianNeuhaus presenting    (3T31)
	[07:08] AliHashemi / AmandaVizedom: see the Communique at: 
	https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gaQ8DIdg20AGJnlaCpQ7ebwJH_L4c4tK5RH1wyMHQig/edit?usp=sharing    (3T32)
	[07:09] DougFoxvog: The date of assertions can provide a maximum version of the code set(s) used. A 
	KB that tracks the changes to codes could date the last time each code's meaning/properties is 
	changed.    (3T33)
	[07:10] AmandaVizedom: Remote participants: you may need to refresh the session page to see the link 
	to the slides.    (3T34)
	[07:12] anonymous morphed into ClarePaul    (3T35)
	[07:14] AmandaVizedom: We are now on slide #7    (3T36)
	[07:16] GaryBergCross: Should craftsmanship include good analysis as well as design?    (3T37)
	[07:19] MatthewWest: I think good analysis is what fidelity is about.    (3T38)
	[07:22] GaryBergCross: @Matthew Yes, I can see that. But you might also have to design analysis 
	products to engage is discussion with domain experts such as conceptual viz.    (3T39)
	[07:25] MatthewWest: @Gary: I agree, but Craftsmanship is not a lifecycle phase, but something that 
	applies to artifacts of different lifecycle phases, and so is fidelity. So I would still consider 
	that good analysis is detected by a test of fidelity, where ever fidelity is important in the 
	various artifacts produced.    (3T3A)
	[07:26] MikeBennett: @Gary the question there is what method is used for presenting content to 
	domain experts - do you design a one-off throwaway viz to show them, do you design an interface 
	which shows all or some of the actual model formalisms directly (do you limit what is expressed in 
	the ontology to what can be presented to this audience). Or do you use ACE etc. So once the answer 
	to this requirement is known, there will be design considerations for how that is handled.    (3T3B)
	[07:24] AmandaVizedom: Please keep in mind, also, that this presentation is necessarily just an 
	outline or summary of the points in the Communique.    (3T3C)
	[07:25] GaryBergCross: @Amanda Will the slides be identified and available as background into to 
	help interpret the communique?    (3T3D)
	[07:26] DougFoxvog: @Gary: Everything in the slides is already in the communique.    (3T3E)
	[07:27] GaryBergCross: @Doug yes, but this is like an outline that gives an overview and some focus 
	and some browsers might look here first and afterwards too.    (3T3F)
	[07:26] BobSchloss: Two "artifacts" that Fabian doesn't call out in his slides are: Example Queries 
	(first expressed in natural language, later expressed in some semi-formal or precise query 
	language), (perhaps this is one case of a capability question), and Illustrative Sample Instances. 
	My experience is that we realize that our ontology has gaps or makes it too difficult to code and 
	execute the most critical queries is discovered when we use these against our intermediate designs.    (3T3G)
	[07:28] BobSchloss: I think Matthew and I are both thinking about how tests of ontology adequacy are 
	performed. Mike points out that in many cases, a valid test involves domain experts who will have no 
	willingness or capacity to look at the representation of the ontology design which professional 
	ontologies or data modelers use.    (3T3H)
	[07:28] MatthewWest: @Bob: Yes that is covered in the communique, at least at a high level. That's 
	one of the ways that requirements are determined.    (3T3I)
	[07:27] AmandaVizedom: In the Communique, we had many, many hard choices to make regarding how much 
	detail to go into where. And even after we cut much that could have been said, the document is still 
	long... We tried to select with an eye toward making a strong and clear statement, and advocating 
	effectively in the direction in which consensus and understanding emerged...    (3T3J)
	[07:29] DougFoxvog: @Amanda: I wouldn't say that the document is too long. It covers a lot of 
	material. If it were arbitrarily limited to 10 pages, it would be incomplete.    (3T3K)
	[07:30] BobSchloss: @Amanda - I do not think the communique fails just because I would have written 
	somethings more specifically -- I'm just sharing my own experience with the people who are at this 
	meeting. (Yes, I know I'm bad for not writing things for you and Fabian weeks ago -- work is 
	incredibly busy!!)    (3T3L)
	[07:31] AmandaVizedom: We hope that the Communique will encourage people to look further into the 
	supporting resources ...    (3T3M)
	[07:31] MikeBennett: If the communique is anything like what Fabian is summarizing here, it sounds 
	to me like they have got to the heart of the important issues that have come out of these 
	discussions - not an easy task.    (3T3N)
	[07:31] AmandaVizedom: *and* those resources should and will continue to evolve after today.    (3T3O)
	[07:32] MikeBennett: Perhaps the communique can be followed up by a more referenced / academic white 
	paper covering this material - I think the specific things that have come out of this would merit 
	that (but it sounds like a lot of work for someone).    (3T3P)
	[07:34] AmandaVizedom: To ToddSchneider's point (that there are tools available to augment the 
	development of requirements): We are not talking about generic software requirements tracking tools. 
	We are talking about tools that specifically are integrated into ontology development, management, 
	and evaluation tools.    (3T3Q)
	[07:35] BobSchloss: It would be an interesting exercise (but not something I am signing up to do) to 
	try to document this approach in some tool such as Rational Method Composer - 
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Rational_Method_Composer https://jazz.net/library/article/1092/ 
	Then tooling to support an ontology development and release process, at least that based on Eclipse, 
	could actually have a sidebar with "What to do next?" for novice ontology developers. I think about 
	this because I am not sure that all commercial organizations have the budget to hire experienced 
	ontology designers so that their own staff can apprentice with these experienced and skilled people.    (3T3R)
	[07:37] AmandaVizedom: To date: outside of a few, proprietary examples (e.g. Cyc), there are no true 
	Integrated Development Environments for ontology, as there are for software development.    (3T3S)
	[07:34] SteveRay: All footnotes after #9 seem to have disappeared in the Google Doc.    (3T3T)
	[07:38] AmandaVizedom: @Steve: I still have them showing...    (3T3U)
	[07:39] AmandaVizedom: All: If you do not see all footnotes, you should be aware that we have 
	noticed a bit of bugginess in gdocs around this...    (3T3V)
	[07:41] AmandaVizedom: Occasionally the footnotes seem to hide from people, possibly when using 
	browsers other than chrome.    (3T3W)
	[07:47] SteveRay: @Amanda: Indeed footnotes don't seem to work in Safari but do work on my machine 
	in Chrome.    (3T3X)
	[07:42] AmandaVizedom: We can produce a pdf download snapshot of it if needed.    (3T3Y)
	[07:46] PeterYim: @Amanda & Fabian - I have downloaded a version (from your google-doc) and is 
	versioning that as v1.0.0 dated 2013.05.03-10:30 which people are endorsing ... will post that pdf 
	on the wiki later too    (3T3Z)
	[07:51] AmandaVizedom: Thank you, Peter.    (3T40)
	[07:58] GaryBergCross: I would just add to this discussion of "ontologies are part of systems" the 
	idea of ontologies as reference models (mentioned by Leo) and the type of use of ontology in Biomed 
	noted by Olivier. These seem one step removed from Apps by can be used there.    (3T41)
	[08:05] anonymous morphed into DanCarey    (3T42)
	[08:06] FrankOlken: If Cyc has had an integrated ontology development environment for 15 years, then 
	it would be difficult for NSF/CISE/III to fund such a project as research - unless a case could be 
	made that the proposed ontology development environment was a substantial improvement over prior 
	art. It may be possible to fund an ODE via either Computer Research Infrastructure program, or via 
	the ACI (Advanced Computer Infrastructure) division's software tool development programs.    (3T43)
	[08:31] AmandaVizedom: @Frank: note that the Cyc environment is not in public domain, and is 
	customized for use with the CycL language, Cyc inference engine, and supporting infrastructure test 
	harness, test- and quality-related ontology, automated bookkeeping, inference tracing... To the best 
	of my knowledge (which I admit could be out of date), it is not usable outside of those conditions. 
	For example, it could not be used on ontologies in OWL or CLIF. And key pieces are not part of 
	OpenCyc (I believe because including it would allow too much, and too easy, reverse engineering of 
	the related proprietary Cyc technology)    (3T44)
	[08:38] AmandaVizedom: (continuing prior comment: so, it is a huge advantage for projects using 
	licensed, full Cyc. But unless the broader community using standard languages all start buying Cyc 
	licenses and working natively in CycL, it does not help the general ontology community, or 
	interoperability-oriented community using ontologies.    (3T45)
	[08:38] AmandaVizedom: )    (3T46)
	[08:41] AliHashemi: yes!    (3T47)
	[08:43] DougFoxvog: A significant subset of the Cyc environment *is* available through earlier 
	versions of OpenCyc (through 2.0). OpenCyc 4.0 makes it difficult to access the Cyc environment.    (3T48)
	[08:34] PeterYim: == session resuming (after the break) ...    (3T49)
	[08:36] PeterYim: == the Hackathon-Clinics overview on behalf of the co-champions of this group of 
	H-C Activities    (3T4A)
	[08:40] PeterYim: === KenBaclawski: comments and suggestions for the Hackathon-Clinics activities? 
	...    (3T4B)
	[08:41] PeterYim: [consensus] we should do the Hackathons & Clinics again    (3T4C)
	[08:42] AliHashemi: the scope is sometimes too much for one session    (3T4D)
	[08:44] anonymous morphed into EvanWallace    (3T4E)
	[08:45] AmandaVizedom: My suggestion: (1) start earlier, (2) allow for the possibility of multiple 
	iterations. For example, 1 day intensive work, then a few weeks later, after time to think about it, 
	another 1 day intensive.    (3T4F)
	[08:46] AmandaVizedom: Another thought: allow for the possibility of some *entirely* asynchronous 
	(any time of day) projects, within a limited time span (say a weekend). I imagine that this could 
	work well for highly parallelizable projects with a good idea of what they want to get done.    (3T4G)
	[08:46] anonymous morphed into DjokoSayogo    (3T4H)
	[08:47] TerryLongstreth: I suggest we separate hackathons from the summit, and have them 
	independently scheduled and planned    (3T4I)
	[08:52] AmandaVizedom: There is, though, a lot of benefit from the flow of ideas between the summit 
	activities and the hackathons. Benefit for both, I think, from the relatedness of focus.    (3T4J)
	[08:57] TerryLongstreth: Related but different topic - followup on this summit - add a hotlink in 
	footnotes to Communique for posthoc comments, observations, activities - in essence a 2013Summit 
	blog - which could also be a place for FOLLOWUP hackathons.    (3T4K)
	[08:50] PeterYim: DougFoxvog noted that we should not have scheduled the activities over the Easter 
	Weekend ... and the point was well taken    (3T4L)
	[08:49] FrankOlken: Catholic Easter or Orthodox Easter?    (3T4M)
	[08:57] DougFoxvog: @Frank: commercial Easter. The one with Easter bunnies, eggs, and family 
	get-togethers (in the US). FWIW, Orthodox Easter has not been interfered with (which may be 
	important for the Russians) -- it occurs this coming weekend.    (3T4N)
	[08:51] anonymous morphed into NicolauDePaula    (3T4O)
	[08:54] FrankOlken: I am opposed to pushing the OntologySummit into June. It would run into Semantic 
	Technology Conference in SF or possibly SIGMOD/PODS conference.    (3T4P)
	[08:54] == JoelBender was unable to join us to present on the HC-01 project - SteveRay made a few 
	remarks as a participant in that activity    (3T4Q)
	[08:56] anonymous morphed into JamesMichaelis    (3T4R)
	[08:59] FrankOlken: Steve, I agree that ontologies would help tighten up many standards. I would 
	point to work of HL7 on HL7 version 3 which is based on a reference information model from which HL7 
	messages are derived as views on the underlying Reference Information Model.    (3T4S)
	[09:01] MikeDean: I tried to comment on BACnet, but apparently only introduced echo    (3T4T)
	[09:02] SteveRay: Sorry Mike    (3T4U)
	[09:02] MikeDean: My main point is that ASN.1 describes messages, so there was a need to represent 
	messages as well as the domain model    (3T4V)
	[09:00] == HC-02 The General Ontology Evaluation Framework (GOEF) & the I-Choose Use Case - 
	JamesMichaelis presenting (remotely)    (3T4W)
	[09:03] BobbinTeegarden11 morphed into BobbinTeegarden    (3T4X)
	[09:04] anonymous morphed into JerrySmith    (3T4Y)
	[09:05] AmandaVizedom: @James, could you speak a tiny bit slower? It's a bit hard to understand at 
	times.    (3T4Z)
	[09:12] anonymous morphed into DanCarey    (3T50)
	[09:15] anonymous morphed into KenBaclawski    (3T51)
	[09:22] GaryBergCross: It is interesting to note in passing that they cite 3 different criteria 
	(from our 5) to evaluate the ontology - Correctness, Completeness, & Utility.    (3T52)
	[09:27] AmandaVizedom: @Gary - just to note, Joanne did present on GOEF during one of the summit 
	sessions. So the characteristics/requirements/etc mentioned as part of the GOEF framework were among 
	the many that we looked at, along with those from OntoQA, OQuaRE, OOPS!, other presentations, and 
	prior literature, that fed into the ongoing summit discussions -- which discussions ultimately led 
	to the clustering of in-scope potential requirements into the focal 5 we ended up with.    (3T53)
	[09:20] == HC-03 Evaluation of OOPS! OQuaRE and OntoQA for FIBO Ontologies - MikeBennett presenting    (3T54)
	[09:32] anonymous morphed into HansPolzer    (3T55)
	[09:34] BobSchloss: Listening to Mike talk about grounding FIBO concepts in legal, financial, 
	regulatory concepts, I am reminded that in the Intelligent Semantic Model Palette (for Smarter 
	Cities) that I have worked on with RosarioUcedaSosa and others, we adopted conventions to use 
	annotations so that for any concept in ISMP (which internally we call SCRIBE), its complete or 
	partial heritage or partial mapping to concepts in pre-existing representations, vocabularies or 
	data communication standards (such as Common Alerting Protocol, National Information Exchange Model, 
	DATEX II for transportation) is always specified. We think this may allow software developers 
	familiar with these standards to find the matching concepts in the ISMP ontology.    (3T56)
	[09:40] GaryBergCross: @Amanda Is utility reflected in your 5 categories? deployability seems 
	closer, but is not quite it. I searched and the word 'utility' is not in the document.    (3T57)
	[09:41] AmandaVizedom: Gary, it is reflected, especially in fitness, but may require some unpacking 
	of implications to see...    (3T58)
	[09:43] AmandaVizedom: This comes under the heading of things we talked quite a lot about, that 
	provided important content to the Communique, but that may have a non-obvious terminological 
	alignment...    (3T59)
	[09:44] TerryLongstreth: @Gary - I'm curious as to how one would measure utility empirically.    (3T5A)
	[09:45] GaryBergCross: @Amanda I can see that a bit, but the def doesn't easily lead me to think of 
	utility which is derived from it- Does the ontology accurately represent its domain? (Fidelity)    (3T5B)
	[09:45] MatthewWest: @Gary: Utility is really a function of meeting requirements. If it isn't then 
	it means you did not get your requirements right.    (3T5C)
	[09:45] AmandaVizedom: (I have particular hopes for the future work along the Ontology of Ontology 
	Evaluation lines to capture such alignments and relationships, including the work that MikeBennett 
	just talked about.)    (3T5D)
	[09:45] AmandaVizedom: (more on that after lunch)    (3T5E)
	[09:47] Symposium (SteveRay): == session adjourned for lunch ... reconvening in about 50 minutes    (3T5F)
	[09:48] Symposium (SteveRay): == all remote participants will need to dial-in to the conference 
	bridge again, after this lunch break. (Please dial-in a couple of minutes early if you can.)    (3T5G)
	[10:44] anonymous morphed into DanCarey    (3T5H)
	[10:46] PeterYim: please dial back into the conference bridge    (3T5I)
	[10:51] Symposium (SteveRay): == HC-04 OntologySummit2013 Content Hack: Leveraging Semantics on 
	OntologPSMW - KenBaclawski presenting    (3T5J)
	[11:05] == HC-05 Hackathon: Ontology of Ontology Evaluation - AmandaVizedom presenting    (3T5K)
	[11:09] AmandaVizedom: Observation: that indirection in the ontology is actually a typical sign that 
	what you have is really not a standard ontology but a subject hierarchy / classification system. You 
	can either understand the subsumption relationship to be broader/narrower in the subject-headings 
	sense, or treat all of the class names as containing an elision of "information about..." (or "pages 
	about...," in this case.    (3T5L)
	[11:11] MikeBennett: @Amanda that came up in some of the classification research we did with the 
	folks at UBC - for instance with books, French Grammar is not a kind of French, but a French Grammar 
	Book is a kind of Book about French. The "Thing" is the book / article etc. not the subject. Sounds 
	like like is applicable to wiki as well.    (3T5M)
	[11:16] GaryBergCross: I'd like to a see a Hackathon on converting some existing subject 
	classifications into a useful ontology!    (3T5N)
	[11:30] GaryBergCross: @Amanda This work is a good opportunity to integrate with some IT methods and 
	show Process diagram as well as an Object model both of which then get represented in an Ontology.    (3T5O)
	[11:33] AmandaVizedom: @Gary, I like that idea.    (3T5P)
	[11:16] anonymous morphed into DanCarey    (3T5Q)
	[11:25] HamizahHamka: Amanda, did you consider the meta ontology proposed by AldoGangemi?    (3T5R)
	[11:27] HamizahHamka: Oqual    (3T5S)
	[11:28] HamizahHamka: http://km.aifb.kit.edu/ws/eon2006/eon2006gangemietal.pdf    (3T5T)
	[11:29] AnatolyLevenchuk: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2013-04/msg00038.html    (3T5U)
	[11:32] AmandaVizedom: @Hamizah, we did not look at that one during the hackathon day, though we do 
	have it in the collection of relevant references. Thanks for the reminder.    (3T5V)
	[11:33] MikeBennett: @Gary in FIBO we used Occurrent Things partition to create process primitives 
	and so draw process flows that were also ontologies - a bit primitive, since then DennisWisnosky has 
	worked on something in OMG which maps BPMN to OWL.    (3T5W)
	[11:37] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett Yes , I was thinking of a simple Endurant / Occurent distinction 
	with these on a top level of the diagram so below things are sub-types of these 2.    (3T5X)
	[11:43] BobbinTeegarden: @MikeBennett BPMN? But wouldn't a UML activity diagram be a richer 
	expression of the graph structure needed?    (3T5Y)
	[11:44] AmandaVizedom: @Gary, @Mike there are a number of fairly well-established ways to ontologize 
	the processes and process relationships, including scripts, subprocess hierarchies, specification of 
	participants and the role they play, etc.. Any of those could be applied in formally and shown in a 
	diagram which is itself quite understandable. I may have misunderstood Gary's first point; I took it 
	too me about the usefulness of having visual conventions (e.g., color, shape) for showing the 
	process and event things differently from, say, the actors and information objects.    (3T5Z)
	[11:45] BobbinTeegarden: @Amanda Shape, not color, my vote.    (3T60)
	[11:48] AmandaVizedom: @Bobbin - certainly color runs up against limits and perception variations 
	more quickly!    (3T61)
	[11:49] MikeBennett: @Amanda I'd like to look into that some more. I see potential for conceptual 
	modeling tooling which goes beyond ontology to business process, business rules etc., with 
	everything tied in to 1st order logic, math etc. - I like the idea of different appearances.    (3T62)
	[11:49] GaryBergCross: @Amanda You understood what I was saying, which was to use a color or shape 
	code at this level, but that could be later formalized a bit by linking to DUL concepts.    (3T63)
	[11:50] MikeBennett: On appearances, there was a chap who presented at the last OMG meetings, on 
	taking a more scientific approach to appearances of things - tore into UML and the rest :)    (3T64)
	[11:50] MikeBennett: (for instance, use color as a way to help the eye differentiate things but not 
	as primary distinction which would be e.g. shape).    (3T65)
	[11:53] AmandaVizedom: @Bobbin - but good visualization and use of visual metaphors are areas in 
	which I tend to rely on the strengths and expertise of others -- I recognize them as important, and 
	also make a practice of attending to whether an intended audience (say, experts reviewing something) 
	can easily and correctly understand some presentation, or whether it needs to be modified for them. 
	In that (common) case, though, I often look for tools and/or metaphors that audience likes already, 
	or find someone who has more UI / visualization expertise to help solve it.    (3T66)
	[11:53] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett Yes the older convention seemed to be sq for continuent-objects 
	and ovals for process-occurents.    (3T67)
	[11:54] AmandaVizedom: @Gary, Mike - increasingly crowded convention-space. Shape uses in different 
	diagramming practices can conflict.    (3T68)
	[11:55] MikeBennett: @Gary is that published somewhere? We have the opportunity now to rethink and 
	improve the business facing visuals in our work.    (3T69)
	[11:56] SteveRay: I would recommend turning to UI research such as the work of Ben Schneiderman for 
	some good principles.    (3T6A)
	[11:56] BobbinTeegarden: @Amanda Agree that human sensory reaction important. Thought: color doesn't 
	print well, turns out it's important for model usage, I think.    (3T6B)
	[11:57] AmandaVizedom: @Mike, during the USAF project, we had that specific issue: bridging BPMN and 
	OWL. Well, not only that; representing BPMN in OWL was useful but didn't solve our whole problem. We 
	*really* wanted to bridge the work of Enterprise Architects and that of Ontologists, so that we 
	could have more continuity &integration of work and reuse of information gathering.    (3T6C)
	[11:58] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett Data Flow Diagrams The formal, structured analysis approach 
	employs the data-flow diagram (DFD) to assist in the functional decomposition process. I learned 
	structured analysis techniques from DeMarco [7], and those techniques are representative of present 
	conventions. To summarize, DFD's are comprised of four components: External interactors are 
	represented by a rectangle. Data stores are represented by an open rectangle (2 or 3 sides). 
	Processes are represented by any rounded object (a circle, oval, or square with rounded corners). A 
	DFD process may represent system function at one of various levels, atomic through aggregate. Data 
	flows are represented by arrows, with labels indicating their content. 
	http://www.umsl.edu/~sauterv/analysis/dfd/DiagrammingMethods.html    (3T6D)
	[11:58] MikeBennett: Turns out that UI chap is right here in Maryland http://www.cs.umd.edu/~ben/    (3T6E)
	[11:58] MikeBennett: @Gary, ah yes, I remember those.    (3T6F)
	[11:59] AmandaVizedom: E.g. EA often bottoms out at the exchange of information objects (e.g., 
	reports, data artifacts). It doesn't go into the information content of those objects or that 
	exchange. That's where the ontologists on that project were picking up...    (3T6G)
	[12:00] MikeBennett: @Amanda what I'd want to see is something where you draw the process flow in 
	front of the users, so it looks exactly like a Visio swimlanes diagram, but behind the scenes each 
	Process, Process Activity, Process Event etc. is given its 'is a' relationship to the kind of 
	occurrent thing it is a kind of. Then in drawing the process you draw the process ontology.    (3T6H)
	[12:00] BobSchloss: If changes are being made to OntoHub, would the team consider adding social 
	media facilities -- such as where visitors can participate in a discussion forum, with questions, 
	answers, vetted answers-to-questions (FAQ), around each ontology registered with the Hub, as well as 
	perhaps discussion of the performance of different reasoners in different configurations with 
	different databases with the ontology, etc.    (3T6I)
	[12:00] GaryBergCross: @Amanda I guess, theoretically the Data Ref Models of EA were proposed to 
	cover the "content".    (3T6J)
	[12:00] SteveRay: @Mike: Indeed, he's local. As I recall, for example, he invented the notion of 
	TreeMaps and space-filling maps, which are now very popular.    (3T6K)
	[12:01] AmandaVizedom: And, of course, the processes provided context that was implicit in the data, 
	and which we wanted to make explicit in the ontology. Plus, some of the content was about processes!    (3T6L)
	[12:02] BobbinTeegarden: @Gary @MikeBennett yes, we have used Data Flow Diagrams for initial 
	(unified domain) modeling, then broken it into UML process/structure(class) because of the need to 
	get to code. The DFD model is a good place to start with 'active ontologies', IMHO.    (3T6M)
	[12:02] SteveRay: Golden Rules of Interface Design: 
	http://faculty.washington.edu/jtenenbg/courses/360/f04/sessions/schneidermanGoldenRules.html    (3T6N)
	[12:02] GaryBergCross: On yes Ben Shneiderman. A guru in the field.    (3T6O)
	[12:03] anonymous morphed into PeteNielsen    (3T6P)
	[12:04] MikeBennett: @Bobbin the weird thing is that "pure" UML would not let you mix activity and 
	class diagrams, yet you need to talk about inputs / resources and products of process activities 
	(the Sparx EA tool lets you do hybrid diagrams for that). Vital for e.g. securities issuance process 
	and related reference data elements.    (3T6Q)
	[12:04] AmandaVizedom: @Mike - Robert Kahlert (Cycorp) and I envisioned and prototyped just such a 
	tool under the RKF project (circa 2003?). This in response to working with domain experts & trying 
	to enable them to directly create terrain analysis ontology. There's a paper draft from that kicking 
	around somewhere.    (3T6R)
	[11:25] == HC-06 ISO 15926 Reference Data Validation - AnatolyLevenchuk presenting (remotely)    (3T6S)
	[11:45] == HC-07 Ontohub-OOR-OOPS! Integration - TillMossakowski presenting (remotely)    (3T6T)
	[12:06] BobSchloss: On Slide 13, in the table, row 3, column 2, there is a typo (it says langauge.id 
	instead of language.id)    (3T6U)
	[12:07] MikeBennett: This Federation API work would also be of interest in the OMG SIMF initiative 
	(semantics of information models for federation), I think. (current slides)    (3T6V)
	[12:07] AmandaVizedom: Motivator was that the experts could easily call up and articulate their 
	expert knowledge while performing, simulating, or describing their terrain analysis processes, but 
	not outside of that. Without the process context, the pieces either made no sense to them or seemed 
	to be show-stoppingly subject to misunderstanding.    (3T6W)
	[12:10] BobbinTeegarden: @MikeBennett MagicDraw let's you mix class with process in activity 
	diagrams, just fyi, as I use it for those 'DFD' diagrams.    (3T6X)
	[12:15] == MichaelGruninger announced that the winner of First IAOA Best OntologySummit 
	Hackathon-Clinic Prize is the HC-03 team that worked on "Evaluation of OOPS! OQuaRE and OntoQA for 
	FIBO Ontologies"    (3T6Y)
	[12:16] AmandaVizedom: Congratulations to the HC-03 team!    (3T6Z)
	[12:20] MikeBennett: Thank you! Here's a big shout out to AstridSuqueRamos, MariaPovedaVillalon, 
	SamirTartir and also the rest of the team - Simon, Amanda, Peter, the FIBO folks (Jacobus Geluk, 
	Derek LaSalle, Max Gillmore, Kevin Tyson and others), all of whom put in valuable ideas and 
	perspectives to the event.    (3T70)
	[12:25] == MichaelGruninger and MatthewWest: Discussing Next Steps and Conclusion    (3T71)
	[12:25] GaryBergCross: (ref. the comment on less people coming to the symposium) Contributing Reason 
	Sequestation    (3T72)
	[12:36] GaryBergCross: Suggestion Have a half day workshop preceding the Symposium for newbies who 
	might be shy about attending w/o more knowledge.    (3T73)
	[12:30] JerrySmith: Peter - How do people 'sign' the Communique electronically?    (3T74)
	[12:36] PeterYim: @Jerry & ALL - for those who are online (i.e. now, virtually), you can just type 
	in "I endorse the communique") for those who are not around, we will be posting a solicitation for 
	endorsement to the [ontology-summit] mailing list shortly!) - ref. 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Communique    (3T75)
	[12:41] MikeBennett: We would expect to build on the HC-03 hackathon work by building on the 
	Ontology of Ontology Evaluation as a formal basis for structuring this work.    (3T76)
	[12:41] EvanWallace: @MikeBennett Some of the folks involved with Ontohub were initially involved in 
	SIMF submission development. But I haven't noticed much involvement from those people in SIMF in 
	recent months. I can think of many different reasons for that. SIMF was a great idea, but I doubt it 
	will live up to its potential (if it results in anything at all).    (3T77)
	[12:44] MikeBennett: @Evan I'd forgotten there was some overlap. I'd like to have been more involved 
	but we're an OMG Domain Mamber and so no eligible to participate. Been thinking of some deep 
	meta-metamodel ideas, which reflects a small part of what I saw in those slides today.    (3T78)
	[12:42] anonymous morphed into DanCarey    (3T79)
	[12:45] FrankOlken: Lots of distortion on the Skype audio channel now.    (3T7A)
	[12:46] == MichaelGruninger: join us on 23-May-2013 Thu (normal virtual session time; was 16-May 
	when Michael announced this, date subsequently changed) for the OntologySummit2013 Post Mortem 
	session    (3T7B)
	[12:46] == MichaelGruninger: participants welcome to stay for the "Birds of a Feather (BOF) meeting 
	about follow-up work on the "Ontology of Ontology Evaluation" (HC-05) work    (3T7C)
	[12:47] FrankOlken: Maybe....    (3T7D)
	[12:47] AliHashemi: briefly though.    (3T7E)
	[12:47] BobbinTeegarden: Yes, staying.    (3T7F)
	[12:50] JerrySmith: CONGRATULATIONS! Each Summit gets better and better. The outstanding success of 
	this one tops all of the others. Great job all!!!    (3T7G)
	[12:51] vnc: == the OntologySummit2013 Symposium is now adjourned    (3T7H)
	[12:53] List of attendees: AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom, AnatolyLevenchuk, AstridDuqueRamos, 
	BobSchloss, BobbinTeegarden, BruceBray, ChristianHempelmann, ClarePaul, DanCarey, DjokoSayogo, 
	DougFoxvog, EvanWallace, FrankOlken, GaryBergCross, HamizahHamka, HansPolzer, JamesMichaelis, 
	JerrySmith, KenBaclawski, LaVernPritchard, MatthewWest, MeganKatsumi, MikeBennett, MikeDean, Misha , 
	NicolauDePaula, OliverKutz, PavithraKenjige, PeteNielsen, PeterYim, SteveRay, SylviaSpengler, 
	Symposium (SteveRay), TerryLongstreth, TillMossakowski, anonymous, anonymous1, vnc, vnc2    (3T7I)
	[12:52] vnc: === we are resuming in 8 minutes for the informal BOF on "Ontology of Ontology 
	Evaluation" session    (3T7J)
	[12:52] AmandaVizedom: 10 minute break, then Birds of a Feather session re: continuing work on 
	ontology of ontology evaluation    (3T7K)
	[13:03] PeterYim: == Birds of a Feather (BOF) meeting re: continuing work on ontology of ontology 
	evaluation ... is now in session    (3T7L)
	[13:06] AliHashemi: Ali committing to provide an English description of the informal model.    (3T7M)
	[13:06] AliHashemi: Make the Hackathon page or a new Ontology of Ontology Evaluation page as 
	centralized starting point.    (3T7N)
	[13:06] AliHashemi: ?    (3T7O)
	[13:07] MikeDean: I don't think you can hear me. I'm interest in continuing to work on and update 
	the OWL formalization.    (3T7P)
	[13:07] MikeDean: s/interest/interested/    (3T7Q)
	[13:13] AmandaVizedom: subcollections of 
	https://www.zotero.org/groups/ontologysummit2013/items/collectionKey/PVGF24A6    (3T7R)
	[13:13] PeterYim: the HC-05: "Ontology of Ontology Evaluation" Project Homepage is at: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Hackathon_Clinics_OntologyOfOntologyEvalu 
	ation    (3T7S)
	[13:14] PeterYim: shared-files (artifacts) are under: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/Hackathon-Clinics/HC-05_Ontology-of-OntologyEva 
	luation/    (3T7T)
	[13:15] AmandaVizedom: I am interested in continuing to grapple the graphical informal model. The 
	final informal model will be submitted for team review, but in between I would love help, tool 
	suggestions, etc.    (3T7U)
	[13:17] vnc: the shadowed HC-05 project homepage at the OntologPSMW - 
	http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2013_Hackathon_Clinics_OntologyOfOntologyEvaluation    (3T7V)
	[13:19] AmandaVizedom: Vote yes if you want to be involved and included in communication about 
	continuing activity on this project. Then email me and tell me what email to use for that. 
	(firstname.lastname@gmail.com) (1) Yes (2) No This is a single choice vote.    (3T7W)
	[13:20] AliHashemi: (1)    (3T7X)
	[13:20] AliHashemi: AliHashemi voted for: Yes    (3T7Y)
	[13:20] MikeBennett: MikeBennett voted for: Yes    (3T7Z)
	[13:21] DougFoxvog1: Yes    (3T80)
	[13:21] DougFoxvog1 morphed into DougFoxvog    (3T81)
	[13:21] PeterYim: PeterYim voted for: Yes    (3T82)
	[13:21] MikeDean: MikeDean voted for: Yes - mdean [at] bbn.com    (3T83)
	[13:22] GaryBergCross: GaryBergCross voted for: Yes - gbergcross [at] gmail.com    (3T84)
	[13:22] MikeBennett: Use mikehypercube [at] gmail.com    (3T85)
	[13:23] AliHashemi: http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7224    (3T86)
	[13:23] FrankOlken: There is a lot of work going on in the provenance community. Some of it in W3C 
	working group.    (3T87)
	[13:24] KenBaclawski1: KenBaclawski1 voted for: Yes - I can help with ICOM at least    (3T88)
	[13:24] GaryBergCross: Qood grid: A metaontology-based framework for ontology evaluation and 
	selection AldoGangemi    (3T89)
	[13:24] PeterYim: I suggest we volunteer MichaelGruninger on work related to OMV (as he leads the 
	metadata effort for OOR too)    (3T8A)
	[13:25] AliHashemi: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kenb/ontologies/ucdo.owl    (3T8B)
	[13:25] AliHashemi: Use Case Description Ontology - 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository_UseCases    (3T8C)
	[13:28] KenBaclawski1: We should also include the Use Case Description Ontology (UCDO)    (3T8D)
	[13:29] TerryLongstreth: Time to go find a beer...    (3T8E)
	[13:29] TerryLongstreth: Bye all; Thanks for a great Summit!!    (3T8F)
	[13:30] AliHashemi: Great summit, congrats to all. Bye!    (3T8G)
	[13:31] PeterYim: the has been marvelous! ... bye everyone ... talk to you all again on May-16, if 
	not sooner!    (3T8H)
	[13:31] AmandaVizedom: Thank you all!    (3T8I)
    -- end of chat session --    (3P7B)
(slides)
[ slides ]
(details)

OntologySummit2013 Symposium

OntologySummit2013: May 2~3, 2013 Symposium (Face-to-Face Workshop) (3J2T)

Theme: Ontology Summit 2013: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle (3J2V)

Goals (3P4L)

Resources: (3P5I)

Program / Agenda (3P64)

Thursday, May 2, 2013 (Green Auditorium) (3P65)

Friday, May 3, 2013 (Portrait Room) (3P6M)

Transcript of the online chat during the session: (3P71)

Audio Recording of the Workshop Sessions: (3P7E)

How To Join Remotely (while the session is in progress) (3P7L)

Session Details: (3P4P)

Your Visited Pages

View Backlinks

Wiki Search