Session	Planning
Duration	1.5 hour
Date/Time	Oct 11 2017 16:00 GMT
	9:00am PDT/12:00pm EDT
	6:00pm CEST/5:00pm BST
Convener	JackRing

Ontology Summit 2018 Clarifying the Relationships among Ontologies, Context and System Realization and Efficacy

Abstract

This session will examine the problem of clarifying the relationships among ontologies, context and system realization and efficacy. The session will be convened by Jack Ring.

Agenda

Jack Ring will be promoting discussion on various questions and issues regarding the relationships among ontologies, context and system realization and efficacy. Potential speakers for the regular summit next year will also be discussed. Slides in pdf format Slides in pptx format Video Recording in mp4 format
Example issues:
- 1. how a) the realization of a system and b) the estimation or measurement of its efficacy is related to and conditioned by the ontology of its context.
- 2. Systems composed of automatons, automatons containing faults and humans as operators and administrators.
- 3. Requirements do not Ontology state.
Background material to be discussed:

Conference Call Information

Date: Wednesday, 11-October-2017
Start Time: 9:00am PDT / 12:00pm EDT / 6:00pm CEST / 5:00pm BST / 1600 UTC
- ref: World Clock
Expected Call Duration: ~1.5 hours

Video Conference URL: https://bluejeans.com/703588230
- If you have not used BlueJeans before, then connect to the URL above before the meeting time so that the required plug-in can be installed.

Chatroom: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontology_summit_2018
- Instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field from "anonymous" to your real name, like "JaneDoe").
- You can indicate that you want to ask a question verbally by clicking on the "hand" button, and wait for the moderator to call on you; or, type and send your question into the chat window at the bottom of the screen.
This session, like all other Ontolog events, is open to the public. Information relating to this session is shared on this wiki page.
Please note that this session may be recorded, and if so, the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content, along with the proceedings of the call to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.

Attendees

Proceedings

[12:35] RaviSharma: Ken, I have submitted Summary of Sept 13 and September 20th Research Sessions but still need to do same for Sept 27 and also format the page properly.

[12:36] RaviSharma: It is at OntologySummit2018_ResearchSummary

[12:40] TerryLongstreth: From Hans Polzer:Also need to consider the ontology for the context (ranges) in which the system does what it does. What are the context attributes and attribute value ranges for the context in which the system will perform as intended/desired.

[12:41] ToddSchneider: From Hans Polzer: Another comment regarding the circular system lifecycle flow diagram is that generally we don't pay enough attention to the scope of the community for which we identify the problem, and the context ranges in which that community expects to operate.

[12:41] ToddSchneider: From Hans Polzer: Keep in mind that the context may have dynamic attributes and attribute values. Systems typically make assumptions of a static context and are not often designed to monitor and deal with the dynamics of the context.

[12:42] RaviSharma: I will continue for subsequent sessions likewise if you review these and send me comments as required or you can directly edit after I do formatting today.

[12:44] HansPolzer: I like Jack's mention of interpersonal style as a factor in team development of systems/solutions. I would suggest extending this to include institutional "culture" and the related issues of organizational structure and context in which the organization operates

[12:45] TerryLongstreth: Cory says: Perhaps Jack could discuss the different requirements between managed systems and communities with loosely coupled independently managed systems - while the community may be considered a "systems", isn't it of a different nature?

[12:46] Cory Casanave: Perhaps Jack could discuss the different requirements between managed systems and communities with loosely coupled independently managed systems - while the community may be considered a "systems", isn't it of a different nature?

[12:47] RaviSharma: Is Jack Ring Speaking?

[12:47] TerryLongstreth: Todd and Jack in dialogue

[12:47] David Whitten: I think it is KenB talking to Jack.

[12:47] RaviSharma: Todd is talking!

[12:48] David Whitten: Ah. I don't really recognize Todd vs. KenB's voice so I can't say.

[12:48] KenBaclawski: Todd is speaking, not me.

[12:52] TerryLongstreth: Formal notations do not always require natural language: consider music, and the way it's notation can be interpreted in different times and places without communications between people.

[12:53] BobbinTeegarden: Maybe what Ravi is getting at is that a language contains assumptions 'hidden' in its context, and translations often miss (or approximate) the the implicit assumptions in the context of a language

[12:56] ToddSchneider: Bobbin, yes. Excellent point.

[13:02] RaviSharma: Steve Jenkins at JPL mentioned by Todd - to use ontology for systems engineering.

[13:02] RaviSharma: SysML does not have semantics said Todd.

[13:03] Gary Berg-Cross:

http://www.omgwiki.org/MBSE/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=mbse:ontologies-jenkins.pptx Every model, whether its a differential equation, a simulation, or a SysML drawing, organizes concepts and properties into meaningful relationships.
These concepts, properties, and relationships can be unique to a model, or they can be common to a family of models.
To the degree that they're common:
- models can be compared, contrasted, and reused.
- engineers can understand whats communicated by a model without retraining.
- engineers can focus on creating and understanding, not explaining.
Can we come up with a common set of concepts, properties, and relationships for systems engineering?

[13:03] RaviSharma: non OMG use of SysML is where?

[13:03] BobbinTeegarden: If you were to add the capability to model process and changes in context (morphing) to ontology design, you might move them off SySML

[13:04] ToddSchneider: Bobbin, nice thought but there's a large installed base.

[13:04] Gary Berg-Cross: An ontology for State Analysis: Formalizing the mapping to SysML, ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/6178851/6186985/06187335.pdf

[13:06] BobbinTeegarden: @Todd Yes, hence the scrapping at OMG around SySML 2.0...

[13:06] RaviSharma: originator of SmallTalk?

[13:08] BobbinTeegarden: @Todd: the big question about SySML 2.0 is how far can it 'evolve' without breaking the current base. There be ontologists in the foray. It's scrappy. ;0)

[13:12] ToddSchneider: Bobbin, forget OMG and UML for systems.

[13:13] ToddSchneider: Have to go. Thank you Jack.

[13:14] BobbinTeegarden: Is a 'contextual ontology' a different critter from a generic ontology (if there is such a thing)?

[13:16] BobbinTeegarden: There are some grad students in Turin that created a visual ontology tool called Ontosphere. (I hired them 5 years ago to make it an ontology creation tool, but the startup failed. They were grad students then.)

[13:21] Gary Berg-Cross: Have to go.

[13:22] KenBaclawski: @Gary: Can you bring up your issues at the next meeting?

[13:25] JackRing: Smalltalk was conceived by Alan Kay.

[13:31] AlexShkotin: Have to go.

[13:31] KenBaclawski: http://www.ijstr.org/final-print/oct2013/A-Framework-To-Convert-Relational-Database-To-Ontology-For-Knowledge-Database-In-Semantic-Web.pdf

[13:37] RaviSharma: Bill Anderson - Top Quadrant ?

[13:38] RaviSharma: thanks Ken bye and Jack Ring and Others participating

Previous Meetings

... further results

Next Meetings