View source for Ontology Summit 2018 Symposium/Chat 20180501

[12:59] KenBaclawski: Good Morning! We have a new version of the Communique at http://bit.ly/2JRwNTY

[13:02] Peter Tuddenham: Thanks Ken, I will be attending on bluejeans today, good to be in the room in DC yesterday.

[13:25] RaviSharma: @Richard - will you then see a static or dynamic content within a cell and what is differentiating factor for cells in same organ?

[13:34] RaviSharma: @Richard - is there a standard emerging for layered or thematic overlays, it is very similar visualization (Technology) to what NASA Earth Science mapping does but content is obviously different

[13:39] RaviSharma: @Richard - at what depth would you put the origin or is it decided by the theme such as cell depth of interest for the organ or tissue?

[13:44] RaviSharma: @Richard - good climate comment from Gary(?) , of course there is no Atmospheric model but is there any model from health science for forecast of progression of anomalies based on past data of same or similar individuals?

[13:45] MikeBennett: Distinction between aggregate descriptions, supervenience and emergence.

[13:48] RaviSharma: @Richard - Allen Inst Cell Science shows dynamic cells composites, are these in-vivo real dynamic images?

[13:48] Joanne Luciano: CCF = Common Coordinate Framework

[13:48] RaviSharma: @Todd(S)?

[13:51] RaviSharma: @Richard - Is there standard similar to CT or MRI images, is standard in development? some day in EHR.

[13:56] RaviSharma: @Richard -Is Jumping Gene or RNA gene modification traceable real-time using the techniques in your project and how genetic correlations with adjacent cells is done?

[14:03] RaviSharma: @Richard - are there findings that keep filtering useful mapping technologies and wasteful ones?

[14:07] MikeBennett: I wonder if, for emergent properties, the 'Emergent Thing' is a kind of contextually dependent or relative thing? What would be the context (scale?) or is another pattern needed for that challenge? Just musing.

[14:09] MikeBennett: http://www.allencell.org/

[14:10] MikeBennett: In vivo and in vitro are contexts

[14:11] Ram D. Sriram: @ravi: Will send you a slide deck on standards for the health care enterprise later on

[14:12] Joanne Luciano: What was the answer to the question about the allencell website cell explorer (is it live or a demo)? (if I heard the question correctly)

[14:12] RaviSharma: @Mike - Yes and important to know before processing cell data dynamics

[14:13] RaviSharma: @Ram - yes thanks, also speakers slide deck pdf on symposium URL

[14:27] RaviSharma: Are we on a break?

[14:28] FanLi: Yes we are

[14:29] MikeBennett: We are on a break until [unknown] - probably another 10 min.

[14:32] RaviSharma: thanks

[14:38] MikeBennett: Looks like we are starting about now (tech issues being unpicked)

[14:41] MikeBennett: We were asking if people on the call are hearing us but (unexpectedly) no-one has confirmed that they are.

[15:06] RaviSharma: @john - Observables are more important than laws as these can change the laws or find limits where Laws fail?

[15:11] RaviSharma: @John - request please provide updated deck to Ken for upload?

[15:12] RaviSharma: @John - Laws of society are only approximate and are variant while those of physics are generally not.

[15:14] RaviSharma: @John - understanding is more important and can be communicated without a text language or audio language e.g. as visuals in video? and people can still communicate - this takes one to Picture theory of Meaning.

[15:18] Joanne Luciano: @Barry - we can be nice and disagree too!

[15:20] RaviSharma: @Barry - request you to also upload the slides presented today.

[15:31] MikeBennett: Please could whoever keeps clearing their throat, mute their mic locally. There is a button for that.

[15:32] Donna Fritzsche: @Ravi - interesting point about picture theory of meaning

[15:33] janet singer: Joanne your mic is on?

[15:33] Joanne Luciano: not to my knowledge. It is muted.

[15:34] Joanne Luciano: @Janet - I'm in a quiet room, and it wasn't me who sneezed and just confirmed, I'm muted.

[15:37] MikeBennett: Now we are the heart of the useful question: Purpose (or intent?) as a critical consideration in the context or perspective by which an ontology is viewed / interpreted / created, versus whether you can build good, integrable reference ontologies that can be the same regardless of the purpose for which they are created. Is this like a continuum rather than an either / or question?

[15:37] MikeBennett: (the too many ontologies question)

[15:39] Donna Fritzsche: Reference ontologies make sense - possibly with a broader environment / context / bridging ontology

[15:39] Donna Fritzsche: granularity is an issue - and could be driven by set/sets of purpose

[15:40] Donna Fritzsche: you still might need to define the plane of purpose you are working on.

[15:40] Donna Fritzsche: (for lack of a better term)

[15:42] MikeBennett: Yes, one finding on our track (from Barry Smith) was that granularity or scale is itself a kind of context. I don't know if that means there is a place for something of this in the TLO.

[15:43] MikeBennett: I think one ends up with as many as possible 'context' classes (time, place, process, system, role etc.) within the ontology but even the broadest ontology is still used within some context (purpose) (ideally the purpose of reference rather than a single application use case); so there is a purpose that remains outside the ontology.

[15:48] MikeBennett: Interesting that BFO allows unicorns.

[15:49] Joanne Luciano: @MIkeB +1

[15:49] janet singer1: Who has been trying to ask questions?

[15:50] Joanne Luciano: John apologizes for emails about Barry.

[15:50] ToddSchneider: Arun, has questions to ask.

[15:51] RaviSharma: @Barry - Is there not a duality often between reality and virtual aspects. Sometimes the latter inspires the former, for example sci-fi might influence actual scientific research on some topics?

[15:51] MikeBennett: I think we need to focus on the points of difference between these two as distinct from questions about ontology overall.

[15:52] Joanne Luciano: Yes and how they relate to the context theme

[15:52] MikeBennett: @Joanne +1

[15:53] Joanne Luciano: What from these talks contributes to the communique? Let's identify and discuss.

[15:54] Donna Fritzsche: neat and scruffy historical remark (attributed to Pat Hayes?)

[15:55] Joanne Luciano: @Donna - not sure of origin, I recall it being used by Carole Goble, but it was a while ago (early to mid 2000)?

[15:55] BobbinTeegarden1: The periodic table IS a process (Sowa)? Or implies a process...?

[15:55] Donna Fritzsche: oops - wikipedia - say Shank is the originator of neats and scruffies

[15:56] Joanne Luciano: @Donna - thanks

[15:57] RaviSharma: @All- Yes for Communique' (CQ) One theme is that ontologies at upper level have examples in what John and Barry depicted, one is bio-specific and other is more "Universal" or overarching!

[15:59] Joanne Luciano: @RaviSharma Can we compare/contrast the specifics and when and where either might be better? Or something that will be useful for our CQ readers?

[16:01] Donna Fritzsche: Why is scientific community the level set? Should be careful here.

[16:02] janet singer: Windows OS superiority was established early by being on more desktops

[16:03] MikeBennett: Right. I see potential in industry-wide ontology framework that doesn't need to have primitives for sciency concepts and is broadly reusable. Oddly, our current draft for this (and the FIBO origins) uses top layer KR Lattice ontology. Easier to explain to business stakeholders.

[16:05] RaviSharma: @Joanne - Yes for CQ - BFO appears to have enough evidence of great applicability with bio-research including connections to this morning's NIH talk as well as with What Vinh also talked about yesterday. Hence BFO does deal with specific sub-domains in bio-research, especially genome. On the other hand John's depiction of Ontology in Pierce Wilkinson format address wider "universal" predicate logic, monadic, triadic etc., metalevel, FOL, CL aspects and will likely describe very wide applicability in metaphysical and broader ontology issues.

[16:06] RaviSharma: @CQ - context is metalevel is John's take, Barry calls context as human experience as collection of .... that humans do.

[16:06] MikeBennett: Context: Barry cites a Gibsonian notion of 'affordances'. In the context of linguistic meaning. Interesting - see also Ronald Stamper's work in extending Gibson??

[16:07] Gary Berg-Cross: On the affordance topic see Ortmann, Jens, and Werner Kuhn. "Affordances as Qualities." FOIS. 2010. Affordances elude ontology. They have been recognized to play a role in categorization, especially of artifacts, but also of natural features. Yet, attempts to ontologize them face problems ranging from their presumed subjective nature to the fact that they involve potential actions, not objects or properties. We take a fresh look at the ontology of affordances, based on a simple insight: affordances are perceived by agents and may lead to actions, just like qualities are perceived and may lead to observations. We understand perception as a process invoking a quale in an agent. This quale can then be expressed as an action, if it stems from an affordance, or as an observation, if it stems from an other quality. Thus, we see affordances as qualities of the environment, perceived and potentially expressed by agents. We extend our recently proposed ontology of observations to include affordances and show how the parallel between observations (producing values) and affordances (producing actions) provides a simple and powerful ontological account of both.

[16:07] Donna Fritzsche: @mike - do you mean this reference for KR lattice ontology? http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/kronto.htm

[16:07] Donna Fritzsche: http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/toplevel.htm

[16:07] RaviSharma: @CQ - Sowa says Context involves surrounding pre and post narrative (discourse), to interpret the discourse

[16:08] janet singer: Where would affordances fit with respect to BFO distinctions?

[16:08] MikeBennett: @Donna yes - the top layer (3 sets of partitions) in that lattice.

[16:08] RaviSharma: CQ - Sowa context at metalevel,

[16:09] Joanne Luciano: Two means of context

[16:09] RaviSharma: @CQ- Barry - What humans do when attacked is motive purpose reaction, but computers do not do it.

[16:11] AlexShkotin: who is talking?

[16:11] Ram D. Sriram: Arun Majumdar from Kyndi Inc

[16:11] RaviSharma: Ravi's Q for Barry, but in 2001 Space Odyssey (?) HAL is aware of destruction, so as we evolve AI will happen in robotics etc.

[16:12] RaviSharma: who is talking on Quantum?

[16:12] MikeBennett: I take exception with John's statement that Context is 'not' part of your ontology. There are things we refer to under the general heading of 'context', many of which are elements within the ontology (Relative Thing in KR Lattice; Occurrent; System etc. etc.); what's left is the Context in which the ontology or a given assertion is interpreted. Banning one of these from being called 'Context' just makes the conversation harder to have, about what goes in the ontology and what stays out.

[16:12] Ram D. Sriram: @Ravi: See my comment

[16:13] Donna Fritzsche: @mike +1 re context comment

[16:13] BobbinTeegarden1: @Guest 22 'Context is an emergent property' Yes. More like that.

[16:13] RaviSharma: @Ram - Thanks

[16:13] Joanne Luciano: @Mike, I heard the statement about context not being part of the ontology by Barry.

[16:14] Joanne Luciano: @MikeB I might have misheard

[16:14] MikeBennett: Barry Smith cites 'Number of users' as a quality metric.

[16:15] RaviSharma: @Arun - same way Wilczek extended particle physics through Quarks and Gluons. My Q for you is where is next Quantum effect likely, in Higgs and particles area or in terms of Graviton puzzle and astrophysics?

[16:15] janet singer: Mike that's clarified if a few basic important context-ontology relations are identified, as you suggested

[16:15] Gary Berg-Cross: Barry's list of ont qualities seem to be external to the ontology. What about internal ones?

[16:15] MikeBennett: Surely number of users is an indirect metric that indicates that other quality metrics will be taking place?

[16:15] janet singer: Number of users establishes de facto standard.

[16:16] janet singer: Doesn't look to future evolvability, quality, usefulness, etc.

[16:17] janet singer: Many object lessons of lock-in to lesser quality standard

[16:18] MikeBennett: The Peirce-Wilkins ontology. Now the PWQ Ontology.

[16:19] MikeBennett: An ontology so universally applicable that no-one knows it is there.

[16:21] RaviSharma: @Ram - Is Arun working at a construction company? the search leads to that?

[16:23] Ram D. Sriram: @Ravi: He is a founder of Kyndi. Google that

[16:23] Gary Berg-Cross: See https://kyndi.com/news/kyndi-founder-chief-scientist-arun-majumdar-presents-confluence-2017-disruptor-showcase/

[16:26] AlexShkotin: tell us who is talking?

[16:27] AlexShkotin: before JFS

[16:27] RaviSharma: @Ram - thanks for spelling, it shows up correctly now. I can probably email him as we have some common areas of interest in physics.

[16:30] MikeBennett: That was Mike Bennett questioning the notion of whether Continuant and Occurrent are actually on a continuum. JFS clarified that the ontology does indeed reflect the concept, where these things are disjoint, and the underlying reality is a continuum. So we agree. But this depends very much on the ontology representing the way some user or observer conceptualizes things. Non-realist stance.

[16:30] Donna Fritzsche: Some thoughts combining remarks from @mike, @bobbin and john sowa. Context is fluid an ongoing process emerges out of situation, is useful for reasoning in a situation - while the components/building blocks of context are part of ontology (per Mike Bennett's statement).

[16:31] AlexShkotin: @Mike thanks

[16:31] MikeBennett: Finance depends intimately on concepts - not only documents and constructs (information constructs) and social constructs, but also concepts more generally e.g. for risk events that should never happen. So finance use all 3 kinds of non physical matter.

[16:31] BobbinTeegarden1: Re Finance, 'money' in blockchain terms has broken out into hundreds of 'kinds' ...

[16:31] Donna Fritzsche: please ignore above - cut and paste did not work properly!

[16:32] Donna Fritzsche: second try - Some thoughts combining remarks from @mike, @bobbin and john sowa. Context is fluid an ongoing process -- emerging out of a situation and is useful for reasoning in a situation. While the components or building blocks of context are part of the ontology (per Mike Bennett's statement).

[16:33] MikeBennett: Context: What hoW and Why (per our Communique): What and how are physics, Why is Semiotics (JFS).

[16:33] RaviSharma: @Mike yes

[16:36] MikeBennett: I would question that having lots of users is a good quality metric - yes, users find errors but some findings are that the current ontology is too brittle for some new purpose and must be broken and rebuilt. Would have preferred to know that sort of error before the user tripped over it.

[16:36] Joanne Luciano: @RaviSharma. Delayed response...Thanks for clarifying - its becoming clear as the discussion continues. While its not easy, its much easier to nail down a specific domain - after all, it defines the context. I can attest to the utility of the work in the biomedical domain. I worked on multiple biomedical ontologies, some were in collaboration with Barry.

[16:38] MikeBennett: This is like robot wars but with ontologists.

[16:38] Donna Fritzsche: every ontology is an approximation /otherwise brittle (john sowa quote)

[16:38] RaviSharma: @CQ - Is is a difference in point of views, John's PW ontology is generic and "universal" while Barry's BFO is specific and useful for certainly biology research and applications.

[16:39] AlexShkotin: who is now?

[16:39] MikeBennett: Cory Casanave speaking

[16:39] AlexShkotin: thanks

[16:40] Joanne Luciano: @Mike having lots of users isn't a quality metric per se, it could be, in Barry's words "crappy" but it may be all that's available. And so presumably better than nothing. As you know, I did a tiny bit in ontology evaluation and the first question is defining the criteria / purpose to which the evaluation be assessed. That is to say that context is needed for evaluation as well.

[16:41] BobbinTeegarden1: But Barry has abstracted up to a more generic 'upper' ontology -- we don't seem to be talking about that one...

[16:42] RaviSharma: @All - i would say BFO is a special domain example under PW ontology which is more generic, and so is FIBO for financial areas is also under PW ontology - as being worked on by Mike Bennett. Any disagreement with this point of view?

[16:42] MikeBennett: Correction to earlier: the Wilkins based ontology JFS describes is referred to (now) as PW^3 (PW Cubed) for Peirce, Wilkins, Whitehead, Wittgenstein.

[16:43] MikeBennett: @Ravi the FIBO ontology is based on the (top layer of) the KR Lattice not the PW^3 Ontology. John's assertion is that any specialist ontology can be fitted under that. I would have to check, for FIBO, it is possible that that is the case.

[16:45] RaviSharma: Notes: Barry said - Dealing with any "thing" in ontology will lead to parent and child till you deal with multi domain.... it gets complex.

[16:45] David Whitten: I wonder if BFO has a rich set of terms to describe the context of a microtheory similar to that hinted at Doug Lenat's Context Space paper.

[16:45] RaviSharma: Are we breaking for lunch?

[16:45] RaviSharma: @David - Yes

[16:46] janet singer: @Joanne - Problem is trading off 1) People get benefit of intro to use of logic in definitions with non-obtrusive ontology vs 2) People get locked into ad-hoc local standards that make further interoperation and evolution *more* difficult beyond those original boundaries

[16:46] RaviSharma: @Ken reconvening at?

[16:46] David Whitten: my:: It would be neat to have an ontology with all these context dimensions explicitly there.

[16:47] BobbinTeegarden1: @David Yes.

[16:47] RaviSharma: @David - many in our tracks have suggested ontology of context.

[16:47] MikeBennett: When and for what are we reconvening after lunch?

[16:47] David Whitten: my:: didn't we reconvene yesterday at 2 pm? or was it 1:30 pm ?

[16:48] Joanne Luciano: @Janet I agree. This is the tradeoff. The trouble is that people need to do their work and move forward. No one has a crystal ball. For the ones who have to get things done, the tradeoff decisions have to be made. There is risk involved. I witnessed Barry go from philosopher to practitioner and it was interesting to see him take the 'well we just have to decide'.

[16:48] MikeBennett: We come back at 1:45 (because it says that in the Agenda on the wiki page), and will be working some more on the Communique.

[16:49] RaviSharma: @all, are poets and philosophers (John's Points of view on upper level comprehensive ontology) not dealing with metaphysics that eventually gets us down to Specific Domains such as BFO and FIBO.

[16:49] BobbinTeegarden1: @David the context dimensions might get to the discussion around context being holonic ;0)

[16:50] Joanne Luciano: @Mike any suggestions on how to work on the communique? I wasn't able to get there this time, but have time and can travel soon.

[16:54] RaviSharma: @Joanne - please see comments from Mike Bennett and me as I tried to label them @CQ for relevance to Communique' and others inputs also, we can take next few days to agree to incorporate them if Ken can have a post symposium finalization session in next 1-2 weeks?

[16:55] RaviSharma: i am braking for lunch now.

[17:14] David Whitten: my:: I guess I'll stop for lunch too.

[17:37] Joanne Luciano: @RaviSharma - got it. thanks.

[17:37] MikeBennett: The Smith / Searle Debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBWXz-Ot0mI

[17:48] MikeBennett: The thing called PSL we were talking about yesterday (Process Specification Language), see https://www.nist.gov/publications/psl-semantic-domain-flow-models

[17:50] MikeBennett: We are starting again now.

[17:53] Joanne Luciano: Please ask Ken speak louder or a little closer to the mic -it's not bad, but can be a bit better.

[17:57] David Whitten: A minor nit is that the footnote says "in spite of" and meant to say "despite"

[17:57] David Whitten: I doubt that any words, (such as "the 6 W's" have spite for anything.

[18:01] MikeBennett: In spite of = despite, in UK English. If US English differs we can change it.

[18:02] David Whitten: ah. it seemed a bit unusual that such a mistake would be made. I'll look at wiktionary. Maybe it is definitive.

[18:05] David Whitten: wiktionary : https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_spite_of seems to think it is idiomatic for "despite". It doesn't say which language group uses the idiom. I expect that is where the subculture I am a part differs from the UK subculture.

[18:06] David Whitten: We all have an aunt who is picky about particular words. Mine also hated my sounding of a "t" sound in often.

[18:07] David Whitten: should it say "context by the kind OF agent" rather than dropping OF and talking about the kindness of an agent?

[18:09] Joanne Luciano: I think we need to define and limit the scope of context that we are talking about in this paper

[18:13] Gary Berg-Cross: Here is the Polzer reference: Polzer, Hans, Daniel A. DeLaurentis, and Donald N. Fry. "Multiplicity of perspectives, context scope, and context shifting events." System of Systems Engineering, 2007. SoSE'07. IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2007.

[18:15] janet singer: @Joanne Daring to guess, John might say there is already evidence that the better way to move forward and actually leave hooks for future evolution and interoperation requires three levels: A sparse generic/upper level; richly developed mid-level regions (MT); and connections to natural language family groupings. Challenge for proponents of this view is to make it as convenient as BFO, which does not make these distinctions (with advantages and risks from that).

[18:16] janet singer: (@Joanne - answering your earlier point)

[18:16] Joanne Luciano: @Janet thanks

[18:17] janet singer: I can hear you

[18:18] Joanne Luciano: CQ: Sometimes Ontologies are used for context, and sometimes they are not - when they are being used to describe / represent knowledge objectively (objectively as much as possible).

[18:21] Duane Hybertson: What about this title of Section 3: "Drivers for Explicating Context"?

[18:22] EvanWallace1: Proposed title for section 3: Drivers for Formalizing Contexts

[18:23] ToddSchneider1: Drivers for Explicating Context(s)?

[18:24] janet singer: Agree with Explicating Context(s)

[18:24] Joanne Luciano: My audio dropped (I wonder if it is on my side) - does anyone else have that problem?

[18:24] janet singer: Not recently

[18:24] janet singer: Re audio

[18:26] RaviSharma: Notes for CQ: agreed to remove Formalizing and changing to Understanding and removing Ontology in Section 3 heading.

[18:29] Joanne Luciano: CQ: no acronyms in title

[18:35] RaviSharma: Mike: Where is the list. Only examples are given.

[18:36] Gary Berg-Cross: Ref for IKL Hayes, P., Menzel, C.: IKL Specification Document. Specification, IKRIS Interoperability Group (2006) IKL specification document

[18:37] RaviSharma: examples could include: ISO, FIBO, Cyc(?), PW3, BFO, etc.

[18:39] MikeBennett: Top level ontology: A set of high level divisions of subject matter in the domain of discourse (also called partitions), providing a framework for more detailed ontologies. These are also considered as being theories of the world or domain of discourse.

[18:40] MikeBennett: (this can still be improved upon but this is my first shot)

[18:40] Joanne Luciano: @RaviSharma what are we looking for examples of - specifically?

[18:40] MikeBennett: @Ravi FIBO is not a TLO. An earlier version of FIBO was built around a TLO but this was explicitly removed form the scope of FIBO by the EDM Council.

[18:41] janet singer: Yes to what Gary said TLOs have been proposed to serve as contexts for mid-range theories?

[18:42] Gary Berg-Cross: From the OKN session Microtheories are in part a response to the recognition that particular facts are conditional and apply in only some circumstances. To handle this the large Cyc KB is divided into a large number of microtheories (Mt). Each MT is a collections of concepts and facts that are intended to apply to a particular realm of knowledge. The collection may be based on shared assumptions, shared topics, shared sources, or other features. But unlike the buzzing booming Cyc KB as a whole, each MT is engineering to be free from monotonic contradictions in its scope. That is an MTs assertions must be mutually consistent so no hard contradictions are allowed. Any apparent contradictions, such as a bird that doesn't fly, must be resolvable by evaluation of the evidence visible in that microtheory. In contrast, because of the vast collection of MTs making up the Cyc KB there are inconsistencies across MTs that make up the whole KB. In CYC, the interpretation of every fact and every inference is localized to a specific region of context space. All conclusions that the inference draws involve only facts that are visible from that region of context space, that is, are stated either in an MT or 1 of its general MTs. This reflects the fact that MTs are organized in a hierarchy and can inherit from each other. In some domains the leaf Mt structure is as deep as 50 levels, which is perhaps an order of magnitude deeper than the leaf depth of a KG and some of its supporting ontologies.

[18:43] RaviSharma: thanks for offer to write on MT from Gary.

[18:43] MikeBennett: Change of a heading somewhere, to say Approaches to formalizing Context. then techniques like Upper Ontologies (TLOs) and Microtheories, are such approaches. It also turns out that these are not mutually exclusive (a finding from the UO track).

[18:49] Donna Fritzsche: good points Mike - also I like explicating per Duane

[18:50] RaviSharma: @Mike - Q-does FIBO include sub-domain ontologies, if it does then it is sort of TLO for fin services?

[18:51] RaviSharma: @Joanne -- that was about TLOs.

[18:53] Joanne Luciano: CQ: I agree about NLP - it is/was a big driver

[18:54] Joanne Luciano: Did we change the agenda?

[18:56] MikeBennett: @Ravi no. FIBO is a domain ontology. It does include a Foundations component, but that does not come under the definition I gave of what we mean here by Upper ontology, though people often use that term for that kind of thing. A more accurate term for our Foundations material is Cross Domain Ontology.

[18:57] MikeBennett: @Ravi meanwhile a small group of us are working on a more focused cross domain ontology that would also fit under a recommended Top Level Ontology. This would replicate what we originally tried to do with FIBO and that FIBO today is not.

[18:58] RaviSharma: Mike: Is FIBO Top Level in Financial Services Domain?

[18:58] EvanWallace1: Possible plans for next year.

[18:59] janet singer: Todd - Sounds great

[18:59] MikeBennett: @Ravi no. See above.

[19:01] RaviSharma: @mike - great, I would be interested in learning more about it. Thanks, I begin to accept your domain categorization but TLO for domain is one concept and Cross Domain is another higher level?

[19:02] MikeBennett: There is no "TLO for domain" under the definition for TLO that we are using. The same words may be used differently by others and that's fine but that's not how I'm using the term.

[19:03] RaviSharma: @mike - OK, accepted in Context!

[19:05] RaviSharma: Specific Industrial ontology Foundry

[19:06] RaviSharma: therefore call it Manufacturing ontologies?

[19:06] RaviSharma: more participation!

[19:06] janet singer: Manufacturing or fabricating or engineering ontologies? But Manufacturing ontologies is good

[19:08] RaviSharma: Notes: If Mfg Ontology, then again common and domain differential will probably be in that year's Communique'.

[19:09] janet singer: @Gary - Then maybe Engineering ontologies, constructing ontologies

[19:11] RaviSharma: Notes: on Mfg Ontology - explaining, Domain examples as well as types: such as continuous, conveyor based, robotic, high throughput, Discrete types of manufacturing ontologies and also general mfg Ontology?

[19:11] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: who is speaking?

[19:11] janet singer: No idea

[19:11] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: RE ISO term std

[19:12] RaviSharma: Topics: Mfg, Healthcare, Models, OKN, 2 domain and 2 philosophic, described by Ram.

[19:14] janet singer: @Ravi - I think manufacturing ontologies was meant more as a pun, as in Everything that goes into producing ontologies as human artifacts

[19:14] RaviSharma: Notes: Vinh: states Medical, ?

[19:14] Gary Berg-Cross: For an OKN insert: Open Knowledge Network (OKN) initiative discussed as part of the Summit is a vision, i of constructing a public knowledge space consisting of a sustainable data ecosystems. Among the application areas includes various domains including the biomedical, manufacturing, and geoscience. Broadly the OKN process can be visualized as the building of an application using knowledge formalized in a knowledge graph in 3 broad steps each of which involves some context: 1. Data acquisition -crawling to find relevant pages & extracting the required information from these sources 2. Structuring extracts by mapping to an ontology or ontologies 3. Entity linking and similarity identification as related material is found So for example acquisition can start with crawling information source like the Web to identify and extraction relevant information. Information about the sources needs to be contextualized. Extraction material also needs to be "structured", which means that information about structure becomes part of the context. Entity identification leverages background ontologies and a knowledge graph construction which involves selecting a minimal "tree" that connects all semantic types has its own context. Ref: NITRD Big Data Interagency Working Group: 3rd Workshop on an Open Knowledge Network (2017). https://www.nitrd.gov/nitrdgroups/index.php?title=Open_Knowledge_Network

[19:15] janet singer: At least the topic opens up discussion to those dimensions

[19:16] RaviSharma: Notes: Ontology of processing data and levels and what the processes was.

[19:17] RaviSharma: Ravi's Comment, Ken how will we address Agile, INCOSE etc?

[19:18] RaviSharma: Also PMI, Lifecycles and re-engineering in Software and systems and at Data archiving or processing levels?

[19:19] janet singer: Ontological Engineering is another good framing that could investigate both human-centric and technical areas in multiple

[19:19] ToddSchneider: Ravi, AGILE-Quickly; INCOSE-Structured:)

[19:19] janet singer: levels of breadth and depth

[19:20] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: Todd, agile does not mean quickly

[19:20] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: only smaller increments of work

[19:20] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: more frequent eval

[19:21] Donna Fritzsche: deep dive on ontologies for processes and ontologies for materials

[19:21] ToddSchneider: Mark I know. I was looking for a joke.

[19:21] Mark Underwood @knowlengr: oh, over my head

[19:21] TerryLongstreth: Is ontology engineering governed by ontology science?

[19:21] janet singer: I have added several possible names, all taking off Todd's basic idea and ensuring that both Gary's and Cory's concerns are addressed

[19:22] janet singer: Hey, that's good too: Ontology Engineering, Ontology Science

[19:23] RaviSharma: @all - Ram suggested ontologies and automated systems and solutions such as e.g. driverless cars, etc.

[19:23] ToddSchneider: Ontology as a science, is promising.

[19:23] RaviSharma: Thanks to all for a great Summit through the year.

[19:24] RaviSharma: actually through 2017 and 2018

[19:25] TerryLongstreth: For some random results related to ISO TC37: http://www.datcatinfo.net/

[19:26] janet singer: BTW, Transformation of communique from yesterday has been amazing

[19:26] MikeBennett: +1

[19:26] RaviSharma: @Janet - Agree.

[19:27] RaviSharma: @Mike - Yes

[19:27] MikeBennett: Thanks all. Gotta go!

[19:28] Joanne Luciano: @Janet Absolutely. Lots of good work and discussion.