Actions

Ontolog Forum

Revision as of 06:49, 9 January 2016 by imported>KennethBaclawski (Fix PurpleMediaWiki references)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

OntologySummit Theme: Community Brainstorm Session Part 2 - Thu 2014-11-06

Session Co-chairs: MichaelGruninger (IAOA; U of Toronto) & MatthewWest

Topic: Brainstorm Session on the OntologySummit2015 Theme: Community Input & Planning -- Part 2

Archives

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Thursday, 06-Nov-2014
  • Start Time: 9:30am PST / 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm CEST / 5:30pm BST / 1730 UTC
  • Expected Call Duration: ~1.5 hours
  • Dial-in:
    • Phone (US): +1 (425) 440-5100 ... (long distance cost may apply)
      • ... [ backup nbr: (315) 401-3279 ]
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758#
    • Skype: join.conference (i.e. make a skype call to the contact with skypeID="joinconference") ... (generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer ... ref.)
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758#
      • Unfamiliar with how to do this on Skype? ...
        • Add the contact "join.conference" to your skype contact list first. To participate in the teleconference, make a skype call to "join.conference", then open the dial pad (see platform-specific instructions below) and enter the Conference ID: 843758# when prompted.
      • Can't find Skype Dial pad? ...
        • for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
        • for Linux Skype users: please note that the dial-pad is only available on v4.1 (or later; or on the earlier Skype versions 2.x,) if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. ... (ref.)
  • Shared-screen support ... (to be advised)
  • In-session chat-room url: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/summit_20141106
    • 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.
    • thanks to the soaphub.org folks, one can now use a jabber/xmpp client (e.g. gtalk) to join this chatroom. Just add the room as a buddy - (in our case here) summit_20141106@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!
  • Discussions and Q & A:
    • Nominally, when a presentation is in progress, the moderator will mute everyone, except for the speaker.
    • To un-mute, press "*7" ... To mute, press "*6" (please mute your phone, especially if you are in a noisy surrounding, or if you are introducing noise, echoes, etc. into the conference line.)
    • we will usually save all questions and discussions till after all presentations are through. You are encouraged to jot down questions onto the chat-area in the mean time (that way, they get documented; and you might even get some answers in the interim, through the chat.)
    • During the Q&A / discussion segment (when everyone is muted), If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please raise your hand (virtually) by clicking on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the session moderator (again, press "*7" on your phone to un-mute). Test your voice and introduce yourself first before proceeding with your remarks, please. (Please remember to click on the "hand button" again (to lower your hand) and press "*6" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)
  • RSVP to gruninger@mie.utoronto.ca with your affiliation appreciated, ... or simply just by adding yourself to the "Expected Attendee" list below (if you are a member of the community already.)
  • 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

Abstract

The OntologySummit is an annual series of events (first started by Ontolog and NIST in 2006) that involves the ontology community and communities related to each year's theme chosen for the summit. The Ontology Summit program is now co-organized by Ontolog, NIST, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA, NCO_NITRD along with the co-sponsorship of other organizations that are supportive of the Summit goals and objectives.

While the actual events of OntologySummit2015 will be rolled out between January and April of 2015, we have decided we will try to plan for it early. An initial round of input has already been received, as part of the OntologySummit2014 postmortem session on 2014.05.15. During that session, the community also agreed on having today's session, so we can dedicate some quality time to specifically discuss the possibilities and options on the choice of Themes for OntologySummit2015. The session on 2014.10.09 identified a shortlist of themes. This session will be devoted to selecting the theme that best allow us to leverage next year's OntologySummit.

The possible themes are:

See developing details on the next Summit's homepage at: OntologySummit2015

Agenda

Brainstorm Session on the OntologySummit2015 Theme: Community Input & Planning

Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call
  • 3. Any other business (10 min.)

Proceedings

In-session_Chat-Transcript

[09:26] Michael Grüninger: Agenda: Discussion of four potential themes identified at the 2014.10.09 Brainstorming Session

[09:26] Michael Grüninger:

  1. Applied Ontology Body of Knowledge. Champions: Matthew West and KenBaclwaski
  2. Internet of Things. Champions: Mark Underwood and Ram D. Sriram and Joel Bender
  3. Sociotechnical Aspects of Applied Ontology. Champions: Terry Longstreth, Christopher Spottiswoode
  4. Artefacts. Champions: Leo Obrst

[09:30] Michael Grüninger: Primary discussion for each Theme will include possible Tracks that would constitute the Summit. (Typically we have approximately four technical Tracks)

[09:34] Todd Schneider: I may have to drop off unexpectedly to join a business call.

[09:37] Ram D. Sriram: @Michael: I will need to drop off at 1pm and then I will dial in again at 1:10pm

[09:40] Michael Grüninger: Here are the potential track titles for the theme "Internet of Everything: Toward Smart Networked Systems and Societies"

[09:40] Michael Grüninger:

  • Track 1: Vision of IoE Ontology Integration
  • Track 2: Beyond Semantic Sensor Network Ontologies to Multimodal ontologies
  • Track 3: Big Data and Ontologies (see Ontology Summit 2014)
  • Track 4a: Supporting Development of Domain-specific IoE Ontologies
  • Track 4b: From IoE Data Models to IoE Ontologies: SDLC Challenges
  • Track 5: Decision Making in Different Domains
  • Track 6: Related Standards and Synergies for Developing IoE Ontologies
  • Track 7: Case Studies in Healthcare, manufacturing, disaster resilience
  • Track 8: Industry-Government Panel on Research Funding

[09:40] Ram D. Sriram: Ontologies will play a significant role in the realization of SNSS. For example, a considerable amount of data passes through the network and should be converted into higher abstractions that can be used in appropriate reasoning. This requires the development of standard terminologies which capture objects and events. Creating and testing such terminologies will aid in effective recognition and reaction in a network-centric situation awareness environment. This would involve identifying a methodology for development of terminologies for multimodal data (or ontologies), developing appropriate ontologies, developing testing methods for these ontologies, demonstrating interoperability for selected domains (e.g., healthcare, situational awareness), and using these ontologies in decision making.

[09:49] Michael Grüninger: Ram D. Sriram : We can change Track 8 to "Future Directions"

[09:50] Leo Obrst: Just joined. Sorry for being late.

[09:52] Michael Grüninger: Donna: The topics for Case Studies will not be restricted to the above topics

[09:52] Mark Underwood: Re: Track 7 - Indeed, we'd listed out Defense/Aerospace and should add Donna's Education / Nonprofit scenarios

[09:54] Michael Grüninger: Are there any drawbacks to adopting Internet of Things as a theme for the Ontology Summit?

[09:57] Ram D. Sriram: Potential Tracks Track 4 is focused on software development while track 6 is on current and future standards

  • Track 1: Vision of IoE Ontology Integration
  • Track 2: Beyond Semantic Sensor Network Ontologies to Multimodal ontologies
  • Track 3: Big Data and Ontologies (see Ontology Summit 2014)
  • Track 4a: Supporting Development of Domain-specific IoE Ontologies
  • Track 4b: From IoE Data Models to IoE Ontologies: SDLC Challenges
  • Track 5: Decision Making in Different Domains
  • Track 6: Related Standards and Synergies for Developing IoE Ontologies
  • Track 7: Case Studies in Healthcare, manufacturing, disaster resilience
  • Track 8: Industry-Government Panel on Research Funding

[09:58] Mark Underwood: Tracks could well be shaped a bit by whom we can recruit to particpate

[10:00] Aleksandra Sojic: Track 6 is related to a huge topic and it deserves attention; building ontologies based on the industrial standards opens many issues that have to be addressed, e.g. balancing industrial standards and ontology requirements that are often conflicting

[10:00] Terry Longstreth: IoE is unbounded as stated butlacing some limits may exclude useful avenues of exploration.

[10:01] Mark Underwood: Regarding Tracks 4 & 6: While these are similar, Track 4 tries to confine itself [sic] to development and ontology building concerns. Track 6 would catalog other related efforts -- especially standards-related -- that other groups are pursuing. Merging 6 into a subpart of 4 is worth considering if we fail to develop a critical mass of work by standards groups.

[10:01] Terry Longstreth: What I mean by SocioTechnico Socio of or pertaining to human societies and cultures, as distinct from individuals and corporations Technico of or pertaining to the physical artifacts produced directly or indirectly by human endeavours and tangible manifestations of those artifacts Socio+Technico relating physical artifacts to the workings of societies and cultures

[10:02] Terry Longstreth: Some Challenges Can ontology help to organize and record the salient features of cultures to expose and help resolve cultural and societal differences? Can ontological studies help to identify and document the places where technology (of any kind, from flint arrowheads to Watsons) is bound to specific cultures and societies? is independent of cultural and societal constraints, norms, preconceptions?

[10:03] Mark Underwood: @AleksandraSojic Indeed - Big topic, and when I started to build a list of *just* the IEEE related work, the topic did not get smaller. We may indeed end up with a broad, but not deep, survey of the work by others -- depending on champions & willing panelists

[10:10] Terry Longstreth: @Christopher- Have you estimates of the efforr required to define your architecture to the point where it could be implemented?

[10:12] Michael Grüninger: One possibility could be to explore the topic of Sociotechnical Aspects of Applied Ontology as a future miniseries within Ontolog Forum, rather than as an Ontology Summit theme. This would allow more exploration of the topic

[10:15] Mike Riben: italian?

[10:15] Mike Bennett: Spanish

[10:19] Aleksandra Sojic: @MarkUnderwood: right, the critical mass is crucial; on the other hand, everyone working with standards has to deal with a set of problems on a daily basis; a guideline/recommendation for making a conversion/implementation of a standard and represent it in an ontology language (while staying accurate in representing both sides, standard and ontology) is still missing.

[10:21] Donna Fritzsche: Terry, I believe you are touching on Lingua Franca and Crossmaps

[10:21] David Whitten: Interesting metaphor: Can we invite Ontology to help us bridge between different cultures. (or is this an anthropomorphism ?)

[10:22] maria sette: We need to conduct a methodological investigations about modelling STS.

[10:22] Donna Fritzsche: An interesting way to scope the Internet of Everything: Cross-cultural bounds and communications

[10:24] Mark Underwood: @MichaelG I agree that the topic needs further "shaping" & that the forum might be better. Timeline?

[10:26] Julita Bermejo Alonso: For me, I understood Sociotechnical Aspects of Applied Ontology as ontology-driven systems engineering taking into account human factors interacting with the system. Not so much, cultural differences.

[10:26] Michael Grüninger: Discussion about Theme : Artefacts

[10:27] Leo Obrst: Potential Ontology Summit 2015 Theme: Artifacts Track 1) Ontological Analysis -Artifacts -Function -Intention and Purpose -Specifications -Design -Creation, Realization, and Implementation -Change and Coercion -Roles and Uses Track 2) Domains of Artifacts -Science and Engineering -Manufacturing -Information Artifacts: Provenance; Software/Service Lifecycle; Cyber; Data Schemas, Conceptual Models, and Ontologies -Social Artifacts: Group/Community, Government, Business, Education, etc. -Art and Fiction

[10:27] David Whitten: Can I assume that the "Applied Ontology Body of Knowledge" topic has already been discussed on a previous call, or earlier this call?

[10:28] Mark Underwood: Julita Bermejo Alonso: I too was thinking narrowly HCI, but I suspect "sociotechnical" is a topic that would need to draw in specialists not normally in typically technology-rich (drenched) circles

[10:31] David Whitten: I've heard it said that anything can be used as a Weapon because "being a weapon" is tied to purpose, and thus the category is an example of a "Role" type category. Is being an "artifact" the same kind of "Role" type category?

[10:35] Michael Grüninger: @DavidWhitten: No, we have not yet discussed "Applied Ontology Body of Knowledge"

[10:35] David Whitten: Thank you for your ideas Leo Obrst !

[10:42] Julita Bermejo Alonso: From my viewpoint, Artifacts is a broad topic. I have been working on artifact/system ontologies addressing all this, that has later on adjusted to different domains. Finding the commonalities of artifacts, function, design and so forth is really interesting. Applying them onto particular domains get really tricky. I have been working with only 2 different ones. Imagine with several as suggested on Track 2

[10:42] Mark Underwood: sorry, lost Skype line, i'll redial

[10:45] Christopher Spottiswoode: @Terrylongstreth: Please email me your email address using my email address on my recent posts to the Forum and Summit lists?

[10:46] David Whitten: I agree @JulitaBermejoAlonso that Artifact-hood is a broad topic. Leo's example of a seashell as an ashtray is an interesting view of being an artifact. It seems that the activity of using something as if it were an artifact almost induces a role type.

[10:46] Michael Grüninger: Discussion of Theme: "Applied Ontology Body of Knowledge"

[10:47] Mike Bennett: I'd reinforce that previous point - there are well known ontological solutions to the seashell problem but a lot of people might be approach ontology as a technical idea and not know to look for these solutions.

[10:47] Michael Grüninger: Different tracks will explore Best Practices for: - ontology design - ontology sharability - ontology evaluation - ontology application / implementation (including automated reasoning) Each track can include both language-specific and language-dependent practices.

[10:49] David Whitten: The "Applied Ontology Body of Knowledge" reminds me of the books on Architecture of Open Source Applications ( http://aosabook.org/en/index.html )

[10:49] Mike Bennett: "Towards the Discipline of Ontology Engineering" +1 for title

[10:50] Mark Underwood: RE: Artifacts - The use case of provenance for devices in IoT / Big Data AAAS is a useful way to think about intersections between IoE tracks and Artifact thinking - if these were to be merged. Current prax in device provenance is most anything but abstract, & operate in systems that are ontology-indifferent (oblivious). I sense that Leo's proposal is to develop the abstractions to support systems builders, whereas perhaps we are setting out the lay of the land in the IoE tracks.

[10:51] David Whitten: Is Ontology too generic, and there must be an example or active practice to even allow ontology engineering to have meaning?

[10:52] Terry Longstreth: I've put my charts on the PSMW but don't know how to add it to the session page. http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/File:Brainstorm2SocioTechnico.pdf

[10:54] maria sette: I agree

[10:55] David Whitten: @maria sette, I lost track. What do you agree with?

[10:56] maria sette: I agree on the comment that was made regarding the Body of Knowledge.

[11:02] Terry Longstreth: I agree with Leo; we must impose a publishing discipline on the process

[11:03] Terry Longstreth: If we can prespecify submission requirements for the BOK, then we can ask summit presenters to supply BOK items in parallel

[11:04] maria sette: I support the IoE

[11:04] Terry Longstreth: I disagree that artifacts belong on internet of things; they are independent of technology

[11:04] Mike Bennett: +1 - we really do need to ensure that having agreed on the importance of the BoK it doesn't get lost just because it's not the ontology theme

[11:06] Mark Underwood: No computer needed? My mind is blown.

[11:07] Michael Grüninger: Is there a consensus of the theme: Internet of Everything: Toward Smart Networked Systems and Societies

[11:08] Donna Fritzsche: I like it, but we can we scope it a little more?

[11:08] Ken Baclawski: @[14:04] Mike Bennett: Having a track would help, but it should be a separate initiative as well.

[11:09] Mark Underwood: Concur with consensus - unless folks think this is too limited

[11:10] Terry Longstreth: @MarkUnderwood: Computers are tools that can be useful, but ontologies are intellectual constructs that can be documented on parchment or sandtables. The Internet of everything presupposes that we cannot support non-technological societies or aspects of our own.

[11:10] maria sette: I agree with the speaker. Getting in early is better.

[11:11] Mike Bennett: I agree - it would be better for us to be ahead of the curve, not curating the ideas after others have figured it out.

[11:12] David Whitten: I was asked to write my concern in the chat: My concern about making the Summit topic being the "Internet of Things" is that there it is still something being actively researched and may not be well developed enough to be worth the time at this time. The nascent nature of this topic may not be worth our focus until is better defined.

[11:13] Michael Grüninger: @Donna: Yes, the idea would be that over the next month, the people interested in being on the Organizing Committee would meet and refine the scope for the Summit. The objective would be to have the decision about Tracks being made in the early December session

[11:14] Mark Underwood: RE maturity of IoT / IoE - This is emerging in some fields, but in others, e.g., DoD sensor networks, it is at least less new, if not mature. It's largely parallel to the Big Data theme: some folks think it's just VLDG / High Speed Computing warmed over, whereas the V-advocates think it is a paradigm shift worth addressing beyond the popular framework.

[11:15] maria sette: Keep in mind the topic is also talking on smart networked systems.

[11:16] Mark Underwood: @Maria - For sure - R U thinking SDN?

[11:16] Michael Grüninger: Decision: Working Theme/title for Ontology Summit 2015: Internet of Everything: Toward Smart Networked Systems and Societies

[11:18] Mike Bennett: Dec 11th coincides with the OMG Quarterly Meeting which may be an issue for some.

[11:18] Michael Grüninger: Is December 11 a good date for the (Pre-launch) Community Input and Planning Session?

[11:18] maria sette: Yes

[11:20] Donna Fritzsche: thanks!

[11:20] Julita Bermejo Alonso: Thank you! Looking forward to it!

[11:20] maria sette: Thank You

[11:21] Beth DiGiulian: Thank you, good discussion. I like the theme - but agree that we need to be careful of scope.

[11:21] David Whitten: I feel it was a good use of my time.

How To Join (while the session is in progress)

Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2014_11_06&oldid=2855"