Actions

Ontolog Forum

Revision as of 06:33, 9 January 2016 by imported>KennethBaclawski (Fix PurpleMediaWiki references)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Ontology Summit 2011: Panel Session-2 - Ontology Application Framework - I - Thu 2011_02_03

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology

Session Title: Strawman for the Ontology Application Framework

Session Co-chairs: Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto) & Dr. MichaelUschold (Semantic Arts)

Panelists:

  • Dr. MichaelUschold (Semantic Arts) - "A Framework for Understanding and Classifying Ontology Applications" [ ref. ]
  • Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE) - "Ontologies & Applications"
  • Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto) - "Notes for an Ontology Application Framework"
  • Professor AlanRector (U of Manchester) - "Problems arising in applications: Background Knowledge Representation, Data modelling & Ontologies"

Abstract

OntologySummit2011 Theme: "Making the Case for Ontology"

  • Track-1 Focus: "Ontology Application Framework"
  • Session Title: Strawman for the Ontology Application Framework

This is our 6th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by NIST, Ontolog, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit is: "Making the Case for Ontology."

This year's Ontology Summit seeks to address the need to provide concrete evidence of successful deployment of ontologies by examining several application domains for such examples, and in better articulating where different "strengths" of ontological representation are best applied. To support that, the summit also aims to classify the categories of applications where ontology has been, and could be, successfully applied; to identify distinct types of metrics that might be used in evaluating the return on investment in an ontology application (cost, capability, performance, etc.); to lay out some strategies for articulating a case for ontological applications; and to identify remaining challenges and roadblocks to a wider deployment of such applications that represent promising application areas and research challenges for the future. The findings of the summit will be documented in the form of a communiqué intended for public consumption.

In this kickoff meeting for Track 1: Ontology Application Framework, panelists will be presenting various ideas for a strawman proposal for the framework. The objectives of the meeting will be find enough agreement so that we can initiate online discussions to identify and classify applications of ontologies within business and industrial use cases. This classification will be used to organize the uses cases proposed by Track 2.

See developing details on this Summit series of events at: OntologySummit2011 (home page for this summit)

Agenda

Ontology Summit 2011 - Panel Session-2

  • Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call

Proceedings

Please refer to the above

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session

see raw transcript here.

(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.

-- begin in-session chat-transcript --

Peter P. Yim: .

Welcome to the Ontology Summit 2011: Panel Session-2 - Ontology Application Framework - I - Thu 2011_02_03

Summit Theme: Ontology Summit 2011: Making the Case for Ontology

Session Title: Strawman for the Ontology Application Framework

Session Co-chairs: Professor Michael Grüninger (U of Toronto) & Dr. Michael Uschold (Semantic Arts)

Panelists:

  • Dr. Michael Uschold (Semantic Arts) - "A Framework for Understanding and Classifying Ontology

Applications"

  • Professor Michael Grüninger (U of Toronto) - "Notes for an Ontology Application Framework"
  • Dr. Leo Obrst (MITRE) - "Ontologies & Applications"
  • Professor Alan Rector (U of Manchester) - "Problems arising in applications: Background Knowledge

Representation, Data modelling & Ontologies"

.

Please refer to session details (dial-in, agenda, slides, etc.) at:

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_02_03

.

anonymous morphed into Pat Barkman

anonymous morphed into Todd Schneider

anonymous1 morphed into Bruce Bray

anonymous2 morphed into Amanda Vizedom

anonymous morphed into Ram D. Sriram

Susan Turnbull (GSA) morphed into Susan Turnbull

anonymous morphed into Antoinette Arsic

Alan Rector: Please put details of paper on chat show - the line looses some detail - thanks

Peter P. Yim: @MichaelUschold - it's slide#2 (not #1) now

Peter P. Yim: slide#15 (not #14)

Yu Lin: where is it now? I got lost

Peter P. Yim: For some reason, our speakers haven't been calling out their slide numbers very

accurately, therefore (especially asynchronous participants) please bear with the situation, and try

to sync up to the content as they are presented

Arturo Sanchez: @MichaelUschold: the main issue with all the approaches, as I understand them, is

that semantic information that drive the mapping is not explicitly represented, and therefore needs

to be mediated by humans and properties that are supposed to be preserved by the mappings is not

explicitly exposed. If you get the chance, I'd like to hear your opinion (as well as Michael

Gruninger's, Leo's, and Professor Rector's) Thanks!

Arturo Sanchez: @MichaelUschold: Also, it is not clear to me how change management is represented in

all these approaches/architectures. That is to say, when the ontologies change, what happens?

Arturo Sanchez: @MichaelUschold and the rest of the team: to document architectural concerns, I would

suggest to use the notations proposed by the Software Engineering Institute (CMU). "Documenting

Software Architectures", latest edition (Addison-Wesley)

Pat Barkman: thanks Micheal

Amanda Vizedom: Thank you Leo!

Antoinette Arsic: bye Leo

Todd Schneider: Leo, there are apps that allow the generation of source code from an ontology (e.g.,

Top Quadrant)

Peter P. Yim: Michael Grüninger is presenting ... on slide#2 now

Arturo Sanchez: @ToddSchneider: it would be interesting to analyze--or come up with--software

development frameworks that support the lifecyle of ontologies, including automatic code generation

injected into the application and directly derived from the ontology/ies.

Todd Schneider: Instead of using application as the distinguishing criteria it may be more effective

to use problem space.

Steve Ray: @Todd: I agree that if the application is used for categorization, then we at least need a

mapping provided from problem categories to application categories.

anonymous morphed into Peter Bahnsen

Todd Schneider: Arturo, I've been referring to this as ontologically driven development (with the

subtext of displacing UML / SysML).

Steve Ray: @Todd: ....keeping in mind that we want to provide information to people trying to make

the case to stakeholders that know what problems they are facing. i.e. I'm agreeing with you.

Arturo Sanchez: @ToddSchneider: I think MichaelGruninger's characterization is with respect to the

functionality that can be implemented by "ontology-based" or "ontology-driven" applications

Arturo Sanchez: @ToddSchneider: ... and therefore, the characterization is domain-independent ...

Todd Schneider: Problems resolved by applications realized by functionality

Steve Ray: @Arturo: I think Todd's point is that if I were trying to make the case to someone, say in

my company, I might know what problem I'm trying to solve, but may not be sure what functionality

would be best to invoke. Or even if I knew what functionality was appropriate, my deciding vice

president might not recognize it in those terms.

Todd Schneider: @Steve, exactly. Referring to what John Sowa suggested, you have to convince someone

they have a problem (that your solution can solve).

Steve Ray: We could provide guidance such as: Problem category --> Needed functionality -->

Ontological approach --> Benefits

Todd Schneider: @Steve, sounds good and make a simple graphic.

Arturo Sanchez: @Todd & Steve: yes, your points are well taken, but that is why the summit has

diffferent tracks. This track is about "A Framework for Understanding and Classifying Ontology

Applications". There are other tracks that address the concern you are expressing. Now, it would

also make sense to document the architecture of well-known exemplars of ontology-driven/based

applications, for specific domains, which CIOs and CEOs associated with these domains can relate to.

Antoinette Arsic: It would be awesome to have instances of the ontologies for these in KM and

Decision Support.

Steve Ray: @Arturo: Agreed.

Todd Schneider: @Arturo, I think 'Framework' is the important part, 'application' may not be the best

qualifier/criteria for categorization (relative to the larger goals of the summit).

Peter P. Yim: = Alan Rector presenting now =

Arturo Sanchez: Very good presentations ... sorry I must leave now. I'll catch up through the Wiki.

Peter P. Yim: @Peter Bahnsen - Hello, would you let us know which organization are you affiliated with,

please?

Peter Bahnsen: @ Peter P. Yim I'm contracting with the GSA and am here on invite of Susan Turnbull

Peter P. Yim: @Peter Bahnsen - welcome! we are glad you can join us today

Peter P. Yim: @SusanTurnbull - Hi Susan!

Peter Bahnsen: Thanks for the welcome! I am new to the ontology community

Peter P. Yim: @Peter Bahnsen - hope you like what you see here!

Antoinette Arsic: on slide 5

Peter P. Yim: @Antoinette - thank you

Michael Grüninger: I agree with Arturo -- the purpose of this track is to provide the frame of

reference for discussing how ontologies are used and how to demonstrate benefits.

Amanda Vizedom: @Steve and all: I think we do need a multi-dimensional categorization. As suggested,

there are things we'd normally think of as "application"-oriented, such as the functional

requirements and technology context. There are also user characterizations, subject matter

considerations (single-domain/cross domain), process considerations, organizational goals (things

down the road for which ontos should be reusable? mandates? legal, policy, other issues?), and on.

Michael Grüninger: If we tell someone that ontologies provide the technology that they need to solve

their problems, we need to ensure that they understand exactly what is being delivered.

Steve Ray: @Michael: Agreed, but someone should provide a mapping from problem categories to

application categories. Seems like that would either be this track, or possibly Track 4 - Strategies

for making the case.

Michael Grüninger: @Steve: What are examples of problem categories?

Peter P. Yim: @AmandaVizedom, Michael Grüninger and All - "multi-dimensional" is the key challenge ...

how can we effectively document and present it

Steve Ray: @Michael: Let's see... "We don't know how to assign the right expert to a customer

account", or "I'm trying to optimize the load balancing in my electrical grid". These are off the

top of my head. Some answers may be obvious, some not. Kind of gets into systems design.

Steve Ray: @Michael: I just realized you asked for categories, not examples. I'll have to think

further.

Amanda Vizedom: I don't think is news as an idea, but I've had a great opportunity to experience and

observe the factors recently. I've been working on Ontology Design Pattern & Best Practice

documentation for ontology developers within our project, translating general ontology best

practices and ODPs to specifically what to do in our context. Because target audience is (a) often

only lightly trained, learning on the job, and (b) not necessarily interested in more general level,

except where understanding it will help them again later, and (c) mixed in desire/ability/tendency

to find related external resources and try to understand and integrate them, I need to be able to

articulate, in complementary guidance, in what ways these docs are tailored. Meantime, I'm thinking

about how the tailored docs could be part of a larger body of guidance docs in which context one

could find the bits that apply to ones own cases. I've not gotten to the point of listing such

factors (not part of client task, of course), but the variety is very salient.

Yu Lin: @MichaelGruninger: I don't think gene sequencing is using ontology technology. Could you

please give an example?

Bruce Bray: sequence ontology is an evolving example of use of ontology for representing gene

sequences see: http://www.sequenceontology.org/

Michael Grüninger: @Yu Lin: I was referring to ontologies (such as the Sequence Ontology) that are

used to support the analysis of gene sequence data e.g. query all databases for all genes whose

transcripts are edited, or trans-spliced, or are bound by a particular protein.

Yu Lin: @Bruce Thank you very much. I think it rather a tool for data integration than for the

sequencing analyzing.

Yu Lin: Thank you Michael, I got what you meant

Todd Schneider: Thank you to all the speakers. Have to go.

Alden Dima: @PeterYim,@SteveRay - For me, a high-level way of presenting the categories revolves

around saying that ontologies enable efficient 1) coordination 2) cooperation and 3) coherence

between sofware systems and their users. I'm sure that there are other high-level categories as

well.

Fabian Neuhaus: @Alan: about integrity constraints: it might be of interest to you that there is a

W3C Member Submission called "Validating Semantic Web Data with OWL Integrity Constraints" on its

way

Alan Rector: Glad to hear it - I have been concerned that this stream was critical but not getting

the attention we require.

Ram D. Sriram: @MichaelGruninger: I believe the track's title is "Application Framework." I presume you

are going to synthesize the presentations into a "framework" perspective. Such a framework should

help us to resolve various views for ontologies and applications.

Alan Rector: One important difference is uses of ontologies as payload or "coding" or a common

structured vocabulary - e.g. the Gene Ontology or SNOMED - and use of ontologies as structure for

software or standards.

Pat Barkman: Search Engine Optimization. Were looking for a way to use an ontology for SEO because we

have a dataset that blends and makes really no distinction between a broad selection of knowledge

domains (for example: biology, physics, cosmology ...) In the vast number of data sources these

subjects are considered separate disciplines -- segmented. Our dataset defines commonalities and

treats everything as one subject. Well, you might think that sounds great ... but it kinda sucks for

SEO because our web content is semantically very different than the rest of the web so we score

poorly based on the existing Search Engine algorithms. So, were looking at creating Topic Pages

based on our data. Then when those Topic Pages get crawled we believe we will begin to educate

Search Engines about the commonalties between various disciplines and that will enhance our search

engine scores. Then we also need to make our data (which is in English) searchable in multiple

languages. And frankly, we also need an ontology to search our data more effectively ourselves.

Pat Barkman: so, those are our use cases: SEO, multi-lingual & enhancing our own search capabilities

of a dataset that's likely unprecedented in it's cross-disciplinarily nature

Pat Barkman: wouldn't the use cases be the set of system requirements for developing the ap

framework??

Steve Ray: @Pat: What is your dataset? Could you expand on this?

Pat Barkman: @steve our data is in the form of text, video & audio, discusses all aspects of science

as one subject

Pat Barkman: ...kinda hard to describe other than as a "complete" dataset

Steve Ray: @Pat: Could you say what purpose your are trying to fulfill? Education? Consumer service

provision? ....

Pat Barkman: OK ... thanks for that clarification ... Ap FW summit/community

Pat Barkman: @Steve - education, primarily

Steve Ray: @Pat: So perhaps educational curriculum material might be an ontology. In this forum we

have talked about an ontology for curricula (last year in fact).

Pat Barkman: @Steve, so I can probably find something in the archived discussion threads on that,

right?

Pat Barkman: thanks

Steve Ray: Yes, I'll try to dig up some links.

Jim Disbrow: The Ontology Case Study I tried to put together (on an Energy-Water-Climate nexus) has

failed so far. The lack of funding may be the single largest factor. The lack of volunteers (and not

getting done what was needed) was also a factor.

Peter P. Yim: @AmandaVizedom - please capture you point here ... it's great!

Amanda Vizedom: Here's the point I just made on the call: In addition to looking at and collecting

use cases, there is tremendous value in looking at them comparatively and *specifically* looking at

what worked and didn't work in each case. Doing this kind of collection and comparison of LL in many

use cases is also valuable, as discussed a bit last year, for identifying Best Practices and

building that body of shared knowledge we don't yet have. But comparing what worked and didn't in

different use cases is often just the light one needs to bring out the dimensions (and important

points along those dimensions) we're looking to understand. Comparing use cases with LL, we can ask

What are the differences between those cases, such that one thing worked here and another thing worked there?

Amanda Vizedom: In follow-up, Michael, Alan, and others noted the difficulty in getting people to

talk about their failures, and that these haven't been solicited as part of the summit use case

call. Michael added this to that call. I agree, and having been aiming to get a workshop set up at

one of the major conferences to talk about use cases and LL, collaborating to identify both

meaningful differences between the use cases and best practices.

Peter P. Yim: Great session ... fantastic presentations from all the panelists! Thanks you All! Bye!

Pat Barkman: thanks!

Alan Rector: Thanks bye

Antoinette Arsic: Thank you bye

Steve Ray: Logging out. Thanks Michael and team for another great session.

Peter P. Yim: I will keep the chat board going until 11:30am PST (i.e. for another 8 minutes or so) ...

past that, what goes into the chat-board will not get captured into the session proceedings.

Peter P. Yim: - session ended 11:21am PST --

-- end of in-session chat-transcript --

  • Further Question & Remarks - please post them to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv
    • all subscribers to the previous summit discussion, and all who responded to today's call will automatically be subscribed to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv
    • if you are already subscribed, post to <ontology-summit [at] ontolog.cim3.net>
    • (if you are not yet subscribed) you may subscribe yourself to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv, by sending a blank email to <ontology-summit-join [at] ontolog.cim3.net> from your subscribing email address, and then follow the instructions you receive back from the mailing list system.
      • please email <peter.yim@cim3.com> if you have any question.

Audio Recording of this Session

  • To download the recording of the session, click here
    • the playback of the audio files require the proper setup, and an MP3 compatible player on your computer.
  • Conference Date and Time: 2-Feb-2011 9:38am~11:21am PST
  • Duration of Recording: 1 Hour 37 Minutes
  • Recording File Size: 11.1 MB (in mp3 format)
  • suggestions:
    • its best that you listen to the session while having the respective presentations opened in front of you. You'll be prompted to advance slides by the speaker.
    • Take a look, also, at the rich body of knowledge that this community has built together, over the years, by going through the archives of noteworthy past Ontolog events. (References on how to subscribe to our podcast can also be found there.)

Additional Resources

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Thursday 3-February-2011
  • Start Time: 9:30am PST / 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm CET / 5:30pm GMT / 17:30 UTC -
    • see world clock for other time zones
    • do note that this is 1 hour earlier than the usual 1:30 EST Ontolog event time!
  • Expected Call Duration: ~2.0 hours
  • Dial-in Number:
    • from a US telephone (US): +1-218-844-8060 (domestic long distance cost will apply)
    • When calling in from a phone, use Conference ID: "4389979#"
    • from Europe, call:
      • Austria 0820-4000-1577
      • Belgium 070-35-9992
      • France 0826-100-280
      • Germany 01805-00-7642
      • Ireland 0818-270-037
      • Italy 848-390-179
      • Spain 0902-886-056
      • Switzerland 0848-560-327
      • UK 0844-581-9148
    • callers from other countries please dial into either one of the US or European numbers
  • Shared-screen support (VNC session), if applicable, will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/
    • view-only password: "ontolog"
    • if you plan to be logging into this shared-screen option (which the speaker may be navigating), and you are not familiar with the process, please try to call in 5 minutes before the start of the session so that we can work out the connection logistics. Help on this will generally not be available once the presentation starts.
    • people behind corporate firewalls may have difficulty accessing this. If that is the case, please download the slides above and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.
  • Discussions and Q & A:
    • (Unless the conference host has already muted everyone) Please mute your phone, by pressing "*2" on your phone keypad, when a presentation is in progress. To un-mute, press "*3"
    • You can type in your questions or comments through the browser based chat session by:
    • or point your browser to: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontolog_20110203
      • instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field). 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.
    • (when everyone is muted) If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please "raise your hand (virtually)" by click on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the speaker or the session moderator (again, press "*3" on your phone to unmute). 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 "*2" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)
    • 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) ontolog_20110203@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!
  • Please note that this session will be recorded, and the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.

Attendees



Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2011_02_03&oldid=326"