OntologySummit2009-Launch_chat-transcript_20090115a.txt // Please change your name from 'anonymous' using the Settings button anonymous morphed into PeterYim PeterYim: Welcome to the OntologySummit2009 Launch Event - Thu 2009-01-15 PeterYim: Session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2009_01_15 PeterYim: Ontology Summit 2009 Theme: "Toward Ontology-based Standards" anonymous morphed into Elizabeth anonymous1 morphed into SteveRay anonymous2 morphed into DavidPrice anonymous morphed into RexBrooks anonymous morphed into MikeDean anonymous morphed into Howard Mason DeborahMacPherson: just emailed ppy: ogc context, like an ontology, with iso standards overlaid, especially bc matthew west online, interested to discuss iso 15926 vs 16739 Matthew West: Deborah: I'm not familiar with ISO 16739, but very familiar with 15926 of course. Happy to talk about what the differences might be. But probably not right here right now. DavidPrice: What is 16739? Matthew West: They are Geoff Wix's Industry Foundation Classes for buildings. DeborahMacPherson: ISO 16739 is the Industry Foundation Classes, refer to http://www.blis-project.org/2xconcepts/index.htm especially the PDF at http://www.blis-project.org/2xconcepts/index.htm. I'm working with 3 classification systems for buildings MasterFormat 2004, OmniClass, and UniFormat. Each has their own utility for different parts of the building life-cycle communication process. Maybe they can find a common ground in the IFC's. The graphic sent to Peter takes the OGC and NBIMS hierarchy, then Deke Smith at BuildingSMART alliance overlaid areas where 16739 probably applies vs 15926. Matthew West: I have no sound. Is that just me? DougHolmes1: yes Matthew West: Thanks DougHolmes1: Steve Ray is on Slide 3 Matthew West: Thanks. I have sound again. Matthew West: I have to leave now (19:21 UMT) anonymous morphed into KenBaclawski MikeDean: I have another telecon. RexBrooks: In terms of examples, for those of us who are working on building ontologies for standards, specifically as foundations for sets of standards in a given domain,examples that show the role of an ontology within other representations for a standard or standards. anonymous morphed into VNC2 SteveRay: Comment from Michael: We should seek out concrete examples of standards that use ontologies, and standards that COULD use ontologies. RexBrooks: I have another meeting I need to get to, but I will keep an eye on the wiki. DavidLeal: Ultimately ontologies should be used by engineering domain experts as a computer interpretable part of a standard which is also expressed as person readable text. Ontologies should not be in separate "digital representation" standards. A good example could be material test standards where the criteria that define a test type could be defined as an ontology as well as text. DavidPrice: As many ontology languages support annotation, it's unclear why the ontology isn't person- as well as human-readable. DavidLeal: agreed Patrick Cassidy: Steve and Evan - I would like to talk to you for a few minutes after this meeting. If you are both in the same room, I could call you after we hang up. SteveRay: Pat, unfortunately, I'm running off to another meeting. Evan is in a different room - I'll let him speak for himself. TomRuss@ISI: A combination ontology and text representation would be fine. But it does raise the additional issue of coherence. One would need to make sure that the text and formal representation are really equivalent. I suspect that a process similar to that used by Canada or the EU, with the need to have multi-lingual versions of standards, laws, etc. would be needed. PeterYim: see the slide DeborahMacPherson is referring to at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2009/OntologySummit2009-Launch_20090115/wip/ogc.tiff PeterYim: Peter will start a wiki page and list the topics and solicit people to add their names to specific topics they will focus their efforts on. PeterYim: Thanks everyone ... bye! //