ppy/chat-transacript_OntologySummit2009-planning_20081218a.txt // Laurent: Feels lonely in here... Peter R Benson: we may just be on early for the next call Laurent: Aha! Laurent: Well unfortunately I can't be on the next call. Laurent: But this call is working out very well. Peter R Benson: If you leave we will only be two! Please change your name from 'anonymous1' using the Settings button anonymous1 morphed into PeterYim MikeBennett: is this the rigth session page? PeterYim: Welcome to: OntologySummit2009 Planning Session - Thu 2008-12-18 anonymous1 morphed into RexBrooks anonymous morphed into DougHolmes anonymous1 morphed into KurtConrad Peter R Benson morphed into PeterBenson Laurent: I'll stay tuned while I attend another con call anonymous morphed into Nils Sandsmark RexBrooks: One partition that I think would be helpful is a survey of existing ontological representations of standards. MikeBennett: Do you mean industry messaging / data standards like XBRL? RexBrooks: The OASIS Semantic Execution Environment Technical Committee (SEE TC) released a Pubic Review draft of its Reference Ontology for Service Oriented Architecture recently. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200812/msg00001.html RexBrooks: HI Mike. Yes. RexBrooks: XBRL is especially pertinent. MikeBennett: An interesting challenge - many of the ones in my industry (financial) were developed without defining a technology neutral business view of what they were trying to represent. RexBrooks: Exactly. PeterBenson: If we are looking at standards we must be looking at conformance clauses and criteria RexBrooks: Indeed. Those may also vary with the representation, e.g. OWL, OWL-S. WSML etc. PeterBenson: starting with defining what is and is not an ontology would be useful KurtConrad: All, I'm listening, but my phone won't let me talk. anonymous1 morphed into Fabian Neuhaus DougHolmes: Peter, a previous Ontology Summit has addressed the question you raised what is an ontology?]; the communique is at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Communique PeterBenson: Thanks Doug, I took a look but could not find a definition. PeterBenson: As in a definition we could add to an ISO standard DougHolmes: We more or less came to the same conclusion. MikeBennett: Indeed te communique says "The goal of the Ontology Summit is not to establish a definitive definition of the word "ontology", which has proved extremely challenging due to the diversity of artifacts it can refer to" anonymous morphed into David Leal anonymous1 morphed into Nancy Wiegand PeterBenson: hmm.. if we can not define it do we know what we are talking about? PeterYim: Qu1: who else should get involved? PeterBenson: NATO AC/135 MikeBennett: UN/CEFACT PeterBenson: THe chair of AC/135 is George Bond he is on our board - so yes I will be glad to contact him RexBrooks: We already have NCOR, but it would be good to have both Barry Smith and Mark Musen. DougHolmes: It seems to me that it would be good to have at least some representative of the GIS community [e.g. GML] PeterBenson: If you are looking for UN/CEFACT then you may want to ask TC 154 Bill McCarthy: I can talk to my co-convenor for the accounting interoperability summit Roger Debreceny with the purpose of including XBRL Fabian Neuhaus morphed into FabianNeuhaus MikeBennett: EDM Council of course PeterBenson: TC 37 would be a natural as they deal with terminology DougHolmes: In the spirit of brainstorming, there are also some de-facto standards, such as Dublin Core and FOAF that seem to be "ontological" Trish Whetzel: SKOS is another PeterYim: EdDodds suggested XBRL and ... MikeBennett: SUMO - IEEE Trish Whetzel morphed into TrishWhetzel DougHolmes: And, a number of architecture standards [e.g. FEAF, DODAF, etc.] TrishWhetzel: Will the ISO groups by default bring in the grid folks, ie caGrid? KenBaclawski: As I mentioned in my introduction, I have been working with the CEA-2018 standard. The standard is a general task planning standard which could have applications in many domains, but was developed for consumer electronics. My contact with the standards committee is Chuck Rich at WPI, and I will try to get him to participate. PeterYim: Q2: who else should get involved? PeterYim: ... ignore that PeterYim: Q2: how could we partition this year's discourse MikeBennett: Ontology development methodologies PeterBenson: Does this mean you are keeping "information" in the title? DougHolmes: 1. What is the role of an ontology in establishing a standard? KurtConrad: Not clear on what you mean by "partition" PeterBenson: The ISO definition of "data" is the representation of information - PeterBenson: There are no "information standard" that I know of DougHolmes: 2. What kind of constraints or rules [standards?] should be applied to ontologies that are used to establish a standard? Matthew: Standards (amongst other things) provide definitions and authoritative sources for identification of standard objects. Ontology is a natural next step for that, whether the standards are information standards or not. Standards themselves are information. MikeBennett: You might want to look at a breakdown of the different kind of animals that are referred to as standards in different industries, for example some are message standards (XMl or otherwise), some are data models and so on. Should there be a partition on this? Also some standards mandate business workflow and so on. KenBaclawski: A lot of standards are being expressed in XML Schema or RELAX NG. CEA-2018 is expressed in RELAX NG. Are these already ontologies? PeterBenson: I agree that ontologies could be the next step in the representation of information hence my request for a definition of the term ontology as this may provide the natural partition of the debate PeterYim: input from DavidPrice: what are "today's" (as opposed to "next generation") standards, and which parts of it lends to ontological representation with today's technology; and which parts require research to bring us to the future. David Leal: Standards that define a pipe thread or a material test method (two examples at random) are currently expressed as text. We need to educate standardisation communities that are not involved with IT about ontologies. RexBrooks: Earlier in the chat, I suggested: One partition that I think would be helpful is a survey of existing ontological representations of standards. I also cited: The OASIS Semantic Execution Environment Technical Committee (SEE TC) released a Pubic Review draft of its Reference Ontology for Service Oriented Architecture recently. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200812/msg00001.html PeterBenson: computer processable standards? PeterYim: Q3: suggestions for developing a "Roadmap" as a key deliverable David Leal: Peter - that what I was attempting to say, but most standardisation communities do not know what is possible. Matthew: Web 1, Web 2, Web 3 history and predictions, provide a startpoint for a road map. PeterBenson: Sounds like a previous Ontology Summit sought to addressed the question of what is an ontology without coming up with a definitive answer, working towards defining classes of ontologies would be useful RexBrooks: The Semantic Spectrum that Leo introduced several years ago is still viable as a type of roadmap in the sense that we can compare where we are in terms of expressivity versus how computable the otnological representations are. DougHolmes: Peter, I think if you qualify that as an "artifact for defining standards", it might be a tractable goal MikeBennett: THat suggests another stream which would be how to present ontology information in a non IT format. Is that something that should be on the roadmap? PeterBenson: He rest of the world is a pretty large audience, can we be a little bit more precise PeterBenson: so explaining what an ontology is would be a good goal MikeBennett: One possible audience: those responsible for maintaining standards. Specifically industry (content) standards where the business content is often not captured because the technical people developing the standard are not strong on requirements management. DougHolmes: Peter, I think explaining what an ontology is in the context of using it to define a standard is a reasonable goal; if we don't constrain it like that, we'll just repeat the 2007 experience... PeterBenson: By that definition ISO 22745-30 is a specification of how to express an ontology in XML PeterBenson: The ISO 13584 is developing ontoML PeterBenson: The ISO 13584 team is developing ontoML PeterBenson: Doug, I agree with you Matthew: We need to look at standards expressed as ontologies as well as standard ontologies. David Leal: An area in which it would be good to have a success is LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) data. There have been attempt to create an ontology corresponding to the standard ISO 14048. The team at the EU JRC in Ispra would be interested. Bill McCarthy: The Open-edi accounting and economic ontology (ISO/IEC 15944-4) is expressed in UML Matthew: What I mean is that we need to focus on standard expressed as ontologies rather than standard ontologies or ontology languages. PeterBenson: Is everything expressed in UML an ontology? PeterYim: Q4: process suggestions PeterBenson: if we are dealing with a large group trying to come to consensus a variation of Robert's rules of order may work. The requirement that a motion must be put in play tends to help focus the discussion PeterYim: input from MarkMusen: we should have the Communique pretty much into "final draft" (if not already done) by the time we all walk into the face-to-face workshop ... we could use the F2F time more wisely PeterYim: we should get people to involve early .. and definitely to be cognizant that this is a 3-month affiar and NOT a 2-day conference FabianNeuhaus: I support Mark's point, during the last summit people who did not participate until the face-to-face meeting made last minute requests for changes which derailed the schedule for the Summit PeterBenson: Inviting people who may not want to "participate" but may be willing to review the output may be worth considering. KenBaclawski: Capturing the rationales for the parts of a communique would help prevent participants from recapitulating the debate that resulted in the draft communique. PeterBenson: It soulhd be possible to create a "voting" comunity PeterYim: Q5: any other suggestions MikeBennett: I think that if you want to have a clear message for industry standards owners, there should be some consistent definition of what an ontology is, including some consistent approach to what would be defined as good ontology for the content of that standard. PeterBenson: absaloutly KenBaclawski: Have we started asking individuals to select roles in the summit planning, organization and logistics? PeterYim: we'll be putting up the [ontology-summit] mailing list ... those who are involved (or responded to) today's sesion will automatically be subscribed. DougHolmes: Adios PeterYim: Thanks everyone ... meeting adjourned2008.12.18-12:06pm PST //