chat-transcript_20100311e_edited.txt PeterYim: . Welcome to the OntologySummit2010: Community Session-6 - "Final Sync-up (before the Symposium)" - Thu 11-Mar-2010 OntologySummit2010 Theme: "Creating the Ontologists of the Future" * Community Session-6 Topic: "Review and Alignment of Draft Deliverables and Final sync-up prior to the symposium" * Co-chair: Dr. FabianNeuhaus & Professor BarrySmith * Panelists: (All Track Co-champions) o Present Ontologist Education: ArturoSanchez & AntonyGalton o Education & Training Content: LeoObrst & MichaelGruninger o Training Requirements: AmandaVizedom o Future of Ontology Discipline: ElizabethFlorescu & PeterYim o Assuring Quality in Education & Training: BarrySmith, NicolaGuarino & FabianNeuhaus o Symposium: SteveRay, BarrySmith o Communique: BarrySmith, FabianNeuhaus . Please refer to dial-in, agenda and other details on the session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_03_11 . anonymous morphed into Simon Spero anonymous morphed into AmandaVizedom Simon Spero: No slides = no need for VNC? PeterYim: please refer to: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_Communique/Draft ... which is being discussed PeterYim: suggested change .... Barry & Peter ... ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_Communique/Draft#nid2B95 where it says: "the ontolog community ..." we should be more inclusive - all organizers, those who endorse the communique, etc. ... PeterYim: how about something like: "As next steps, the undersigned (individuals who endorse this Communique), along with the co-organizers of this Summit, recommend ..." SteveRay: For the record - recognize that we have explicit endorsement of recommendations documented already as "Sponsors" of the Ontology Summit. We can also collect a list of "Communique Endorsers" as in past years (Peter's suggestion). Simon Spero: Usual code phrase is "affiliation presented for identification only" ToddSchneider: General Comment: 0) I think the summary and introduction need to make reference to the larger area of semantic technologies and how ontology is the vital link. ToddSchneider: General Comment: 1) Need to include the terms systems, and not just projects. SteveRay: Suggest we limit the communique text to interpretations and findings from the surveys, with links to supplemental pages that will include detailed numbers. MichelleRaymond: Sentence structure modification - last sentence of paragraph: The 2010 Ontology Summit community is in general agreement that the most valuable and urgently needed training will be informed not only by theoretical considerations but also, and centrally, by the needs of ontologists seeking employment and employers seeking quality, useful ontologists. Our understanding of those needs, however, has been scattered and divergent. With the aim of improving this understanding, several discussions, a Panel session, and a survey were undertaken. MichelleRaymond: Grammar modifications: We wanted to develop a richer and more clear picture of the requirements of ontologist employability (that is, those trained should be well-prepared for the available jobs) and deployability (that is, those who hire trained ontologists find them ready and able to perform the needed work). To that end, we aimed to bring a strong "end-user" voice to the conversation. Each of our panelists embodied one or more end-user perspectives. Most had some combination of experience as a working ontologist, an employer, a manager, an evaluator or on-the-job trainer of ontologists, and a gatherer of lessons learned from full life-cycle ontology projects. Simon Spero: a separate methodology section ToddSchneider: I will provide comments to the editors by Monday. I need to join another meeting. See you next week. SteveRay: Suggest we change the heading "What are the requirements for ontologists?" to "What are the skill requirements for ontologists?" This is to avoid the interpretation of the heading as meaning something like "Does society have a need for ontologists?" RexBrooks: I think that the two paragraphs after 2BLD could be dropped in favor of a link to a subreport that can focus more on the results of the surveys. SteveRay: @Rex: I agree. RexBrooks: @Steve: I agree with your previous point as well. Simon Spero: This is possible cf: http://www.ils.unc.edu/digccurr/ MichelleRaymond: @Amanda: I agree with you statement that noting the state of education available and the identified education need should be highlighted. Simon Spero: @Amanda: or... what sort of questions should one ask faculty candidates who would be teaching in this area MichelleRaymond: @Amanda: I think it very interesting to note what educators, what those who hire, and what those who want education desire in training. I don't know that details belong in the communnique, but do think they should be noted in the summit wiki pages. PeterYim: Fabian going into the section about Arturo & Antony's section on the communique now ... SteveRay: Recommend we add a link to the ACM/IEEE curriculum model, within paragraph (2AXU) MichelleRaymond: I agree with less detail, more policy in communique. Provide links to other Summit material. PeterYim: On the section "What are the expected developments of the future?" I'd like to draw people's attention to: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_Survey#nid28DS ... and in particular the "Study Results" section at the end of that section The links for reference are available there; I would defer to the lead editors to pare down this whole section PeterYim: the section (as written now) is also available, and can be linked to at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_FutureDevelopments_Synthesis#nid25HK AmandaVizedom: @Simon - I'm glad you mentioned this. I wanted to make the recommendation, following the description of how the survey was distributed (abbreviated here, will be extended on the Requirements Synthesis page - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_PresentRequirements_Synthesis), that a new, long-running survey (or other collection mechanism) be stood up... Simon Spero: @Steve - the DigCCur program is IMLS funded research to develop a curriculum for digital curation Simon Spero: Ontology could be similar RexBrooks: I think the summary is fine as it is. I do think we need some conclusions, such as saying that education budgets for ontologist need to be increased because there are needs going wanting now. Simon Spero: Should be something suitable for Chronicle/THES AmandaVizedom: ... It's clear that the short time of the survey, along with the trial & error method of soliciting input more broadly, limited the quantity and diversity of input. We got great input, including some from outside the current Ontolog community, but it has clear limitations. You point to an example: there are clearly activities and organizations that are relevant but not represented. A longer-running survey would have a better chance of making its way into more and other communities, and to draw input from them. In addition, the Survey Monkey mechanism was very useful but also limited. We might look to Digcurr for ideas and tools, and we certainly could use the first round findings and lessons to improve the content. RexBrooks: It would be acceptable to me if we gave the chart as an example of the survey results we link to. Simon Spero: "What do Digital Curators do and What do They Need to Know?" -- feel free to substitute into quotation SteveRay: @Simon: I'm confused by your references to digital curators, and your earlier link to digccurr. How is this related to training of ontologists? Simon Spero: @SteveRay: it's an IMLS funded study of how to develop a curriculum for the digital archivists on the future; this is similar RexBrooks: @Simon: is this related to the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model-an RDFSchema that could and should eventually be upgraded to a full-blown ontology? Simon Spero: @Rex: it's a bit more meta Simon Spero: (though I did owl an earlier CIDOC) RexBrooks: @Simon: thanks. I'll look at it. Simon Spero: There's been a split between Computer Science and Information/Library Science that a lot of this falls into the middle zone RexBrooks: @Simon: Do you have a url to your earlier OWL CIDOC? Simon Spero: @Rex: I can't remember where I stashed it. It was during a very boring conference session, with no wireless. They did have one online RexBrooks: @Simon: I'll look for it. SteveRay: @Simon: OK, the similarity is that the IMLS study was to develop a curriculum (in a different domain)? Simon Spero: @SteveRay: Right Simon Spero: @SteveRay: just as digital curation has links to the past of archiving and other curation Simon Spero: @SteveRay: ontology has links to the past of information & knowledge organization Simon Spero: @Pavithra they're two related things Simon Spero: There are some core skills Simon Spero: There are some skills that are core to some subareas Simon Spero: I think you need some logic Simon Spero: Information organization Simon Spero: iSchool stuff Simon Spero: To implement a peta-scale triple store, you need one set of skills Simon Spero: To design a cognitively useful organization of knowledge you need another AmandaVizedom: @Fabian: I suggest a third track - a kind of knowledge manager, perhaps (in normative and non-normative flavors). AmandaVizedom: To document some of what I just said: I think that there is a third identifiable cluster, to which I belong. It isn't traditional software engineering, in that its practitioners may not have traditional IT interests or primary skills (though we have to develop some of them) and are focused on the human belief and decision systems of which the IT is a part. It doesn't fit the community-focused cluster, as described, because it need not be domain-specific. In fact, to me the good stuff is cross-domain, and (adding to what I said) it may be the case that much of the demand is going to be cross-domain, in that it is driven by interoperability, transparency, and such (be it cross-functional or Linked Open Data!). Simon Spero: Right Simon Spero: A core and a small number of specialty tracks MichelleRaymond: @Amanda: I wonder if the important characteristics of cross-domain ontologist, are intrinsic to being a "good"-ontologist. I'm not coming up with a unique skill I use in cross-domain ontology development/analysis that aren't a part of "good"-ontology development/analysis. The beyond ontology skills are the same: software engineering and human relations skills. I think I would pull out domain knowledge all together. Simon Spero: @Michelle: We've had debates about this within my cohort; what is it useful for non-tologists to know about ontology MichelleRaymond: OK, I recind my domain knowledge comment. Domain knowledge is relevant as understanding terminology within a domain. Domain knowledge is relevant as understanding how information is commonly structured within a domain. These are value-adds. RexBrooks: @Amanda: Yes, we need to understand the cross-domain applications/training is important. It's not an absolute requirement like the core, but it is very important when we need ontologists who understand formal logic and can apply it to making ontologically accurate calculations for policy enforcement points in routing, for instance. That crosses the human-machine communities since it is human social structures that define policies and need to put them in storage systems that can be accessed for policy enforcement. Simon Spero: @Amanda: what's not being taught ? Simon Spero: cf: http://ils.unc.edu/digccurr/digccurr-matrix.html Simon Spero: also: http://ils.unc.edu/digccurr/digccurr-funct-categories.pdf AmandaVizedom: Another observation (made on phone): The survey did produce unexpected results, and these are helpful to curriculum developers. To the extent that we want to refine our understanding of needs and clusters thereof, and to keep that current as the field develops, it would be useful to have a long-running, more sophisticated collection mechanism. Simon Spero: @Amanda good point PeterYim: @Fabian & Barry - we still need an ending - ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008_Communique#nid1GY0 or http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009_Communique#nid1WNA Simon Spero: Should there be a list of what you need to know to do certain jobs Simon Spero: that are classes as onto AmandaVizedom: @Simon - I don't think we're that far along as a field. But that is something toward which we should move. Ontologists should be able to assess what training they need. And, with great emphasis, if those with positions to fill had something to work with, such that they might be able to actually identify some of the job requirements and hire appropriate people, that would be a major advancement. AmandaVizedom: Noting action item for me: Move detail to Requirements Synthesis page. Cover only interesting, interpreted results. RexBrooks: I have to sign off now, and I just want to thank you all for the great effort! Simon Spero: Note: the registration according to NIST closes today, not tuesday Simon Spero: expectations? MichelleRaymond: I've got to sign off. All - enjoy the face-to-face meeting. SteveRay: Steve: amend Monday morning agenda Simon Spero: I want a full set of syllabi ready PeterYim: suggestions for F2F discussion: Michael, Barry / Peter et al. ... (a) strategic action and follow-ups, (b) next level of details in curricula, (c) what can we do at FOIS to continue the effort, PeterYim: -- session ended 12:21pm PST --