ppy/OntologySummit2013_s09_chat-transcript_unedited_20130314a.txt ------ Chat transcript from room: summit_20130314 2013-03-14 GMT-08:00 [PDT] ------ [10:10] PeterYim: Welcome to the = OntologySummit2013: Virtual Panel Session-09 - Thu 2013-03-14 = Summit Theme: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle * Summit Track Title: Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria Session Topic: Ontology Development Methodologies for Reasoning Ontologies * Session Co-chairs: Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council; Hypercube, UK) and Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK) Panelists / Briefings: * Dr. JoanneLuciano (RPI-TWC, US) - "A Generalized Framework for Ontology Evaluation (GOEF)" * Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE, US) - "Developing Quality Ontologies Used for Reasoning" Logistics: * Refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_03_14 * (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName (in WikiWord format) * Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute * Can't find Skype Dial pad? ** for Windows Skype users: 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 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. . == Proceedings: == . [10:19] anonymous morphed into Astrid [10:23] anonymous morphed into BobSchloss [10:24] Astrid: Hello Peter [10:24] Astrid: I dont be able to speak [10:24] Astrid: I have problems with my microphone [10:24] Astrid: But I listen to you. [10:25] Lamar Henderson morphed into LamarHenderson [10:25] anonymous morphed into Michel Dumontier [10:26] Astrid morphed into Astrid Duque [10:27] PeterYim: No problem, Astrid ... I was suggesting that you (and everyone else who hasn't already) to morph your name into the nominal WikiWord name (as per your identity on our wiki) - like AstridDuqueRamos, or JoanneLuciano, BobSmith, etc. ... thanks (that helps the automatic link generation on the wiki) [10:29] Astrid Duque morphed into AstridDuqueRamos [10:29] Michel Dumontier: hi! [10:30] PeterYim: Hi Michel, welcome! [10:30] SteveRay: Lots of hiss on the line. [10:30] BobSchloss: On the telecon audio bridge, there is a heavy buzzing which is making it hard for me to hear you, Peter, as well as the other person who is speaking. [10:30] BobSchloss: If I am the only person who hears the hissing, I can call in again. [10:30] MikeBennett: We all hear it. Also someone talking. [10:30] MikeBennett: This will clear when Peter mutes everyoone [10:31] BobSchloss: It sounds like 2 telecon lines are crossed..... [10:31] anonymous morphed into AliHashemi [10:31] AmandaVizedom: Yes, in the meantime, perhaps those who aren't speaking can self-mute (*6) [10:31] anonymous1 morphed into TorstenHahmann [10:32] anonymous morphed into dougFoxvog [10:32] anonymous1 morphed into MichaelDenny [10:34] anonymous morphed into Ludger Jansen [10:34] PeterYim: == MikeBennett opening the session on behalf of the co-chairs ... ... see: the [0-Chair] slides [10:35] anonymous morphed into Rosario Uceda-Sosa [10:35] List of members: AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom, AstridDuqueRamos, Bob Smith, BobSchloss, DaliaVaranka1, dougFoxvog, FabianNeuhaus, Hans Polzer, James Michaelis (RPI), Joanne Luciano, JohnBilmanis, LamarHenderson, LeoObrst, Ludger Jansen, MatthewWest, MeganKatsumi, MichaelDenny, MichaelGruninger, Michel Dumontier, MikeBennett, MikeDean, PeterYim, Richard Martin, Rosario Uceda-Sosa, Samir Tartir, SteveRay, TerryLongstreth, TorstenHahmann, vnc2 [10:37] Samir Tartir1 morphed into Samir Tartir [10:39] PeterYim: links to slides can be found under: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_03_14#nid3NPF [10:41] PeterYim: == JoanneLuciano presenting ... see: the [ 1-Luciano ] slides [10:42] Samir Tartir morphed into SamirTartir [10:48] Gary Berg-Cross: Is the a SADI service (sadi.org)on the page the correct link??? [10:48] Hans Polzer: Regarding Joanne's presentation, I would suggest looking at a range of contexts for ontology evaluation, not just a use case. Another way to look at this is as a set of use cases that span the range of ontology application contexts [10:51] MikeBennett: @Hans I think that defines a difference between an ontology which is to be developed for a specific application, and an ontology that is to be developed as a standard, which would necessarily be use case agnostic. Though of course, if ontologies developed for applications are designed to be broader than just one use case, then they can be reused by others. I think this opens up an interesting line of discussion we can cover in the discussion. [10:51] TerryLongstreth: Joanne - can you give an open reference /url for the Cockburn Method? [10:53] MatthewWest: I know people who argue that Use Cases are inadequate as a statement of requirements, because they are point requirements, whereas what you really want is to develop a required capability. Use cases can be very helpful in informing such a required capability, and later illustrating it, but are not a substitute. [10:54] AmandaVizedom: @Hans - alternative but compatible view (I think): identify elements or characteristics of use cases that matter (or are hypothesized to matter) for ontology suitability, so that these elements can be reused to analyze and describe other use cases. Some of these will clearly be contextual, but the path to reuseful reasoning is better defined. As I understand it (Joanne can confirm/disconfirm) this is part of the first-stage support that is envisioned for GOEF. [10:55] anonymous morphed into BobbinTeegarden [10:56] ToddSchneider: Use cases can be used to discover requirements (i.e., an analysis tool). [10:57] Hans Polzer: Use cases also have lots of implicit scope, which can lead to overlooked requirement assumptions. On the other hand, a set of use cases can help understanding of a range of application contexts, since "range" is often difficult to conceptualize while use cases are typically presented as quasi-concrete examples. [10:59] AmandaVizedom: @Matthew: I would agree with that; there is an analysis stage between use case description and technical requirements specification that utilizes knowledge of both the operational background/need and the technical specifics. [10:59] TerryLongstreth: Joanne question - Does your methodology necessarily reveal the existence of an Ontology? [11:00] PeterYim: == LeoObrst presenting ... see: the [ 2-Obrst ] slides [11:00] MikeDean: @Gary SADI service is at http://sadiframework.org [11:00] MeganKatsumi: @Amanda: Can you clarify what you mean by elements or characteristics of use cases? [11:03] FabianNeuhaus: Leo: could you tell us when you switch slides? [11:03] Gary Berg-Cross: Mike, yes that is what I thought. The session page has it wrong. [11:03] PeterYim: @GaryBerCross, @MikeDean - thank you, the link has been updated on the session page now [11:04] Joanne Luciano: http://alistair.cockburn.us/Basic+use+case+template the use case template appears to be broken there --we have a local copy (and I'll send the to Alistair to let him know. I think I forgot to do this when I was in contact with him a while ago: http://tw.rpi.edu/media/latest/UseCase-Template_SeS (someone please try this RPI link and verify it works). thanks [11:05] MikeBennett: That link works. [11:06] AmandaVizedom: @Megan - I should probably let Joanne talk about what she means first. ;-) At least, if I'm correct in saying that this is a reasonable way to describe what she is talking about in the description of the 1st stage of the GEOF framework, in which the use case is analyzed and specified. I think, from Joanne's description (and previous discussions), that this specification is not open-ended but focuses on capturing particular aspects of the use case that are known or believed to be needed as input in order to evaluate how well various candidate ontologies might fit that use case. [11:06] Joanne Luciano: my original presentation from 2008 is on slideshare (you'll notice I used Leo's template for that (I was at MITRE). [11:06] MikeDean: @Joanne http://tw.rpi.edu/media/latest/UseCase-Template_SeS works, downloading a Microsoft Word template [11:07] Joanne Luciano: I am listening to Leo and I still have a bad cold, so I'm happy to discuss after during discussion. [11:07] MeganKatsumi: Thanks! [11:07] Joanne Luciano: @MikeBennett Thanks for checking. [11:09] dougFoxvog: There can be problems with a separation into T-Box & A-Box. In nature guides, for example, lots of statements are made of properties of classes (e.g., types of living thing). These classes, themselves are instances of higher-order classes (Species, Genus, ... Phylum, etc.). These types are both instances & classes. The same thing happens when talking about part types. The classic Wine Ontology had huge problems in expressing properties of types of wine, ending up defining the narrowest classes as instances of the next broader class, because of restrictions of the A/T box restrictions it was operating under. [11:10] AmandaVizedom: @Megan, @Joanne, I'd expect, for example, that the kinds of things Leo is discussing now (slides 2-3: how complex is the reasoning needed for the use case, if any?) would be a subgroup of the use case characteristics that can be described and matter for ontology suitability. [11:11] dougFoxvog: Leo discussing DL not being able to represent many rule types. I suggest that this is a reason to avoid using DL languages. [11:12] MikeBennett: @Hans avoid in general, or avoid for specific requirements / usages of the ontology? [11:12] Joanne Luciano: @TerryLongstreth: Joanne question - Does your methodology necessarily reveal the existence of an Ontology? //// Terry, I don't understand your question. Let's discuss during the discussion. [11:12] MikeBennett: @Doug I mean - sorry! [11:14] AmandaVizedom: @doug +1 regarding the Wine Ontology example. It is a good example of the approach suggested, and choices forced, by a particular kind of DL-based language. It is also a good example of why for most reasoning, or cross-specialty integration, applications, that approach is crippling. [11:14] dougFoxvog: @Mike: I suggest avoiding unless the only use of the "ontology" is to be used as a taxonomy. If you use rules or want to integrate, a more powerful language is called for, imho. [11:15] MikeBennett: @Doug - thanks. I guess that comes under the heading of what Leo calls "not an ontology" :) [11:15] dougFoxvog: @Mike: +1 [11:17] anonymous morphed into PavithraKenjige [11:18] PavithraKenjige: Requirements are written in statements can be shown as use cases and scenerios to capture how user use a system to meet those requirements [11:19] dougFoxvog: Re Slide 7, "tractable reasoning": even a higher order language can exhibit tractable reasoning, when the rules reasoned over permit it. Note that normal computer languages are intractable, but people still program using them. A programmer would not want to program in a guaranteed tractable language. [11:20] PavithraKenjige: So in my opinion, Use Cases and scenarios and test cases that are based on Use Cases & scenarios are verification or evaluation of meeting the requirements [11:21] Joanne Luciano: I think SADI services can help - I'd like to incorporate GOEF development into https://github.com/timrdf/DataFAQs/wiki I'd love to have some "clinics" to discuss and develop the implementation. I have a paper in the works that will use the iChoose example throughout. The current draft version doesn't have a single example (because these ideas have only been able to be developed in fits and starts). It includes some mock up screen shots to help get ideas across. RE: not an ontology -- the 'spectrum' seems to help cover bases and avoid "semantic" arguments (which is a challenge in a "semantic" community) [11:22] dougFoxvog: Re slide 8. 3D/4D reasoning can be left out of most ontologies. If a given application requires committing to one or the other, it can also inherit a small ontology that specifies the 3D+1 or 4D theory. [11:23] Joanne Luciano: For those downloading the use case template -- recall that is the "starting point" -- that is what needs to be formalized so that an ontology (or part of one) can be evaluated with respect to it. [11:25] dougFoxvog: re slide 9: There is a huge ontology of "part-of". Transitivity often won't work if one switches between different types of "part-of". [11:26] MikeBennett: @Doug presumably part terms like "nearside front wheel" versus part terms like "Wheel" have different requirements in this regard. [11:29] Gary Berg-Cross: @MikeB wheels may be "components" rather than a simple part. [11:29] dougFoxvog: re slide 10: Do you need human capability to formulate queries using the computer's query language? A user interface should obviate this. One does not require a human capability to formulate SQL queries for someone to ask for information from a database. [11:29] dougFoxvog: @Mike: Yes. [11:31] MikeBennett: @Doug thought so. I think distinguishing between those usages (e.g. what is a Component) per Gary, depends on using a suitable upper ontology that distinguishing something-in-a-role from something-in-itself. So there is a dependency between these two considerations I think. [11:31] dougFoxvog: @Gary: "componentOf" would be a specialiazation of "physicalSubpartOf". [11:33] Gary Berg-Cross: I sometimes think of these bridging, integrative ontologies as simpler bridging schemas. [11:33] dougFoxvog: @Mike: Yes. the truth of (componentOf Car2087532408 Wheel234752347) is time dependent. [11:33] anonymous morphed into FredHosea [11:34] Gary Berg-Cross: @Doug Yes that is a good specialization. [11:35] dougFoxvog: Re slide 12: "Anyone we know" might be Insectivore. [11:35] AmandaVizedom: Relating Leo's talk to my own (a few weeks ago, about getting from bus requirements to ontology eval): most of the questions Leo is talking about are the sorts of things that should be asked at the stage when "business requirements" are being transformed into "technical requirements" (for the ontology and/or system). The answers should: figure into ontology/system design; be used to development constraints, goals, steps; be used to identify what should be evaluated when to make sure requirements are being met and maintained. I would say that this is the knowing-what-to-develop/knowing-what-to-check-for aspect of the Big Issues in Ontology Evaluation; the how-to-check-for-X/evaluation methods aspect is a parallel Big Issue. [11:36] dougFoxvog: The Venn diagram does not intersect Reptile and Mammal, so the "Anyone we know" circle includes some mammals, some reptiles, and some other living things. [11:38] MikeBennett: @Amanda +1 - these kinds of technical considerations are a parallel to what in conventional technology development would be non functional requirements - but they clearly deliver benefits to the business integrity of a model of the business domain. That opens up a lot of interesting questions. [11:39] MatthewWest: Go ahead. [11:40] AmandaVizedom: re: collaborative development: big tool need in the OWL world: tunable automatic checking on addition (commit-time; rejection if inconsistent). More comprehensive automatic bookkeeping on assertions and inferences so that problems can be debugged, fixed and modules/packages re-submitted. [11:40] PavithraKenjige: @Amanda, Use Cases follow the requirement or use cases & scenarios represent detail requirements.. which is followed by design phase. In UML, Object diagrams are done as design stage.. [11:40] Joanne Luciano: I'm wondering how many times Leo has been around the circles and items on 18-21. I don't think I want to count. BTW, Happy Pi Day (3.14 in the way the US does month day). [11:41] PavithraKenjige: Ontology development is a face that can be mapped to design stage .. [11:41] PavithraKenjige: Sorry I meant to say phase not face.. [11:46] AmandaVizedom: @Leo - slide 20 - yes indeed, often looped around, etc., *and* often there are interdependencies with other components of a larger system. At various points, there is or should be cross-checking to see whether things are (still) in sync, whether they are on-track to work together as desired. [11:47] MikeBennett: @Amanda +1 - not only for collaborative development but I think we need a tool that does for ontologies what UML does for software designs, including what you have there, and also visualizations both to business domain and to implementers. [11:48] AmandaVizedom: @MikeB: Agreed. [11:49] AmandaVizedom: @MikeB: I should note that the capabilities I mentioned already do exist in some development environments, especially Cyc and to a degree in some in-house, specialized systems. But not, to my knowledge, in OWL tools generally. [11:50] PeterYim: == Q & A and Open Discussion, MatthewWest moderating ... [11:50] Joanne Luciano: should it come up. here's a link to the slideshare presentation: http://www.slideshare.net/joanneluciano/luciano-pr-08849ontologyevaluationmethodsmetrics (from 2008!) it was a proposal for internal research at MITRE. [11:52] PeterYim: @MatthewWest - kindly document here the key points you just, so eloquently, expressed verbally ... so we can capture that into the proceedings [11:52] dougFoxvog: Ref the capabilities Amanda referred to. The OBO ontologies have obviously not had such tools, since, e.g., disjoint classes had had common subclasses in several posted ontologies. [11:52] MikeBennett: Oops! (pun intended :) ) [11:56] AmandaVizedom: It is good to see more tools for evaluating ontologies, including OWL if for no other reason than that so many people are developing ontologies in it and are in severe need of evaluation help. :-) It's important to note, though, that the infrastructure for easy/automated testing of collaborative additions to a large ontology, or addition of new ontologies to a repository of ontologies that are meant to be compatible, is also very much needed. [11:56] MikeBennett: I should add that we have the same problems in the FIBO development - we have defined upper ontology partitions to distinguish e.g. independent v relative things (like the parts examples) but don't know when these have been misapplied until we can run external checks on it. Something like what UML tools do, where illegal model efforts are flagged up as non compliant, would be useful in a tool. [11:57] MatthewWest: @Peter: is it OK if I do that later and send you an email for inclusion? [11:59] PeterYim: @Matthew - sure! ... I will append that onto the chat-transcript when I received it from you then [11:59] AmandaVizedom: And, along the lines of Joanne's GOEF ideas and Leo's exposition of important requirements questions and design decisions, tools are also very much needed to support this kind of analysis, and recording of the results, so that people can figure out what they need and what to test for in the first place. [12:00] Joanne Luciano: I agree w Leo - need many kinds of testing (at many levels) [12:01] BobbinTeegarden: @Mike is it possible that when one starts with tree structures (categorization) when modeling something essentially graph shaped, that we end up in unintended stovepipes? [12:01] Joanne Luciano: Agree w/ Amanda's comments [12:02] Joanne Luciano: The reason I like the "component" aspect is it facilitates testing (and Leo just mentioned unit testing). an important "component" [12:02] dougFoxvog: @Bobbin: yes. Modeling a graph structure as a tree will almost always lead to trouble. [12:02] AmandaVizedom: Re: Todd's question: debugging when things don't go right - This is one reason why ontology development / management systems should have much, much more automated bookkeeping and inference traceability than many do. Again, Cyc & some other systems have this, but it is lacking in many commonly-used environments, with real consequences. [12:02] MikeBennett: @Bobbin I think that is a real danger - unless some serious imagination is used in defining abstractions "What kind of thing is this" asked iteratively until you get to a very atomic meaningful concept. I don't know how you would validate / verify for that. [12:04] MikeBennett: @Bobbin plus you need to apply faceted classification, which would require some additional notation. There is no reason for any given class to only have one parent (except, of course, when you are designing for an application and need to think about the reasoning overhead of multiple inheritance). [12:05] Joanne Luciano: Agree with what Michael is saying - the copetency questions aren't enough, and yes the 2nd level addresses the external requirements (Compliance standards, for example) which again is adifferent level than tthe OWL / intrinsic level. [12:05] MichaelGruninger: Competency questions are great for evaluating whether or not there are enough axioms in our ontology, but there are still two outstanding issues. !. Are these the right competency questions? 2. The competency questions themselves introduce their own ontological bias [12:06] AmandaVizedom: @Michael +1 Questions embed some ontological commitments. That can be OK *if it does done intentionally*, i.e., if you design your questions to test for compatibility with those commitments. But it's a real problem with many published test approaches - they embed *assumed* commitments that may not be shared in real cases in which people attempt to apply those questions. [12:06] LeoObrst: @Matthew's comments: re: ontology development still seems to be research. Yes, that's why ontology training (a previous Ontology Summit) is very important. [12:07] ToddSchneider: To what extent are the discussions about ontology evaluations assuming a non-dynamic environment (of ontology changes)? [12:07] Joanne Luciano: not assumed in the GOEF approach [12:08] Joanne Luciano: interesting though about autonomous sytems [12:08] dougFoxvog: re Mike's reference to faceted classification: specifying the facets is difficult, and ensuring those facets that should be coverings or partitions are such can be hard to model in a simple ontology language. Higher-level languages such as Cyc, enable this by reifying the facets as meta-classes. [12:09] AmandaVizedom: @Matthew, @Leo -- true, but consider also the role of capturing our (ontology community) dispersed knowledge and lessons learned. Some things are better understood than others, but the understanding is unevenly distributed and redundant research continues. Or, at least, mature hypotheses can be formed, rather than the sort proto-wheel ones that still get run up the flagpole. [12:10] MikeBennett: @Doug thanks - I've been trying to figure out if there's a way of defining some OWL annotation properties to signify facets - the obvious basis for a classification facet seems to be the OWL Union Class - but need to decorate that somehow to identify what property of the parent class has different values in the child classes in that facet. [12:11] dougFoxvog: Does anyone want to create an ontology of the ontology evaluation & development concepts and issues that we have been discussing? With such a tool, individual ontologies could have their properties specified using this ontology. [12:12] AmandaVizedom: @Todd: I assume that dynamic is in fact more typical, perhaps biased by environments I have worked in. I think that much research and tool development assumes a more static model, though, and/or that individual ontologies reach a "done" stage, after which they are rarely changed and new work is on other ontologies. [12:12] LeoObrst: @Fabian: I agree. Please place that in the chat, so we don't lose the comment, i.e., the 3-n things you need for evaluating ontologies. [12:13] dougFoxvog: @Mike: Using OWL-Full, one can create Facets & define classes as instances of the facets. If several types of facets are defined. [12:14] AmandaVizedom: @doug - that is one of the hackathon & clinic proposals, though I don't know that there will be enough interest or participation for it to pass the selection gate. [12:14] MikeBennett: @Doug thanks [12:15] AmandaVizedom: Ontology of Ontology Evaluation proposal is at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Hackathon_Clinics#nid3O90 [12:16] dougFoxvog: ... If several types of facets are defined: Partition, Covering, ..., with rules attached, it could force the appropriate disjointnesses and would be good for annotation, even if later use of the ontology would drop such facets as mere documentation in order to allow for a simpler (e.g., DL) reasoning scheme. [12:17] LeoObrst: Folks, I must go to another meeting. Thank you for your comments and participation! [12:17] MikeBennett: Thanks @Leo [12:18] FabianNeuhaus: My two questions are: (1) Assuming you need to make a recommendation to somebody who develops an ontology. What are the three most important aspects that you think that the person should evaluate and how? (2) Could you identify the kind of tools that would make it easier for ontology developers to perform the recommended ontology evaluation? [12:18] Joanne Luciano: @LeoObrst THANK YOU -- always! [12:18] Joanne Luciano: When I say "Function" I include in that "Capability" [12:19] TerryLongstreth: USE cases vs. capabilities wrt evaluation - If we assume that Use cases are elaborated into capabilities, then evaluation based on use cases would be elaborated into more detailed evaluations, and so on until we arrive at evaluation [12:19] Joanne Luciano: The feedback is useful - I'll make it more explicit next time [12:19] TerryLongstreth: based upon implementatio [12:19] TerryLongstreth: n [12:20] Joanne Luciano: words along will often get us into trouble. -- I don't like that i use "standard" for the "second" level, for example [12:21] MikeBennett: @Doug I'll look into that - this is going to be very useful in classifying financial instruments for example. Different facets are suited to different use cases, so it would make sense to extract a single-inheritance taxonomy for a given use case - but different ones for different use cases (e.g. investment management versus risk and compliance). [12:22] FabianNeuhaus: @Pavithra, Matthew: maybe you could take this discussion offline? [12:23] Joanne Luciano: We used to use functional specifications, they worked [12:23] PeterYim: join us again, same time next week (Thu 2013.03.21), for OntologySummit2013 session-10: "Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - II" - Co-chairs: MikeDenny & PeterYim - see developing session page at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_03_21 ... please pay special attention to the start-time (for the folks in the US and canada, unlike this particular session, we are back to our normal start-time)! [12:23] PeterYim: great talks, thank you Joanne & Leo [12:23] AmandaVizedom: Thanks all! [12:23] dougFoxvog: THanks, all [12:23] SamirTartir: Thanks all [12:24] Joanne Luciano: I want to acknowledge James Michaelis and Nic [12:24] Joanne Luciano: from CTG SUNY albany for their contributions to my presenataiton [12:24] PeterYim: -- session ended: 12:23pm PDT -- [12:24] List of attendees: AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom, Astrid, Astrid Duque, AstridDuqueRamos, Bob Smith, BobSchloss, BobbinTeegarden, DaliaVaranka, DaliaVaranka1, Dennis E. Wisnosky, FabianNeuhaus, FredHosea, Gary Berg-Cross, Hans Polzer, James Michaelis (RPI), Joanne Luciano, JoelBender, JohnBilmanis, KenBaclawski, Lamar Henderson, LamarHenderson, LeoObrst, Ludger Jansen, MatthewWest, MeganKatsumi, MichaelDenny, MichaelGruninger, Michel Dumontier, MikeBennett, MikeDean, PavithraKenjige, PeterYim, Richard Martin, Rosario Uceda-Sosa, Samir Tartir, Samir Tartir1, SamirTartir, SteveRay, TerryLongstreth, ToddSchneider, TorstenHahmann, TorstenHahmann1, YuriyMilov, anonymous, anonymous1, dougFoxvog, vnc2