ajv/ppy/OntologySummit2013_hc-05_chat-transcript_unedited_20130331a.txt ------ Chat transcript from room: hc-05 2013-03-31 GMT-08:00 [PDT] ------ [6:48] AmandaVizedom: the HC-05 Sunday 31-Mar-2013 session will start at [6:48] AmandaVizedom: 7:00am PDT / 10:00am EDT / 3:00pm CET / 14:00 UTC [6:49] AmandaVizedom: ... [6:49] AmandaVizedom: voice conferencing support will be available, thanks to Peter... [6:49] AmandaVizedom: Dial-in: ...... Phone (US):+1 (206) 402-0100... Conference ID:141184#; or [6:50] AmandaVizedom: Skype:joinconference... Conference ID:141184# [6:51] PeterYim: Hi Amanda [6:51] AmandaVizedom: Our working documents are in this shared Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_5lZBgIG6LRQnZSdUFWX2FnYTg&usp=sharing [6:51] AmandaVizedom: Hi Peter [6:52] AmandaVizedom: Just thought I'd get the logistics stuff up at the top before chat got chatty. :-) [7:00] Bob Smith: Hello [7:02] AmandaVizedom: Astrid has added a chart: OntologyCharacteristicsOQuare [7:07] PeterYim: working files can be found in the shared-file workspace at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/Hackathon-Clinics/HC-05_Ontology-of-OntologyEvaluation/ [7:07] PeterYim: working files can be found in the shared-file workspace at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/Hackathon-Clinics/HC-05_Ontology-of-OntologyEvaluation/ [7:07] PeterYim: napshot of working files as at end-of-day1 are under: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/Hackathon-Clinics/HC-05_Ontology-of-OntologyEvaluation/wip/ [7:07] PeterYim: ^snapshot [7:13] AmandaVizedom lowered your hand [7:19] MikeDean: suggest developing both OWL and CL versions (we have enough people and expertise), in part to demonstrate our views of how ontologies will be developed and used [7:19] PeterYim: ^Amanda: asking for comments on what language should we work at representing the ontology (which we are developing) in [7:21] PeterYim: I am totally *for* doing it in CL (for the expressivity and for it's being a Standard) [7:24] PeterYim: since Ontohub is/will-be able to translate from CL to OWL, if we would only do it in one language, or declare *one* as normative, I would say CL [7:26] AmandaVizedom: Discussed implementation choices. Mike Dean says that PSMW will use RDFSchema; that can be gotten from the OWL easily enough, so doesn't to be done directly. [7:28] Bob Smith: This is an exploration of how to develop an Ontology for Ontology Evaluation, and it is important to document decisions as we make them [7:29] anonymous1 morphed into PavithraKenjige [7:30] Bob Smith: The Requirements Gathering document (now 53 pages) is still a rich and relevant document, and pages 27-32 are relevant to this decision about kinds of tools and language expressiveness to use (Given the goal of some content on the PSMW [7:31] AmandaVizedom: I would like to have an OWL output, as that is going to have the broadest potential uptake. However, I prefer to work in FOL or HOL. Common Logic is fine; I have no tool preferences. [7:32] Bob Smith: What are your open options, and beyond preferenace/past usage and broadest potential uptake, what criteria are you explicitly using?? [7:34] AmandaVizedom: We can try to get the OWL from the CL through OntoHub or other tools. I don't know how completely that will work; OWL "conversion" sometimes turns out to be a simple extraction of those parts of the ontology that are easily OWL translatable without accounting for what is left out. [7:36] AstridDuqueRamos: http://miuras.inf.um.es/oquarewiki/index.php5/Main_Page [7:38] PeterYim: ^Astrid: in response to Pavithra's verbal comment [7:39] Bob Smith: How does the HC05 Diagram about Oquare map to the Oquare wiki descriptions? http://miuras.inf.um.es/oquarewiki/index.php5/Main_Page [7:41] AstridDuqueRamos: The diagram represent only the characteristics and subcharacteristics. [7:41] anonymous morphed into FrancescaQuattri [7:42] FrancescaQuattri: Hi Amanda, Ali, Peter and All [7:43] AliHashemi: In terms of mapping work that needs to be done -- each tool and presenter had their own view / aspect of ontology evaluation, which are more appropriate for different parts of the ontology lifecycle, different ontology characteristics etc. At some point, the work that they've produced should be mapped into the conceptual model we're developing. The language that is used to encode the formal ontology should be able to support these mapping efforts. There is an additional question of getting the appropriate time and resources to actually explicate the mapping. [7:43] MikeDean: I'm back [7:43] AliHashemi: Hi Francesca. There is also a conference call - you might want to dial into the joinconference. [7:44] AmandaVizedom: When I look at the task of integrating different tools, methods, and models into an overarching conceptual model, I confess that I find it hard to imagine doing this in OWL, though I don't claim it's impossible. To account for the different models, I would imagine using namespaces to demark those models, and then tying the specific concepts there to higher ones where approprate. I would, however, think that we would want classes of classes in OWL to capture the faceting groups (i.e., not OWL-DL) . In a more expressive language, I imagine using faceting language and explicitly referring to the tools and methodologies and the concepts and classes of classes that they use. [7:44] MikeDean: I suggest that we create ontology files (e.g. Turtle or CLIF) corresponding to each of the refined diagrams, to maintain linkages and control scope [7:44] AliHashemi: @All, I have to break earlier than I'd thought today. I will be leaving ~12 EST [7:45] AstridDuqueRamos: @Bob a more complete diagram could include the metrics and quality criteria associated to this subcharacteristics. [7:45] AliHashemi: +1 to Amanda's point. [7:45] AmandaVizedom: Francesca and Mike - We are now thinking about requirements and preferences for our choice of representation language for our primary, or first, formalization of this ontology. I've asked people to comment here in chat so that we have capture of the considerations. [7:49] PeterYim: in my [+0:24] comment above, "CL" should read "CLIF" [7:52] AmandaVizedom: Plan: talk a bit more about formalization approach to capture considerations, then use about an hour to finalize conceptual model - make sure we have cleaned up conflicts and confusions, documented anything that isn't obvious on viewing to all of us, made explicit how they connect. That conceptual model will be our output for this weekend. We will end around noon EDT, and offline I will gather these graphs and annotations into a single document with any minor cleanup needed, for output purposes. [7:52] FrancescaQuattri: just catching up with the work you've done so far, impressive [7:52] Bob Smith: @Astrid - done...at a high level by just pasting their graphic onto a copy of your diagram ;-} to show what is different [7:54] AmandaVizedom: @Mike - I agree re different files in any languages in which modularity is does not have other strong support (e.g., it wouldn't be needed in CycL) [7:55] PeterYim: @Francesca - guess you know we have voice support too (right? ... see details near top of this chat-window) [8:00] AmandaVizedom: [Decision]: we will produce CL and OWL models independently, and (with interest) compare and review across the models for alignment, etc. [8:02] AmandaVizedom: Now reviewing concept model diagrams [8:04] AmandaVizedom: Note: definitions for most nodes appears in comments in "High Level Concept Model" chart. These apply across other charts. Exceptions exist for added charts that apply concepts from particular sources, e.g., OQuaRE definitions can be found in the documentation Astrid linked to above. [8:04] AstridDuqueRamos: @Bob what kind of high level one of those created in HC 05? [8:17] FrancescaQuattri: @Peter: thanks. Right now I'm just studying the docs [8:54] Bob Smith: @Astrid - I just copied it to my drive and added the diagram - have not uploaded it to the HC-05 File [8:55] AstridDuqueRamos: ok [8:55] Bob Smith: @Amanda - Architure is a useful node - Deb MacPhearson has just finished a 4 page Info Architecture article for Jrnl of Building Info Modeling...want a link? [8:56] AmandaVizedom: Yes please, Bob! [8:57] FrancescaQuattri: @Bob&Amanda: could we also have it? [8:57] FrancescaQuattri: @Bob&Amanda: could we also have it? [9:01] MikeDean: I'll generate Turtle for each of the diagrams (as time permits) [9:01] AmandaVizedom: Amanda will do a draft of an English representation of our graphs and pass it to Ali for a pass. [9:01] AliHashemi: Need to add a Time Ontology, an activity / event ontology. [9:02] AmandaVizedom: I also volunteer to work on CL version [9:03] Bob Smith: @Amanda - OK - the final draft should be available in a day or so. [9:03] MikeDean: copy files to WebDAV server [9:04] MikeDean: ultimately load ontologies to OOR (for OWL) or OntoHub (for CL) [9:05] MikeDean: WebDAV not versioned - may later want to setup GitHub or similar project [9:06] AmandaVizedom: That Time ontology is in addition to the OMV and the ontology used by PSMW [9:08] PeterYim: WebDAV shared-file workspace access information is available on slide#8 of the Launch "process & schedule" presentation - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_03_28#nid3PJ7 [9:08] MikeDean: OWL Tiime (in CL and OWL) is a candidate time ontology [9:08] MikeDean: s/Tiime/Time/ [9:09] AmandaVizedom: To Do in future: test/demo by applying to example ontologies. [9:11] MikeDean: also map to BFO, OpenCyc, etc. - in separate files so they can be loaded or not - probably don't want to import (in terms of weight and ontological commitment) [9:11] MikeDean: Amanda: mappings also indicate points of agreement [9:17] AmandaVizedom: -------- [9:18] AmandaVizedom: Session ended 12:17 EDT [9:18] AmandaVizedom: ------- [9:18] AmandaVizedom: --- [9:18] PeterYim: great work ... thanks for organizing this Amanda & Ali ... amazing how much can get done, with a good team, in a day-and-a-half! [9:19] List of attendees: AliHashemi, AliHashemi1, AmandaVizedom, AnatolyLevenchuk, AnatolyLevenchuk1, AstridDuqueRamos, AstridDuqueRamos1, Bob Smith, DavidWhitten, DavidWhitten1, FrancescaQuattri, Igor Katrichek, Igor Katrichek1, JoelBender, KenBaclawski, Martin Davtyan, MikeDean, PavithraKenjige, PavithraKenjige1, PeterYim, SteveRay, VictorAgroskin, anonymous, anonymous1, anonymous2, anonymous3, anonymous4, anonymous5, anonymous6, anonymous7, anonymous8, anonymous9, dougFoxvog, igor, vnc2