ppy/OntologySummit2013_Hackathon-Clinic-call_chat-transcript_edited_20130305b.txt ------ Chat transcript from room: summit_20130305 2013-03-05 GMT-08:00 [PST] ------ [6:56] PeterYim: Welcome to the = OntologySummit2013 Hackathon-Clinic Proposal confcall (n.04) - Fri 2013.03.05 = * Date: Tuesday 2013.03.05 * Start time: 7:00am PST / 10:00 am EST / 12:00pm ART / 4:00pm CET / 15:00 GMT/UTC * Expected Duration: ~1.25 Hour * Dial-in: (3NYO) ** Skype: joinconference ... PIN: 141184# , or ** Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... PIN: 141184# * In-session chat-space: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/summit_20130305 * Shared-screen support (VNC session), if applicable, will be started 5 minutes before the call ** at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/ ... view-only password: "ontolog" Logistics: * Refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Software_Environments_For_Evaluating_Ontologies_CommunityInput#nid3NYL * (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. Attendees: PeterYim (chair), AmandaVizedom, AnatolyLevenchuk, AstridDuqueRamos, JamesMichaelis, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis, JoanneLuciano, JoelBender, KenBaclawski, MikeBennett, SimonSpero, VictorAgroskin, YuriyMilov . == Proceedings: == . [6:43] SimonSpero morphed into SimonSpero [6:57] JoelBender: Dialing in... [7:01] SimonSpero: CQ [7:02] PeterYim: == session starts ... [7:02] List of members: AmandaVizedom, AstridDuqueRamos, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis, JoelBender, PeterYim, SimonSpero, VictorAgroskin, YuriyMilov [7:06] anonymous morphed into JamesMichaelis [7:06] PeterYim: agenda adopted as per: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Software_Environments_For_Evaluating_Ontologies_CommunityInput#nid3NYZ [7:06] JoanneLuciano: i am not able to get in to audio via skype [7:08] SimonSpero: @Joanne: try again [7:09] JoanneLuciano: I've just dialed in with my cell phone, but will try again with Skype (would be better quality) [7:10] SimonSpero: Yuri asked "why 1-2 day hackathon if virtual", and can a hackathon be virtual [7:11] List of members: AmandaVizedom, AstridDuqueRamos, JamesMichaelis, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis, JoanneLuciano, JoelBender, KenBaclawski, MikeBennett, PeterYim, SimonSpero, VictorAgroskin, YuriyMilov [7:12] SimonSpero: hackathons are usually like barcamps [7:12] AmandaVizedom: Regarding Simon's question about who is proposing and who is offering self or other resources: I've just added myself to http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Hackathon_Clinics#nid3O1R -- the "Independent Contributors" volunteer sign-up [7:13] AmandaVizedom: ... suggest others do the same? [7:15] JoanneLuciano: my voice is hoarse too. i said i tried joining with skype, but it keeps disconnecting and i don't get fully connected. [7:15] JoanneLuciano: i am connected by my mobile. [7:17] JoanneLuciano: (i'm typing because James (RPI) cannot join by audio at this time) [7:16] JoanneLuciano: question and discussion about proposal format -- request of specific collaborate? reap: it informal [7:17] JoanneLuciano: don't know who is asking the question [7:17] AmandaVizedom: @Joanne: That was JoelBender, I believe. [7:18] JoelBender: My earlier question was about project proposal content and format... [7:18] JoelBender: ...and was answered on Slide#11*, now I just need to finish my proposal and get it in by Thursday. [*see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_hackathon-clinics-approach--MikeDean-PeterYim_20130221.pdf ] [7:18] JoanneLuciano: Yes, I would very much like to discuss collaboration [7:21] AmandaVizedom: == Now reviewing slides* 5, 7, and 9 (candidate projects), updating status. [*see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_hackathon-clinics-approach--MikeDean-PeterYim_20130221.pdf ] [7:25] AmandaVizedom: OOPS! folks not here, so some questions to follow up on, regarding the OOPS!-related candidate projects. [7:18] JoanneLuciano: i would essentially like to donate the GOEF framework to the community. I don't have funding to support the development but would be able to advise and guide it. [7:19] JoelBender: @Joanne: do you have a link to that framework? What does it provide? [7:22] JoelBender: @Joanne: Ah, I see the reference to General Ontology Evaluation Framework (GOEF) in the proposals - slowly making the mental connection :-) [7:27] JoanneLuciano: @JoelBender It's not operational yet. There a web page here and a paper that's still in draft http://tw.rpi.edu/web/project/SeSF/workinggroups/OntologyEvaluation [7:28] JoelBender: Thank you. [7:31] JoanneLuciano: @JoelBender the framework provides the user-interface and mechanism by which someone could submit an ontology and a use case TOGETHER and get an evaluation returned that has both intrinsic and extrinsic evaluations as well as the specifics of the use case. I've worked out a lot of he high level concepts and a proof of concept application, but need help getting a functional prototype. I believe it has a lot of potential based on my knowledge in software, semantics and ontologies, but I haven't had the resources or been in a position to develop it sufficiently (combination of timing and funding - and them not coinciding). [7:33] AmandaVizedom: @Joanne, @James -- I am thinking that whole of GEOF may be too much for hackathon... [7:34] AmandaVizedom: ... but there are clearly delineable chunks that could be done modularly. Do you agree? [7:35] JoanneLuciano: @Amanda - disagree - need to put the skeleton framework in place. it is rather simple and straightforward. [7:35] AmandaVizedom: Ah, OK, skeleton. Got it. Thanks. [7:36] JoanneLuciano: no p. thanks for clarifying comment. the skeleton framework is what everything else will get placed into. [7:40] YuriyMilov: I plan to drop my previous proposals and planning to submit one related to integrating two online resources: http://attempto.ifi.uzh.ch/webapps/acewikisandbox/ and my test with Pellet reasoner on the Google App Engine [7:42] YuriyMilov: Shortly saying I'd like to get response from the Pellet on two simple ontologies created on the fly at the ACE Wiki website: [7:43] YuriyMilov: The resources are running. We will need just to connect them, and that is doable in a day or two. [7:45] PeterYim: Summary of slide#5* project status ... [*see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_hackathon-clinics-approach--MikeDean-PeterYim_20130221.pdf ] [7:45] PeterYim: HACKATHON * develop/align OOR, Ontohub and OOPS! webservices/API, so that OOPS! capabilities can be used on ontologies that are hosted on the OOR or Ontohub ontology repository (MariaPovedaVillalon, MariCarmenSuarezFigueroa, KenBaclawski, TillMossakowski, OliverKutz, et al.) -- Ontohub-OOPs! - ON -- OOR-OOPS! - ON * develop/integrate "gatekeeper" functionality and API into OOR workflow module to support verification, validation and other policies (KenBaclawski, MaximoGurmendez, et al.) -- OOR-KEEPER - ON; proposal received; * develop an ontology-driven OntologySummit2013 "website" on OntologPSMW (MarcelaVegetti, KenBaclawski, AliHashemi, PeterYim et al.) -- ON - could be (a) website diagnostics or (b) website applications, if website is already up by the time of the hackathon * develop tools (queries; psmw templates) to slice-and-dice the collected Ontology-Software-Capabilities inventory data in the survey (KenBaclawski, MichaelDenny, et al.) -- ON (has to be after survey data is collected) * implementing the "General Ontology Evaluation Framework (GEOF)" as SADI compliant web services (JamesMichaelis & JoanneLuciano) -- ON - will turn in proposal, but looking for contributing developers * developing an app that will deliver Ontology Summit content to mobile devices (YuriyMilov) -- this one is OFF; had suggested another idea, but did not get much response -- will submit a new proposal before the deadline, one related to integrating two online resources: http://attempto.ifi.uzh.ch/webapps/acewikisandbox/ and my test with Pellet reasoner on the Google App Engine * developing "ontology evaluation" enhancements on the .15926 editor (VictorAgroskin, AnatolyLevenchuk) -- this one is OFF; -- will submit an ONTOLOGY CLINIC proposal instead; will need collaborators with Ontology verification and evaluation tools ... can also offer collaboration infrastructure in Moscow (F2F) if needed [7:45] PeterYim: * no additions to the list of hackathon projects above [7:42] PeterYim: == reviewing slide#6&7* - candidate "Ontology Clinic" projects ... [*see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_hackathon-clinics-approach--MikeDean-PeterYim_20130221.pdf ] [7:42] MikeBennett: Ontology Clinic - I need to talk to our DennisWisnosky but I think that there is the potential that if people have evaluation tools we may want to bring some part of our ontology along and see what the tools make of them (I am on the call now). Can't confirm until I speak to Dennis but I think this something we can potentially do. [7:45] AmandaVizedom: Looking ahead to the "Ontology Clinic" topic - I am noting that the ideas currently described don't mention, or use, requirements. Since I've argued that metrics / evaluation aspect results don't mean much for quality/fitness without requirements, that could be an issue. [7:45] SimonSpero: @MikeBennett: Do you have any test cases [7:54] MikeBennett: @Simon we are looking at two kinds of ontology, with very different use cases: Business Conceptual Ontology (need to figure out what ontology quality measures should be applied to this) where the use case is business facing representation of industry terms and definitions; and operational ontologies derived from this - typically half a dozen or so ontologies in a modular structure e.g. business entities, IR Swaps, Credit Default Swaps etc. - test case for the reasoner based and semantic querying applications based on these: automatic classification of swap product types; queries to provide information on risks and exposures, financial positions etc. between swap counterparties, across organization ownership / control hierarchies etc. [7:47] JoanneLuciano: Just wondering if we are confusing the terms EVALUATE with ANALYZE for example in (slide 7). I think we've been having this confusion in general [7:47] AmandaVizedom: ... Evaluation Tools are still needed and interesting to test, but it's not really possible to say what the outputs mean, and whether either the tools or the ontologies should be changed as a consequence, without requirements. [7:48] AmandaVizedom: One possibility is to add a requirements identification clinic activity to the ontology clinics activities. What do folks think of that? [7:49] JoanneLuciano: @AmandaVizedom - say more, what does that mean to add requirements identification clinic activities? [7:51] AmandaVizedom: Related question: do any of the available tools contribute to (ontology) requirements ID and/or use case definition? (I think not, but...?) [7:51] JoanneLuciano: @AmandaVizedom: The hackathon proposal for GOEF is to work on the formalism for use case definition [7:51] AstridDuqueRamos: OQuaRE have some Characteristics and metrics that could be applied to ontologies [7:52] AstridDuqueRamos: these characteristics could be related with some ontology requirements ... such as reusability, changeability. [7:58] AstridDuqueRamos: ref. http://miuras.inf.um.es/oquarewiki/index.php5/Main_Page & http://miuras.inf.um.es/evaluation/oquare/Contenido.html [7:54] AmandaVizedom: @Joanne, I think we need use case def & requirements ID to happen for ontologies to be evaluated, even if it happens manually. Else, I think ontology clinics will need to be very careful not to draw inferences about ontology quality. [7:55] AmandaVizedom: ... That is, tools & clinics could perform analyses to measure certain characteristics of ontologies, but could say nothing about quality. [7:59] MikeBennett: I think the key thing about quality is that quality is not a thing in itself - quality has to be a measure against some requirements. [8:00] JoanneLuciano: @MikeBennett: yes, in the use of the word in that sense [8:00] AstridDuqueRamos: @Amanda and Mike, you are right about that is necessary to define some requirements and based on that, some of the characteristics could be accomplished [8:01] MikeBennett: @Joanne That's the sense used in e.g. ISO 9000 "Quality assurance" - it's not "how good is this thing" in some absolute sense, but "How well does it meet the business requirements". [8:01] JoanneLuciano: We're not getting to points I've been struggling to make (but not been successful), which is what I believe GOEF addresses, [8:02] JoanneLuciano: @MikeBennett yes, i understand. that's the point - that we agree on what we mean, and only then can we know whether we've met that criteria or not. [8:03] MikeBennett: I have to hop off to another call now. Sorry! [8:05] JoanneLuciano: @MikeBennett what I am proposing (in GOEF) is that we submit WITH the ontology being evaluated the FORMALISM (or definition, or URI where definition is) of the criteria as defined in the use case -- it can be NIL, in which case it would then be the internal characteristics (consistency, etc.) basically returns analytical metrics from the intrinsic analysis work [8:06] MikeBennett: @Joanne - that makes sense. [8:05] AmandaVizedom: I will propose alternative wording for the "ontology clinic" module. I'm aiming to keep the intended nature of the exercise without perpetuating the notion that quality can be evaluated without reference to requirements. [8:08] PeterYim: Summary of slide#7* project status ... [*see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_hackathon-clinics-approach--MikeDean-PeterYim_20130221.pdf ] [8:08] PeterYim: ONTOLOGY CLINIC * (A) evaluate some FIBO ontology module (MikeBennett, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis, AstridDuqueRamos, et al.) -- will submit proposal by deadline, MikeBennett: need to identify which ontology modules to be used in the exercise -- OOPS! & OQuaRE will be the tools used for the exercise [ ... need to have OOPS! folks confirm their participation] * (A) evaluate some eGov ontologies, like those at: (JeanneHolm et al.) ** http://oegov.org/ ** http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/ ** http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_cgov.html -- ??? TBA (not sure at this time whether a proposal is forthcoming) * (B) sending BFO, DOLCE, PSL, SUMO and/or CYC through Ontology Evaluation tools (like OOPS!, OQuaRE, etc.) -- ON ... OQuaRE is on (so far limited to OWL supported only) [... need to find out about OOPS! participation in this] * (new) ONTOLOGY CLINIC- COLORE -- ON - proposal already received [8:16] AmandaVizedom: (in reference to slide#6*) Suggestions: change "ontology clinic" >> "ontology metrics & measurement clinic." Add: "... bring (i) existing tools that measure particular characteristics of ontologies together with (ii) existing ontologies whose characteristics people have an interest in measuring, and run the ontologies through the tools. ... [*see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_hackathon-clinics-approach--MikeDean-PeterYim_20130221.pdf ] [8:19] JoanneLuciano: @AmandaVizedom Ultimately (hopefully sooner rather than later) I'd like to have the skeleton in place as a web service - open source - that people can add there evaluation metrics to. [8:19] PeterYim: == reviewing slide#8&9* - candidate "Application Clinic" projects ... [*see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_hackathon-clinics-approach--MikeDean-PeterYim_20130221.pdf ] [8:19] AmandaVizedom: I will attempt to articulate what could be done wrt an "ontology of ontology evaluation" and why/how it would be useful [8:22] KenBaclawski: The Application clinic idea could be very useful, but it is unclear what role evaluation plays in such an activity since evaluation is normally performed after an ontology has been developed while the Application clinic projects would be at the earliest stages of ontology development during which evaluations would be problematic given that any ontology at that point would be very sketchy. [8:24] AmandaVizedom: @Ken - A round of technical requirements ID and derivation of evaluation elements should, IMNSHO, happen before development. It often doesn't, but it is part of how evaluation, and thinking about it, runs throughout the lifecycle. [8:30] KenBaclawski: @Amanda - Indeed, it should. However, the slide does not make this clear. One result of such a clinic might be to uncover forms of evaluations that would be needed at early stages of development. [8:32] AmandaVizedom: @Ken- gotchya. [8:27] PeterYim: Summary of slide#9* project status ... [*see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/2013-02-21_OntologySummit2013_Synthesis-I/OntologySummit2013_hackathon-clinics-approach--MikeDean-PeterYim_20130221.pdf ] [8:28] PeterYim: APPLICATION CLINIC * develop, evaluate and refine an ontology of "ontology evaluation" based on what has transpired in Ontology Summit 2013 (MichaelDenny, KenBaclawski, AmandaVizedom, et al.) -- as a starter we have some "ontology" developed for the survey and the website -- AmandaVizedom will make an attempt to articulate what could be done wrt an "ontology of ontology evaluation" and why/how it would be useful * Finance Industry Applications - EDMCouncil (MikeBennett) -- TBA ... [MikeBennett will follow-up and let us know] * Earth Science Applications - ESIP (PeterFox/RPI), EarthCube (?), SOCoP (?) -- TBA ... [JoanneLuciano will follow-up and let us know] --- [posted after the meeting] this is OFF (JSL/PPY: response received from PeterFox already) * Manufacturing / Process Industry Applications (DavidLeal) -- TBA from DavidLeal -- VictorAgroskin: our ONTOLOGY CLINIC proposal will be applicable to this category as well -- [new] JoelBender will turn in a proposal by the deadline * Biomedical Applications (?) -- JoanneLuciano is considering putting in a proposal (from CTG Albany) - TBA [8:30] JoelBender: Thank you! [8:30] JoanneLuciano: proposal - from CTG Albany [8:30] AmandaVizedom: Sorry, fell offline for a moment. Won't call back in since wrapping up. [8:49] PeterYim: Again, proposal deadline is 2013.03.08 (this Thursday) ... anyone who needs an extra day or two for this, should write offline about it. [8:59] PeterYim: ref Yuriy's question: "why limit the hackathon to 1 or 2 days ... why not 4 weeks?" ... Answer: [ppy] the constraint is in our ability to sustain an open distributed collaboration workspace for intensive work for a long time ... we should recognize the project partner can (and would) be working independent of those 1 or 2 days; just treat those 1 or 2 days as the "community collaboration" days. [8:30] PeterYim: ... session ended == ------