ppy/OntologySummit2013_Hackathon-Clinic-call_chat-transcript_unedited_20130305a.txt ------ Chat transcript from room: summit_20130305 2013-03-05 GMT-08:00 [PST] ------ [6:43] SimonSpero2 morphed into SimonSpero [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: . == Proceedings: == . [6:57] JoelBender: Dialing in... [7:01] SimonSpero: CQ [7:02] PeterYim: == session starts ... [7:02] List of members: AmandaVizedom, Astrid, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis4, JoelBender, PeterYim, SimonSpero, VictorAgroskin, YuriyMilov [7:06] anonymous morphed into James Michaelis (RPI) [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] Joanne Luciano: i am not able to get in to audio via skype [7:08] SimonSpero: @Joanne: try again [7:09] Joanne Luciano: I've just dialsed in with my cell phone, but will try again with Skype (would b 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, Astrid1, James Michaelis (RPI), JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis4, Joanne Luciano, 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] Joanne Luciano: 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] Joanne Luciano: i am connected by my mobile. [7:16] Joanne Luciano: question and discussion about proposal format -- request of specific collaborate? reap: it informal [7:17] Joanne Luciano: don't know who is asking the question [7:17] Joanne Luciano: (i'm typing because James (RPI) is cannot join by audio at this time) [7:17] AmandaVizedom: @Joanne: That was JoelBender, I believe. [7:18] JoelBender: My earlier question was about project proposal content and format... [7:18] Joanne Luciano: Yes, I would very much like to discuss collaboration [7:18] Joanne Luciano: 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. [7:18] JoelBender: ...and was answered on Slide 11, now I just need to finish my proposal and get it in by Thursday. [7:19] JoelBender: @Joanne: do you have a link to that framework? What does it provide? [7:21] AmandaVizedom: Now reviewing slides 5, 7, and 9 (candidate projects), updating status. [7:22] JoelBender: @Joanne: Ah, I see the reference to General Ontology Evaluation Framework (GOEF) in the proposals - slowly making the mental connection :-) [7:25] AmandaVizedom: OOPS! folks not here, so some questions to follow up on, regarding the OOPS!-related candidate projects. [7:27] Joanne Luciano: @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] Joanne Luciano: @JoelBender the framework provides the user-interface and mehanism by which someone could submit an ontology and a use case TOGETHER and get an evaluation returned that has bothi intrinsic and extrinsic evaluations as well as the specifics of htei use case. I've worked out a lot of he high level concepts and a proof of concept application, but need help getting a functioanl prototype. I belienve it has a lot of potential based on my knowlege in software, semantics and ontologies, but I haven't had the resources or been in a position to develop it sufficiently (comination 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] Joanne Luciano: @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] Joanne Luciano: no p. thanks for clarifying comment. the skeleton framework is what everything else will get placed into. [7:40] YuriyMilov: I plan to drop down my previous proposals and think to submin the last one related to intgrating two online resources: http://attempto.ifi.uzh.ch/webapps/acewikisandbox/ and my test with Pellet reasoner on the Google AppEngine [7:42] YuriyMilov: Shortly saying I'd like to get reponse from the Pellet on two siple ontologies created on the fly at the ACE Wiki website: [7:42] MikeBennett: Ontology Clinic - I need to talk to our Dennis Wisnosky 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. [7:43] YuriyMilov: The resourses ir running. We will need just to connect them during a day or two. [7:45] PeterYim: Summary of slide#5 project status ... [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 OntologySoftware-Capabilities inventory data in the survey (KenBaclawski, MichaelDenny, et al.) -- ON (has to be after 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 dealine * 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) [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 [7:45] PeterYim: * no additions to the list of hackathon projects above [7:45] SimonSpero: @MikeBennett: Do you have any test cases [7:46] SimonSpero: @AmandaVizedom: That was what I was starting to write [7:46] AmandaVizedom: Since I've argued that metrics / evaluation aspect results don't mean much for quality/fitness without requirements, that could be an issue. [7:47] Joanne Luciano: 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] Joanne Luciano: @AmandaVizedom - say more, what does that mean to add req ident clinic? [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] Astrid1: OquaRE have some Characteristics and metrics that could be applied to ontologies [7:51] Joanne Luciano: @AmandaVizedom: The hackathon proposal for GOEF is to work on the formalism for use case definition [7:52] Astrid1: this characteristics could be related with some ontology requirements [7:53] Astrid1: such as reusability, changeability. [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. [7:54] 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. [7:58] Astrid1: http://miuras.inf.um.es/oquarewiki/index.php5/Main_Page [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] Joanne Luciano: @MikeBennett: yes, in the use the word in that sense [8:00] Astrid1: @Amanda and Mike, you are right about that is neccesary to define some requirements and based on that, some of the characteristics could be acomplished [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] Joanne Luciano: 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] Joanne Luciano: @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] Joanne Luciano: @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 usecase -- it can be NIL, in which case it would then be ithe internal characteristics (consistency, etc.) basically returns analytical metrics from the intrinsic analysis work [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. [8:05] Astrid1: http://miuras.inf.um.es/oquarewiki/index.php5/Main_Page [8:06] MikeBennett: @Joanne - that makes sense. [8:08] Astrid1: http://miuras.inf.um.es/evaluation/oquare/Contenido.html [8:08] PeterYim: Summary of slide#7 project status ... [8:08] PeterYim: ONTOLOGY CLINIC * (A) evaluate some FIBO ontology modukle (MikeBennett, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis, AstridDuqueRamos, et al.) -- will submit proposal by deadline, MikeBennett: need to identify which ontology modules to be used in the excercise -- OOPS! & OQuaRE will be the tools used for the exercise * (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 * (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! * (new) ONTOLOGY CLINIC- COLORE -- ON - proposal received [8:16] AmandaVizedom: 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. [8:18] AmandaVizedom: My [11:16] comment refers to the descriptions on slide 6 of "ontology clinics" [8:19] Joanne Luciano: @AmandaVizedom Ultimately (hopefully sooner rather than later) I'd like to have the skeleton in place as a web service - open source - that peple can add there evaluation metrics to. [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. [8:27] PeterYim: Summary of slide#9 project status ... [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 * Finance Industry Applications - EDMCouncil (MikeBennett) -- TBA * Earth Science Applications - ESIP (PeterFox/RPI), EarthCube (?), SOCoP (?) -- TBA (JoanneLuciano will follow-up and let us know) * 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 - TBA [8:30] JoelBender: Thank you! [8:30] Joanne Luciano: proposal from CTG albany - [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. [8:30] AmandaVizedom: Sorry, fell offline for a moment. Won't call back in since wrapping up. [8:31] Sent transcript to: peter.yim@cim3.com [8:32] AmandaVizedom: @Ken- gotchya. [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 == [8:53] List of attendees: AmandaVizedom, AnatolyLevenchuk, Astrid, Astrid1, James Michaelis (RPI), James Michaelis (RPI)1, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis1, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis10, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis11, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis12, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis13, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis14, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis15, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis16, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis2, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis3, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis4, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis5, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis6, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis7, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis8, JesualdoTomasFernandezBreis9, Joanne Luciano, JoelBender, KenBaclawski, MikeBennett, PeterYim, SimonSpero, SimonSpero2, VictorAgroskin, YuriyMilov, anonymous ------