ConferenceCall 2010 04 15

= OntologySummit2010 review and follow-up action planning ("postmortem") session - Thu 15-Apr-2010 =


 * Chair: Dr. SteveRay and Dr. FabianNeuhaus


 * Archive:
 * Abstract
 * Agenda & Proceedings
 * Prepared presentation material can be accessed by clicking on the title link(s) below:
 * [ 0-Chair ] . [ 1-Galton ] . [ 2-Florescu-Yim ] . [ 3-Sanchez ]
 * [ audio recording of the session ] ( 1:34:59 ; mp3 ; 10.8 MB )
 * [ Transcript of the online chat session ] during the panel discussion
 * Other Resources

Conference Call Details

 * Date: Thursday, 15-April-2010 
 * Start Time: 10:30am PDT / 1:30pm EDT / 7:30pm CEST / 6:30pm BST / 17:30 UTC
 * see world clock for other time zones
 * Expected Call Duration: ~1.5 hours
 * Dial-in Number:
 * from a US telephone (US): +1-218-844-8060 (domestic long distance cost will apply)
 * When calling in from a phone, use Conference ID: "4389979#"
 * from Europe, call:
 * Austria 0820-4000-1577
 * Belgium 070-35-9992
 * France 0826-100-280
 * Germany 01805-00-7642
 * Ireland 0818-270-037
 * Italy 848-390-179
 * Spain 0902-886-056
 * Switzerland 0848-560-327
 * UK 0844-581-9148
 * callers from other countries please dial into either one of the US or European numbers


 * Shared-screen support (VNC session) will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/
 * view-only password: "ontolog"
 * if you plan to be logging into this shared-screen option (which the speaker may be navigating), and you are not familiar with the process, please try to call in 5 minutes before the start of the session so that we can work out the connection logistics. Help on this will generally not be available once the presentation starts.
 * people behind corporate firewalls may have difficulty accessing this. If that is the case, please download the slides above and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.


 * Discussions and Q & A:
 * (Unless the conference host has already muted everyone) Please mute your phone, by pressing "*2" on your phone keypad, when a presentation is in progress. To un-mute, press "*3"
 * You can type in your questions or comments through the browser based  chat session by:
 * pointing a separate browser tab (or window) to http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room and enter: Room="ontolog_20100415" and My Name="Your Own Name" (e.g. "JaneDoe")
 * or point your browser to: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontolog_20100415
 * instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field). You can indicate that you want to ask a question verbally by clicking on the "hand" button, and wait for the moderator to call on you; or, type and send your question into the chat window at the bottom of the screen.
 * (when everyone is muted) If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, 'please "raise your hand (virtually)" by click on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the speaker or the session moderator (again, press "*3" on your phone to unmute). Test your voice and introduce yourself first before proceeding with your remarks, please.'' (Please remember to click on the "hand button" again (to lower your hand) and press "*2" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)
 * thanks to the soaphub.org folks, one can now use a jabber/xmpp client (e.g. gtalk) to join this chatroom. Just add the room as a buddy - (in our case here) ontolog_20100415@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!


 * Please review our Virtual Session Tips and Ground Rules - see: VirtualSpeakerSessionTips


 * RSVP to [mailto:peter.yim@cim3.com peter.yim@cim3.com] appreciated.


 * This session, like all other Ontolog events, is open to the public. Information relating to this session is shared on this wiki page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_04_15


 * Please note that this session will be recorded, and the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.

Attendees:

 * Attended:
 * SteveRay
 * FabianNeuhaus
 * JerrySmith
 * PeterYim
 * KurtConrad
 * DagobertSoergel
 * AmandaVizedom
 * EricLindahl
 * ArturoSanchez
 * AntonyGalton
 * JimRhyne
 * BartGajderowicz
 * BobbinTeegarden
 * DougFoxvog
 * RexBrooks
 * JulitaBermejoAlonso
 * PierreGrenon
 * MichaelGruninger
 * PatCassidy


 * Expecting:
 * CameronRoss
 * BernardUlozas
 * JeffAbbott
 * ... if you are coming to the session, please add your name above (plus your affiliation, if you aren't already a member of the community) above; or e-mail  so that we can reserve enough resources to support everyone's participation. ...
 * ... if you are coming to the session, please add your name above (plus your affiliation, if you aren't already a member of the community) above; or e-mail  so that we can reserve enough resources to support everyone's participation. ...


 * Regrets:
 * BarrySmith (traveling)
 * ElizabethFlorescu (traveling)

Resources

 * OntologySummit
 * OntologySummit2010 - Homepage for Ontology Summit 2010
 * OntologySummit2010_Communique

Abstracts:

 * Session Topic: "OntologySummit2010 review and follow-up action planning"


 * The goal of this session is to revisit the last Ontology Summit and plan ahead for the future. We will discuss what worked and what did not work during the 3~4 months of OntologySummit2010, and get ideas on how to make next year's Ontology Summit even better. This meeting is also an opportunity to suggest topics for next year's Ontology Summit. Further, this meeting gives us an opportunity to revisit the action items listed at the end of the Communique and to identify members of the community who would be interested in participating in projects to address them.

Agenda Ideas:

 * Review what worked and what didn't this year
 * Good ideas, suggestions and possible action that arose
 * Follow-up Action planning
 * Suggestions (e.g. topics) for Ontology Summit 2011
 * ... (please insert below, anything else you may suggest)

Agenda & Proceedings:

 * Session Format & Agenda: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call:
 * 1. Opening - co-chair: SteveRay ... [ slides ]
 * 2. Some follow-up action plans ... AntonyGalton, FabianNeuhaus, PeterYim, ArturoSanchez, (5 min. each)
 * 2. Q & A and open discussion - All (45~60 min.) ... please refer to process above
 * 3. Once again ... a solicitation to endorse the Communique if you haven't already done so
 * see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_Communique#nid2CUN
 * 4. Conclusion / Follow-up - co-chair: FabianNeuhaus

Transcript of the online chat during the session:
see raw transcript here.

(for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.) Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.

-- begin of chat session --

PeterYim:.

Welcome to the OntologySummit2010 review and follow-up action planning session - Thu 15-Apr-2010


 * Chair: Dr. SteveRay and Dr. FabianNeuhaus

The goal of this session is to revisit the last Ontology Summit and plan ahead for the future. We will discuss what worked and what did not work during the 3~4 months of OntologySummit2010, and get ideas on how to make next year's Ontology Summit even better. This meeting is also an opportunity to suggest topics for next year's Ontology Summit. Further, this meeting gives us an opportunity to revisit the action items listed at the end of the Communique and to identify members of the community who would be interested in participating in projects to address them.

. Please refer to details on the session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_04_15.

anonymous morphed into KurtConrad

anonymous1 morphed into DougFoxvog

anonymous morphed into BobbinTeegarden

PeterYim: For OntologySummit2010 - What went right? ... please type them in

PeterYim: Full 3-month period ... from the Launch in Dec-2009 to the Symposium in Mar-2010

RexBrooks: I think the survey needed a bit more work to get more focused results.

FabianNeuhaus: Rex: which survey are you referring to?

RexBrooks: I think that having the surveys was a great improvement, though.

RexBrooks: I didn't take the real time delphi, but the other two needed to focus in on specific questions.

AmandaVizedom: I think surveys added a lot, *and* along Rex's line, would have added even more if planned and launched further ahead of time.

RexBrooks: @Amanda, I agree that working on the surveys perhaps a month ahead of when it started this year would give those creating the surveys more time to get feedback on focus.

ArturoSanchez: @SteveRay: I enjoyed very much the F2F meeting. We all had the opportunity to share our perspectives as part of collaboratively composing the communique. It was also great I was able to meet in person some of the folks I interacted with via conference calls before the F2F.

AmandaVizedom: I think we improved outreach, *and* have a lot more room for improvement there.

PeterYim: I guess we are doing "What needs improvements?" too now ...

AntonyGalton: There was quite a lot of uncertainty at the beginning about the different track and what they meant - but I think we more or less sorted that out eventually.

FabianNeuhaus: @Antony: I agree, this was very difficult this year to slice up the discussion in tracks.

ArturoSanchez: @RexBrooks: please bear in mind some of us are not trained in preparing surveys ... Surveys are great tools for mining information from communities and it would be great if people with experience in preparing surveys could volunteer

RexBrooks: @Arturo: I agree. I think that searching for contacts in survey management and perhaps market research would pay big benefits.

RexBrooks: We could trade benefits to the surveyors since ontological-semantic questions could be helpful to advancing the state of their art, especially if we can educate them about Linked Open Data for instance.

RexBrooks: @Steve, that's why I suggested a benefit for the professional surveyors.

EricLindahl: While I've loosely followed the development, it would be nice to have an ongoing developing 'Getting Started' artifact providing link lists and glossary/overview for people new to ontology development. E.g. http://www.google.com/search?q=ontology+training+site%3Acim3.net

EricLindahl: A concrete environment, ontology sandbox would be good. Rather just downloading Protege. Example texts gathered to act as ontology exemplars (like the wine ontology)

EricLindahl: What site will provide these materials? Are there copyright problems?

anonymous2 morphed into JulitaBermejoAlonso

anonymous1 morphed into PierreGrenon

ArturoSanchez: Did we hear an UK-style ambulance passing by?

JulitaBermejoAlonso: @Arturo: French ambulance, sorry, I did not unmute the phone. Running late with my kids

ArturoSanchez: @Julita: ahh! No worries ... I think it is great we can hear street noises from far-away places in real time. De dónde eres, Julita?

JulitaBermejoAlonso: @Arturo: Spanish, but living in France after the States. University in Madrid, though. A long story.

ArturoSanchez: @Julita: nice meeting you

EricLindahl: I wonder how closely the goal of this communique is being obviated, to some extent, by the evolution and adoption of modeling frameworks, like Eclipse Modeling Framework. EMF will likely be the de facto toolset for 'domain interoperation', one of the main factors for ontology development.

EricLindahl: Or should I say, tree rewriting.

AmandaVizedom: FYSA, as the committee knows, I submitted a proposal to present the summit findings at SemTech, but have not heard back and don't know whether that's likely to happen. I think that such presentations could offer an opportunity to do some more of the bridge-building I was talking about. I can also imagine working it in as part of a larger session or workshop involving folks from some of the stakeholder communities, tailored perhaps to other audiences. Do others have thoughts about particularly good venues for something like this? Next year's ISWC, for example? Other?

anonymous1 morphed into PierreGrenon

EricLindahl: It would seem that 'ontologists' learn something from the fact that Google is rather ontology hostile'. Tools have a way of treating ontology as a rewrite problem. Concept-net, BigTable, HBase, etc.

PierreGrenon: It would be useful to have something between the communique and the futurist paper, perhaps minus the particulars account of the Delphi experiment. For example, in order to approach course production teams at the Open University, I could use a write up that explains the findings of the summit and has enough context...

AmandaVizedom: @Pierre - I agree, we should have this. A not-incidental side effect, if the SemTech proposal were accepted, would be that we'd have to create one!

PeterYim: @Steve: ref. the whitepaper for "State of the Future 2010" ... (while that book is not an open publication) I will work with the Millennium Project people about allowing the open publication of our paper (on the Ontolog website, for example)

SteveRay: @Peter: I think that would be a good thing to pursue, in the spirit of the Ontolog Forum.

PeterYim: @Steve - agree totally

RexBrooks: @Arturo: [ref. your presentation, Arturo] I would be happy to help with a Service Interface to the Registry because I am active in the OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee, the Reference Architecture Subcommittee and the efforts to align OASIS, Open Group and OMG SOA efforts. So I can socialize the Registry in those venues.

EricLindahl: What happened to the ontology of measures? Measures seems prima facie for building working systems. e.g. http://jscience.org/api/javax/measure/unit/package-summary.html

PeterYim: @Eric - that project has now moved on and has morphed into the OASIS QUOMOS TC - see: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=quomos

PierreGrenon: @amanda -- re. submissions; perhaps some knowledge management and/or business informatics conference?

RexBrooks: @Amanda: I am speaking at SemTech, and I believe I can work a mention of the Ontology Summit and these various follow-up efforts as part of the context in which Semantic Technology tools are developing.

RexBrooks: @Amanda: I don't think specifically mentioning the results is a good connection, unless you are actually presenting the results.

AmandaVizedom: @Rex: Good to know. There are a few others from the Summit who will be speaking as well, and if the proposal is accepted, the plan is to draw from that presences/support. It was a late submission, however, and I really have no idea whether it is likely to be selected. But I think it would be good to make such a presentation - between the communique and the gory details, as Pierre suggests. So, I think it's worth thinking about other gatherings of potentially interested people.

PierreGrenon: @amanda -- re. propaganda paper - happy to read any draft whenever they come if that helps

AmandaVizedom: @Pierre - Count on being held to that!

EricLindahl: @PeterYim Thanks! @RexBrooks The market is moving more towards RESTful systems (which subsume many web services) which is design by *convention* NOT by *contract*. This is opposed to proving or even negotiating metadata by ontology

RexBrooks: @Eric: A lot of RESTful applicatons are gaining traction but I wouldn't put all my eggs in any one basket. It's a horses for courses world.

RexBrooks: In a world of emergency management and law enforcement information exchange by contract only will remain the case where necessary.

EricLindahl: @RexBrooks Having just read a 'large' government RFP, it was pushing towards RESTful. EMF is essentially a RESTful technology. However, I do agree.

RexBrooks: I suspect RESTful will find a receptive audience in the cloud computing world that is developing, and we need it in the portion of the information spectrum that allows public input and can aid immensely in emergency response.

EricLindahl: @RexBrooks I have some experience with HBase and Cassandra, which require little to
 * no* pre-designed schema. Need a new attribute for 1 specific row, add it. No ontology required.

[ref. Arturo's suggestion of putting together a ontology education resources repository]

EricLindahl: This opencourseware idea is excellent.

PierreGrenon: re. 'open source': nice if that happens, everybody should be encouraged to put their material out. very useful from the community would be a public domain template curricular structure against which institution specific outputs may be checked

RexBrooks: @Arturo: Linked Open Data between registry participants could be very valuable.

EricLindahl: I would like to see a code.google.com project where we can check in these artifacts, as Rex suggests.

PeterYim: @Arturo ... please consider using OOR as part of your infrastructure for the "Ontology Education and Training Registry" initiative

RexBrooks: @Peter: I agree, combining OOR with Linked Open Data could be extremely valuable.

ArturoSanchez: @RexBrooks: Thanks for the suggestion

ArturoSanchez: @PeterYim: thanks, Peter ... Noted!

SteveRay: Can someone provide a reference to SCORM (?) or other metadata?

[ ref.: Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharable_Content_Object_Reference_Model ]

EricLindahl: @SteveRay the first 5 google links are fairly good. US government uses SCORM quite a bit (I've found Moodle a huge PITA, IMHO)

EricLindahl: Perhaps I will take it upon my self in May to create a code.google.com project (or equivalent) where I'll check in whatever artifacts come across the 'Ontolog' desk.

RexBrooks: @Eric: I'd be happy to check it out and use whatever I can and suggest it to the groups I work with.

EricLindahl: by sandbox, what is Peter referring to? Not Protege?

RexBrooks: @Eric: I missed that. There's a sandbox in the wiki where people new to using the Ontolog wiki can learn how to use it, but he may have been referring to something more generic.

PeterYim: @Eric - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository ... the OOR sandbox is (currently) based on the NCBO BioPortal codebase - see: http://oor-01.cim3.net/ontologies

RexBrooks: @Peter: Ahh, yes!

PeterYim: @Eric - not Protege (which is an ontology development platform) BioPortal is more of a repository for users to "share" their ontologies (after they are developed)

EricLindahl: @PeterYim Thanks. I'm hoping for something like 'hg clone http://code.google.com/p/boot-ontolog/' I'll see what I can do. Thanks again.

anonymous3 morphed into DagobertSoergel

DagobertSoergel: Metadata for educational materials


 * Learning objects (instructional materials):

http://www.thegateway.org/about/documentation/metadataElements
 * The Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM) -

http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf
 * Learning Technology Standards Committee of the IEEE -

httP;//www.imsproject.org/metadata/
 * IMS Global: IMS learning resource meta-data information model. (September 2001) -

http://dublincore.org/groups/education/ (not much concrete to see there)
 * Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. DCMI Education Working Group -

http://www.xml.org/xml/schema/8dbca03a/trainingExchangeDefinition.pdf (July 2002)
 * CRP Henri Tudor-CITI: Training Exchange Definition: TED. -

AntonyGalton: I'm afraid I have to go now. Hope to see some of you at FOIS!

PeterYim: Thank you Antony ... see you at FOIS!

ArturoSanchez: @AntonyGalton: me too

PierreGrenon: Could there be a notion that the programmes contemplated could perhaps become pilots for the summit or the IAOA? This could drive the definition of programmes but also could serve as references when trying to achieve similar things in places that are less aware of ontology at the moment.

PeterYim: Now brainstorming on "suggestions for 2011 Ontology Summit" ... please make sure you document ALL suggestions into this chat-board (as we will need to look through these suggestions again later in the year when we actually start organizing OntologySummit-2011

EricLindahl: My suggestion: Tools & Technologies. This is where the 'rubber meets the road'. IOW where I work everyday.

EricLindahl: I second 'OntologyFest'

RexBrooks: I would suggest "Applications and Tools for Practical Ontology" or "Ontology in the Enterprise"?

EricLindahl: With EMF you can use the 'Ontology' right away.

RexBrooks: I think Case Studies and a Hackathon at the face-to-face might be helpful.

MichaelGruninger: Address the question -- how are the methodologies, tools, and environments for ontological engineering different from those for software engineering?

EricLindahl: In support of Arturo, I suggest systems like QVT or ATL

PeterYim: please propose some "Themes" worthy of a *Summit*

PeterYim: question we should ask ... by end this year ... what would be the *most* strategic issue that this field (of ontology) should be addressing?

RexBrooks: My thinking is that it naturally follows training new ontologists, that we look at what they would actually be doing at work?

ArturoSanchez: For the record. The two recommendations I voiced are: (1) Examples of systems for which the use of ontology technology was successful and otherwise; (2) Sessions similar to design-fest and "code-fest" from OOPSLA, which in our case would be hands-on sessions on the design/use/testing/integration/etc of ontologies. I think this can be combined with the MichaelGruninger suggestion.

FabianNeuhaus: suggesting the topic: "Ontology Modularity"

PierreGrenon: theme: good ontology

EricLindahl: @PierreGrenon implied 'Ontology of Utility'

PierreGrenon: @eric: not sure I follow

AmandaVizedom: "Ontology Practices in Context" or something, meaning: collecting info on, and developing some collective understanding of, how ontology practices (both actual and best) vary with elements of context such as application type, developer community, user community, large goals (monetization vs. decision support, reuse vs. one-time-need)...

EricLindahl: Good is a utility function. Applies to decision support, marketing etc.

RexBrooks: the problem with word "good" is the difference between useful (utility) versus effectiveness (value to user for achieving objectives).

EricLindahl: To say 'good(Ontology) range [0..1)' (assuming it's unit). I prefer DS or rational

RexBrooks: That's actually a valid question for an ontology of meanings.

PeterYim: please also think of "involving another community" - like OntologySummit2009 when we got the ontology and the standards communities to get together

MichaelGruninger: @Peter -- yes, bringing the ontological engineering and software engineering together -- that is in the direction that I was thinking

ArturoSanchez: @Peter-and-Michael: I like very much the idea!

RexBrooks: @Michael & Peter: Me, too.

PeterYim: something that is important for the two communities, as Michael suggested, bringing together the ontology community and the software engineering community

MichaelGruninger: Ontological engineering can learn about methodologies and best practices from Software Engineering, while Software Engineering can learn about how software integration and model-directed architectures can be supported by the application of high quality ontologies

RexBrooks: I think using Case Studies: successful and not is very useful for engaging other communities like software engineering, but I wouldn't focus on SE alone. The domains that SE deals with are equally important as end users.

AmandaVizedom: In a way, my suggestion could integrate Pierre's (good ontology) and Arturo's (what has worked where? & design-fest) and would have to incorporate draw from evaluation / standards.

PierreGrenon: @Fabian: I agree this is a topic that could cause troubles

RexBrooks: @Peter: that's what I was aiming for, combining standards for ontology and standards that use ontologies as representations in the practical world: Case Studies.

EricLindahl: I submit that Utility is a better and more tractable subject, than whether a given ontology is better than another. That presumes too much, IMHO.

RexBrooks: @Eric: agreed!

AmandaVizedom: @Peter - I also think the "practice in context" idea inherently brings in other communities.

anonymous morphed into JulitaBermejoAlonso

PierreGrenon: well it could be purpose / context oriented. No absolute norms of q

PierreGrenon: but good for a purpose. We could then include application and tool developers

EricLindahl: Specifically, perhaps, SizeOf is a better quality measure than Good. E.g. Equivalence partition on KolmogorovComplexity(Ontology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

EricLindahl: I disagree

PierreGrenon: @amanda: yep, that sounds very good, but hard

AmandaVizedom: To put my suggestion differently: We know that we have differences in views on Methodology. Can we discover relationships between methodologies used, application/community, and success? I think so, and it gives a way to make headway on quality & best practices without searching for universally agreed upon, context-free principles.

AmandaVizedom: @Pierre: Does it? It seems moderately hard but doable to me, because we could again develop questions to elicit information to ground the discussion in. Harder to have nothing empirical, I think, and more likely to degrade into ideological battles.

PierreGrenon: it will be tricky to define a specific domain and less appealing to a general audience. Amand's suggestion allows people from different domains to relate to the summit on the same level

PierreGrenon: @amanda: I think the difficulty is primarily in diversity

ArturoSanchez: All, I need to go now. Good session. Thank you for the feedback offered!

DagobertSoergel: I suggest "making sense out of data" as a topic

PeterYim: other possibilities is to bring together the "library science community and the ontology community" ... another one, "enterprise architecture and ontology"

EricLindahl: Library science is a KR problem, right?

RexBrooks: I wouldn't focus on any one other community, library science, software engineering, et al. But I do think that if we did it well, it would be an opportunity to refine our skills at survey management.

AmandaVizedom: @Peter - I guess I'm thinking about each of the cases you've suggested, plus a few -- but I'm either up a level or too impatient. Instead of delving deep into one of those pairings, I'd like to look at the patterns. It would be natural for folks to do some deeper delving within the pairings that might run parallel and beyond.

PeterYim: @Amanda - not really - take a look at the case of OntologySummit2009 "Toward Ontology-based Standards" (maybe we can't craft such a theme when putting other communities together with ontologists

EricLindahl: (aside, a scientist I worked with responded to my suggestion of ontology in software with 'so you believe God is enumerable?')

RexBrooks: @Eric: did you offer him an ontology of religiosity?

RexBrooks: religiosity in software?

EricLindahl: @Rex we're just sorting bits in a finite string, is his point I believe.

RexBrooks: @Eric: Ahh...

AmandaVizedom: Perhaps one reason I think this is not harder is that I think the specific pairings may assume uniformity that isn't there. It seems very probable to me that when you dig into any one of these pairs, you find complexity that reflects the broader diversity.

PierreGrenon: @amanda: yes, the risk is getting into fights, my proposal was too confrontational in that respect, obviously people will disagree. If we start from what people do and what are their requirements, we can perhaps have different answers of the practical utility of an ontological approach.

EricLindahl: (everyone is shy all of a sudden)

AmandaVizedom: Example: ontologies and libraries includes distinct activity- and interest- based groups around search and retrieval, metadata and digital curation, text processing, ... more I think.

EricLindahl: And maybe get sponsors

RexBrooks: @Eric: I think none of us is fond of saying things twice? Once written, twice shy.

PierreGrenon: @amanda: too abstract, can you explain 'pairs'or give an example? (I'll be reading upward meanwhile in case I missed something)

PierreGrenon: oh nevermind

EricLindahl: I second Amanda's real world complexity POV

EricLindahl: General ontology design patterns for dealing with real world complexity in ontology development?

PierreGrenon: @amanda: yes, "where can there be trade-offs" could be the theme

EricLindahl: Ontology design heuristics

EricLindahl: Does anyone use CLIPS or Flora-2 in ontology research?

EricLindahl: But actually they have sub-minimal ontological intersection?

RexBrooks: I think Amanda's points can be addressed in the context of Ontology Applications and Tools: (the domain considerations for best practices and methodologies can go in this explanatory passage.)

DougFoxvog: The issue of people from different fields arguing, is often that they use the same terms in different ways.

DougFoxvog: This does not mean that either is wrong, they are labeling different concepts with the same term.

EricLindahl: Semiotics (just had to say it)

JulitaBermejoAlonso: the ontology-based or ontology-driven label: what does it really mean?

EricLindahl: Thank you all!

AmandaVizedom: I will try to make a clearer proposal offline.

PeterYim: Thanks everyone

EricLindahl: So, that's the end of our Ontology party. Anyone need a ride home?

PeterYim: One last time ... please endorse the Communique if you haven't already done so - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_Communique and http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010_Communique#nid2CUN

PeterYim: -- session ended: 2010.04.15-12:15pm PDT --

-- end of chat session --


 * Further Question & Remarks - please post them to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv
 * if you are already subscribed, post to 
 * (if you are not yet subscribed) you may subscribe yourself to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv, by sending a blank email to  from your subscribing email address, and then follow the instructions you receive back from the mailing list system.

Audio Recording of this Session

 * To download the audio recording of the session, click here
 * the playback of the audio files require the proper setup, and an MP3 compatible player on your computer.
 * Conference Date and Time:	15-Apr-2010 10:36am ~ 12:15pm Pacific Daylight Time
 * Duration of Recording:	1 Hour 35 Minutes
 * Recording File Size:	       10.8 MB (in mp3 format)


 * suggestion: its best that you listen to the session while having the [ presentation] opened in front of you. You'll be prompted to advance slides by the speaker.
 * Take a look, also, at the rich body of knowledge that this community has built together, over the years, by going through the archives of noteworthy past Ontolog events. (References on how to subscribe to our podcast can also be found there.)

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)

 * 1. Dial in with a phone: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_04_15#nid2D83
 * 2. Open chat in a new browser window: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontolog_20100415
 * 3. Download presentations for each speaker here: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_04_15#nid2D7U
 * or, 3.1 access our shared-screen vnc server, if you are not behind a corporate firewall