ConferenceCall 2012 01 26

= OntologySummit2012: Session-03 - Thu 2012-01-26 =

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2012: "Ontology for Big Systems"

Track (1&2) Title: Ontology for Big Systems & Systems Engineering

Session Topic: Ontology for Big Systems & Systems Engineering - I : The Systems and Systems Engineering Problem Space

Session Chair: Dr. MatthewWest ... intro-slides

Panel Briefings:


 * Mr. JackRing ( OntoPilot, US) - "Toward a Unified Ontology for Systemists" - slides
 * Mr. AnatolyLevenchuk ( TechInvestLab, RU) - "Ontology Engineering for Systems Engineering" - slides
 * Professor GiancarloGuizzardi (Federal University of Espírito Santo, BR) - "An Engineering Approach to Ontology Engineering in Complex Environments: the role of Foundational Theories and Ontological Patterns" -  slides
 * Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK) - "Model-based System Engineering" - slides

Archives:


 * Abstract
 * Agenda
 * Prepared presentation material (slides) can be accessed by clicking on each of the title links below:
 * [ 0-Chair ] . [ 1-Ring ] . [ 2-Levenchuk ] . [ 3-Guizzardi ] . [ 4-West (pdf) ]
 * Audio recording of the session [ 1:50:39 ; mp3 ; 12.67 MB ]
 * transcript of the online chat during the session
 * Additional Resources

Abstract
Ontology for Big Systems & Systems Engineering - I: The Systems and Systems Engineering Problem Space

This is our 7th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by NIST, Ontolog, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD with the support of our co-sponsors. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit is: "Ontology for Big Systems." The event today is our 3rd virtual session.

The principal goal of the summit is to bring together and foster collaboration between the ontology community, systems community, and stakeholders of some of "big systems." Together, the summit participants will exchange ideas on how ontological analysis and ontology engineering might make a difference, when applied in these "big systems." We will aim towards producing a series of recommendations describing how ontologies can create an impact; as well as providing illustrations where these techniques have been, or could be, applied in domains such as bioinformatics, electronic health records, intelligence, the smart electrical grid, manufacturing and supply chains, earth and environmental, e-science, cyberphysical systems and e-government. As is traditional with the Ontology Summit series, the results will be captured in the form of a communiqué, with expanded supporting material provided on the web.

This "Ontology for Big Systems & Systems Engineering" Track aims to bring key challenges to light with large-scale systems and systems of systems for ontology and identify where solutions exist, where the problems require significant research, and where we can work towards solutions as part of this summit. The areas to be considered include:


 * working with and integrating the results of models using multiple modeling languages
 * the systems lifecycle and the issues of sharing data within and between lifecycle stages
 * the difference between requirements and the delivered system
 * systems of systems vs systems,
 * the nature of system components and the difference between these and the parts installed,
 * the connections between system components and what they carry,
 * systems behaviour,
 * federated systems both as a bit system, and as a solution to some of the challenges,
 * principles of how to construct good quality reusable models (ontologies)
 * the management of ontologies of and for large systems and the challenges in developing and maintaining them.

In this session we want to look at the problems in big systems and systems engineering where ontology has a role to play. The aim is to uncover the various areas where challenges exist that the world of ontology can contribute to, which we will delve into in the next panel session.

More details about this Summit at: OntologySummit2012 (home page for the summit)

Agenda
Ontology Summit 2012 - Panel Session-03


 * Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call


 * 1. Opening (chairs) - MatthewWest [5 min.] ... [ slides ]
 * 2. Panel briefings - JackRing, AnatolyLevenchuk, GiancarloGuizzardi, MatthewWest - [15 min. each]
 * 3. Q & A and open discussion [All: ~30 min.] -- please refer to process above
 * 4. Wrap-up / Announcements - (chairs)

Proceedings:
Please refer to the above

IM Chat Transcript captured 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 in-session chat-transcript --

PeterYim: Welcome to the

= OntologySummit2012: Session-03 - Thu 2012-01-26 =

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2012: "Ontology for Big Systems"

Track (1&2) Title: Ontology for Big Systems & Systems Engineering

Session Topic: Ontology for Big Systems & Systems Engineering - I : The Systems and Systems Engineering Problem Space

Session Chairs: Dr. Matthew West

Panel Briefings:


 * Mr. JackRing ( OntoPilot, US) - "Toward a Unified Ontology for Systemists"


 * Mr. AnatolyLevenchuk ( TechInvestLab, RU) - "Ontology Engineering for Systems Engineering"

- "An Engineering Approach to Ontology Engineering in Complex Environments: the role of Foundational Theories and Ontological Patterns"
 * Professor GiancarloGuizzardi (Federal University of Espírito Santo, BR)


 * Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK) - "Model-based System Engineering"

Session page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_01_26

Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute

Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"

Proceedings:
anonymous morphed into TomTinsley

anonymous2 morphed into TimDarr

anonymous3 morphed into MattHettinger

anonymous2 morphed into RogerBurkhart

LeoObrst: Hi, all!

anonymous1 morphed into ChristopherSpottiswoode

anonymous1 morphed into NicolaGuarino

anonymous1 morphed into DougFoxvog

anonymous morphed into JosephSimpson

anonymous2 morphed into ErnaniSantos

anonymous morphed into ReginaldFord

anonymous morphed into AnatolyLevenchuk

JoelBender-1 morphed into JoelBender

NicolaGuarino: Note that if you are using Skype you HAVE to call the nickname "joinconference". Otherwise if you call a telephone number with Skype you cannot unmute yourself (this is what I discovered)

JackRing: I am unmuted and speaking

JackRing: I am on Skype

PeterYim: @Nicola - my experience with skype is that you *can* do the mute/unmute with the "dial pad" (under the "call" dropdown menu) .. .amybe we are running different versions of skype ... they are definitely running different revision levels of their software depending on what platform - linux, mac, pc, ipad, etc. you are on

CoryCasanave: Skype "joinconference" does not seem to have a way to enter the conference code - no keypad.

PeterYim: @Cory - can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"

CoryCasanave: It seems to work ok dialing the phone #

=== JackRing presents ...

DougFoxvog: [ref. JackRing's presentation - slide#4] Why should simply adding cognates migrate a system from being deterministic to being non-deterministic?

CoryCasanave: [ref. ?? in JackRing's presentation] Sounds similar to "SEMAT" (Software Engineering Method and Theory) http://www.semat.org started by Ivar Jacobson

LeoObrst: [ref. JackRing's presentation] What is "POSIWID"? On slide 3.

AliHashemi: "The purpose of a system is what it does"

MatthewWest: @Leo: Purpose Of System Is What It Does

AliHashemi: cf - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does

NicolaGuarino: @Ali & Matthew: what it does or what it is intended to do?

AliHashemi: (if you follow the wiki link, it provides a very high level overview)

MatthewWest: What it does!

AnatolyLevenchuk: Purpose of a system what is does (what service it have) as a subsystem in upper level system.

JoelBender: @Nicola - what is does, maybe not very well

NicolaGuarino: @Joel: hmmm....

NicolaGuarino: Is a broken system a system?

AnatolyLevenchuk: @Nicola -- Yes, there is life cycle. Broken system on maintenance stage of it life cycle.

AnatolyLevenchuk: When we speak about what it does, that usually mean operation stage of it life cycle. And enactment of it service at this stage.

CoryCasanave: Also, this may be applicable to: OMG RFP "A Foundation for the Agile Creation and Enactment of Software Engineering Methods"

AnatolyLevenchuk: @Cory: I prefer ISO 24744 instead of this OMG RFP. It more ontologically correct.

CoryCasanave: How can a request be correct or not? It would be the response that would be correct.

NicolaGuarino: @Jack: I don't understand the comparison between formal ontology and an algorithm

LeoObrst: I don't think there is a 1-1 relation between an ontology and an algorithm.

CoryCasanave: @Leo - Agree

LeoObrst: Oops: same question, Nicola.

AliHashemi: An algorithm could represent an implemented and operational ontology given some inference rules.

AliHashemi: could represent --> is analogous*

NicolaGuarino: formal ontology is a discipline

AliHashemi: @Nicola - Jack's formulation was "situated ontology"

AliHashemi: An algorithm represents the commitment of the programmers to what they believe exists in the scope of its execution. If the procedures within the program further represent operations and transformations (constraints on what is assumed to exist), then an algorithm can viewed as an operational ontology under some inference rules, no? (informal, implicit ontology)

GaryBergCross: On the ontology - algorithm front, one could create an ontology to represent an algorithm as a process, as I believe that JohnSowa has pointed to.

LeoObrst: An algorithm, by definition, specifies "how", whereas an ontology (like logic) specifies "what". I think that the algorithm must closely correspond to the semantics expressed by the ontology(ies), which indeed is hard to accomplish. Perhaps generating an algorithm from the semantics is the way to go, but of course is very hard.

AliHashemi: @Leo, one quick point.. In specifying the "how" you (implicitly) commit to the what.

NicolaGuarino: @all: let's just list the problems now, devoting a few chat interactions to each, otherwise we miss the whole picture presenters are trying to convey

GaryBergCross: With so many terms/concepts thrown around in the talk it would be nice to have atop-level, context diagram for what Jack or others are proposing as this conceptual space.

JackRing: Which ontology? An ontology will be embedded in a system. Another will be embedded in the SE human activity system. A third ontology will be embedded in the SE learning environment. In a swarm of autonomous systems all three are inside the system.

JackRing: IN fact, one of the contributions of SE is to identify and resolve the gap between how things are and what things should be. Beer's POSIWID must be revealed.

anonymous morphed into LinePouchard

=== AnatolyLevenchuk presents ...

NicolaGuarino: @Anatoly: I appreciate very much the contrast between ontology engineering and traditional mathematical tools

MatthewWest: Yes, Engineers are generally interested in mathematical rather than logical models.

GiancarloGuizzardi: @Matthew: the additional point is that they are frequently interested in mathematical models which are insensitive to true ontological notions

NicolaGuarino: @Anatoly: just to understand, is a method a *way* to achieve a certain function (e.g. cutting some materials by using lasers or scissors)

anonymous morphed into EvanWallace

MatthewWest: @Giancarlo: I agree with Ali on this. Mathematical models have implicit ontological commitments. They may not be the ones that ontologists would wish them to make.

NicolaGuarino: @ Anatoly: very interesting distinction between counterintuitive and folk ontologies. Still the objective in my opinion is being able to capture the actual language engineers use...

MatthewWest: I think you will find Anatoly and I would disagree with you there. What is more important is to have an ontology that is as acurate as possible to how things are, rather than to accurately reflect how people talk about things.

JackRing: For example a software package Kollabnet prowls around in CAD files and extracts the terms and operands, etc., then helps organize a cross reference (semantic web) that shows the relationships and opportunities for parsimony.

NicolaGuarino: @Matthew: yes, but accuracy with respect to how things are is the goal of physics, photography, and so on...

LeoObrst: I still have an issue with "counterintuitive": perhaps it is naively counterintuitive, but doesn't at least some of the ontology become intuitive to the expert?

MatthewWest: @Nicola: And also ontology.

AliHashemi: @Leo, I think it raises an interesting question - how long does it take for counter-intuitive insights to become common sense? (I think this is what Anatoly was emphasizing.)

RexBrooks: Slide needs to be advanced.

JackRing: As Will Rogers said, it isn't what we don't know that hurts us, it is what we do know --- that ain't so.

AliHashemi: And it does point to important human factors issues in creating a system with high fidelity to reality, but also manageable for the end users.

JackRing: Any ontology must be vetted as fit for purpose.

NicolaGuarino: @Matthew: if we limit ourselves to describe (accurately) what things ARE we have no way to express how we want to use them for specific purposes

MatthewWest: @Ali: That is a good point. When I first came across 4D ontologies, I understood it, but found it very difficult to put into words. These days I hope I can speak about it more or less as it was an everyday idea. It takes time.

GaryBergCross: [ref. AnatolyLevenchuk's slide#8] What is formal pragmatics? Need more of a sense of this and an example.

AliHashemi: I'm curious to know the response to Gary's question re "Formal Pragmatics"

AnatolyLevenchuk: Formal pragmatics -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_pragmatics

MartinSerrano: Bit elaboration on finding out Federation of systems and Information modeling will be healthy to get into the real meaning.. True is Federation is more than a logic or instrumentation for modelling methods,

LeoObrst: @Anatoly: I agree that formal pragmatics (presuppositions, implicatures, speech acts, etc.) is needed, i.e., interpretation of the semantics in context and with respect to use, although I am not sure about Habermas and his "Universal Pragmatics". Also, epistemology must figure in: different belief stances.

AnatolyLevenchuk: @Leo -- formal pragmatics (that is slightly after Universal Pragmatics that is more philosophical by nature) is more about logic than linguistics. While my friends linguists wonder that contemporary logic branch of it is differ from linguistic one, while inherit most of terminology

LeoObrst: @Anatoly: I am a linguist/semanticist originally and think of formal pragmatics mainly from that perspective. In the ontology world, this is mostly addressed via formalized use cases, competency questions, which I admit is really just the beginning.

AnatolyLevenchuk: @Leo -- formal pragmatics is branch of philosophical logic, ontology is another branch. They are siblings on knowledge tree :-)

MatthewWest: @Nicola: Intentions are also something we can talk about in terms of what they are.

DougFoxvog: When you need knowledge at different levels of granularity, why not use different ontologies for the different levels? Some ontologies would be far more stable than others.

AmandaVizedom: Nicola: IME, one very significant division of ontology applications falls long whether they (are required to) model (a) some slice of the world, (b) information artifacts about some slice of the world, or (c) both. In all three cases, the ontology models the thing, support reasoning about the thing, and supports manipulation of the thing in various ways and degrees. IMHO, a great many cases are of type (c), but developers think in terms of modeling (a) or (b), and not always the right one, and different requirements and methods fit those two objects.

JackRing: The ontology of units of measure is traceable to standards and basic science. It can be considered 'truth' at least to earth-bound users. In contrast the term "vigorously" in an ontology is moderated by situation (we must accommodate Zadeh's fuzzy logic).

DougFoxvog: If you can model a heuristic, you can ontologize it. If you can't define the heuristic, then you can't ontologize it.

MatthewWest: @Jack: Actually the ontology of units is surprisingly shakey. It turns out that the standards can be interpreted (deliberately) in more than one way to avoid significant differences of opinion aboiut what units are and how they are used. Fortunately no buildings will fall down as a result of these differences.

AliHashemi: @Nicola, I would suggest those are two distinct issues. What we want (intention), vs perhaps common but inaccurate views of the system. I suspect Anatoly's point emphasizing counter-intuitive-ness is about the latter.

LeoObrst: @Anatoly: Category theory indeed is focused on structure, as opposed to set theory, and provides you ways of relating structures more generally, but multiple logics (and both their syntaxes and semantics) can be represented. Perhaps that is what you mean?

JackRing: Anatoly: Is TRIZ an ontology?

NicolaGuarino: Nice idea of extending enterprise service bus to systems engineering

NicolaGuarino: (but I would drop the "smart" adjective, too many smart things are being advertised nowadays...)

JackRing: Matthew: Whether buildings fall down the fact was that a spacecraft crashed on MARS.

MatthewWest: @Jack: that was simply not using the same units in different system. A much simpler problem (ontologically) than what a unit of measure is in the first place.

JackRing: MatthewWest: Not different system. It was using an attribute value in one program that was expecting the number to be in the English system but was given a number in the metric system. An ontology spanning both systems would have noted the difference

JackRing: @Matthew: The human mind cannot discriminate reality from illusion. Takes two the untangle.

EvanWallace: Jack: I think that Matthew's point was that it wasn't an understanding of the notion "unit" that was a problem, but rather false assumptions about which units were being used. Yes. These sorts of false assumptions happen when you don't make units an explicit part of your model. So many would agree that there is value in defining and using an ontology of quantities, units, and measures, but the problem that Matthew mentioned about the ambiguity of the references for these things makes it more difficult to get consensus on *one* such ontology.

JackRing: @Evan. Not quite. The error was in not addressing units in the design model. The presumption "...false assumptions about which units were being used" is not correct because there was not consciousness of 'which' anonymous morphed into VictorAgroskin

MatthewWest: Welcome Victor

LeoObrst: @Jack: I think TRIZ could be formalized as an ontology.

JackRing: @Leo, I tried to do this in 1992 with RDD-100 Software Engineering tool but got swamped with other tasks.

JackRing: SE must presume that two or more people constructed the system model and that they did not have a coherent weltanschaaung or even lexicon. Also, that Model(x) of one system and Model(y) of another system must be harmonized if you intend to make these subsystems of a third system.

MatthewWest: @Jack: Why more than one?

VictorAgroskin: Some ontology can be deduced from TRIZ. But the major value of TRIZ is a method, thus you have to choose some method ontology (like ISO 24744) and combine it with domain ontology - if you want to have a formal model of TRIZ.

=== GiancarloGuizzardi presents ...

PeterYim: @Giancarlo - when you get a chance, please supply me with a slide deck on which slide are numbered (so I can swap it in). Thanks.

JackRing: Giancarlo's patterns are equivalent to my modularizations.

MatthewWest: @Jack: That is a good link to make.

CoryCasanave: The use case being presented by Giancarlo is the subject of an OMG RFP: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/11-12-10, of which Giancarlo is a participant.

GaryBergCross: Agree on the point of conceptual models being improved by by formal ontology distinctions.

JackRing: Isn't this Panel scrubbing concepts into a 'formal' ontology?

MatthewWest: @Jack: So if I am on a desert island, I don't know if it is real or a dream?

CoryCasanave: @Matthew, perhaps some people have more trouble with reality

DougFoxvog: @Matthew: If you think you are on a desert island, it may be real, a dream, or some other misconception.

JackRing: @MatthewWest. We have been over this before. Pls explain why witnesses to an event describe it differently. Pls explain why design reviews of system concepts always find fundamental logic or referent errors.

NicolaGuarino: @Giancarlo: distinguishing modeling patterns from analysis patterns sounds intriguing (and new), but I am not sure I understand what analysis patterns are, in practice

JackRing: @Giancarlo, For the enterprise ontology let's start with "objective" and "goal"

NicolaGuarino: I have to leave now, bye everybody. Great session!

GaryBergCross: Also have to leave now...

ChristopherSpottiswoode: Bye from me too - thanks to all!

anonymous morphed into ReginaldFord

LeoObrst: @Giancarlo and all: I've always found some confusion between domain specific languages and ontologies. I personally think that ontologies need to provide the semantics for those DSLs, no?

CoryCasanave: Perhaps we should support "multiple inheritance" of track topics

GiancarloGuizzardi: @Jack: these are very important and interesting notions. I have been interested in them for a while myself and have done some work in that direction. If you are interested, I would be happy to shared them with you

CoryCasanave: @Giancarlo, please post reference to the group & seminar you mentioned.

GiancarloGuizzardi: @Leo: yes, fully agree. In the ideal case, the metamodel (representing the worldview) behind a DSL should be isomorphic to the ideal domain ontology of the domain

LeoObrst: Will design patterns, analysis patterns, etc., be ontological constructs (with rules)? Are there as yet repositories for these?

TerryLongstreth: My principal concern about the combining of tracks 1 and 2 is the loss of discussion of emergent behaviors (since they are in my opinion, by definition, un-engineered) We've tried to finesse this question by expanding the notion of engineering to include any system with sentient inputs into its manifestations, but that seems to be to be a copout.

LeoObrst: @Todd: can you place your question in the chat room? So we have a textual record? Thanks!

GiancarloGuizzardi: @Todd: if you are interested, I can send you the references to UFO.

BobbinTeegarden: @Giancarlo, please send refs to UFO to all

GiancarloGuizzardi: @BobbinTeegarden: The foundational work of the structural part of UFO can be found in http://www.inf.ufes.br/~gguizzardi/OFSCM.pdf

GiancarloGuizzardi: @BobbinTeegarden: this has been used as a foundational for the modeling language which now has been dubbed OntoUML

GiancarloGuizzardi: @BobbinTeegarden: parts of the Event and Social fragments of UFO can be found in http://www.inf.ufes.br/~gguizzardi/Archimate's%20ME%20semantic%20investigationTR20110610%5bCameraReady%5d.pdf (analyzing the goal modeling extension of Archimate), http://www.inf.ufes.br/~gguizzardi/Using%20a%20Foundational%20Ontology%20for%20Reengineering%20a%20Software%20Process%20Ontology_cameraready%20(1).pdf

BobbinTeegarden: @Giancarlo: Thank you, more on OntoUML?

GiancarloGuizzardi: @BobbinTeegarden: the last one is an example of its use in analyzing a Software Process Domain Ontology

GiancarloGuizzardi: @BobbinTeegarden: Sorry for the delay...An approach based on OntoUML used at a systems engineering department at the US DOD is described in ( http://www.omgwiki.org/architecture-ecosystem/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=dmg_for_enterprise_ldm_v2_3.pdf ).

GiancarloGuizzardi: @BobbinTeegarden: I will send more information in a second...

GiancarloGuizzardi: @BobbinTeegarden: I have input a lot of information on specific parts of OntoUML in the following OMG SIMF forum: http://www.omgwiki.org/architecture-ecosystem/doku.php?id=uml_based_data_modeling_for_an_enterprise_data_model (see the lower part on discussions)

PeterYim: @Matthew - please watch the clock

MatthewWest: @Peter: Would it be better to drop my presentation in order ot make time for discussion?

PeterYim: @Matthew - that's a thought but, it would be your call ... picking up from next session (with Henson presenting his bit is not a bad idea)

MatthewWest: @Peter: Yes that makes sense. I have one story to tell, and I can do that on the list.

PeterYim: @Matthew - since you cannot be with us next week, I definitely would want to hear your portion of the presentation

DeborahMacPherson: Great presentations! No questions but fascinating presentations

=== MatthewWest presents ...

TerryLongstreth: @Matthew - JPL = NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory?

PeterYim: @TerryLongstreth - ref. the change of Track labeling should not affect the conversation (at least not the way we have seen conversations direct themselves on the mailing lists all along) ... I think combining the tacks helps people who are confused as to what track their conversation belonged to, in the first place

DougFoxvog: @Henson: For the strange life of system components, an ontology could represent the model of the system, the physical components that fill the roles of the different components of the model, and temporary and permanent IDs for the physical components. With such an ontology, the various aspects you referred to on slide 7 could be

DougFoxvog: referenced and distinguished.

LinePouchard: @everyone: I am collecting ontologies for units at present. If anyone would like to send me links, I'd be happy to examine them. I'd like in particular ontologies of units in OWL or that can me translated into OWL. Thanks

LinePouchard: I forgot to say, you can mention them here or send me private email.

PeterYim: @LinePouchard - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM

LinePouchard: @Peter: thank you

CoryCasanave: @Line, OMG has adopted but not yet published a date/time ontology which includes units. The ontology is expressed in OWL, UML and SBVR.

LinePouchard: @Cory: do you have a time frame for when it's available?

CoryCasanave: @Line, very soon - I can provide the document which is being prepared for publication.

CoryCasanave: @Line, the lead on the date/time ontology is Mark Linehan, IBM: email: mlinehan at us dot ibm do com

FabianNeuhaus: @Cory, Line the OMG date/time ontology also contains CLIF axioms

CoryCasanave: @Fabian, sorry for the omission?

FabianNeuhaus: @ Cory, I just thought that I mention it since the CLIF axioms are probably better suited to understand the underlying model than OWL

CoryCasanave: @Fabian, yes - the CLIF is very precise in date/time.

DougFoxvog: @LinePouchard: http://forge.morfeo-project.org/wiki_en/index.php/Units_of_measurement_ontology#Measurement_Units_Ontology_.28MUO.29

DicksonLukose: thank you!

AliHashemi: thank you all! take care.

LeoObrst: Thanks, Matthew and all!

DicksonLukose: bye

GiancarloGuizzardi: Thanks a lot Peter, Henson and Matthew. very interesting discussions

GiancarloGuizzardi: bye everyone

PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:33am PST --

-- end of in-session chat-transcript --


 * Further Question & Remarks - please post them to the [ ontology-summit ] listserv
 * all subscribers to the previous summit discussion, and all who responded to today's call will automatically be subscribed 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.
 * please email  if you have any question.

Audio Recording of this Session

 * To download the 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:	26-Jan-2012 9:38am~11:33am PST
 * Duration of Recording:	1 Hour 50.7 Minutes
 * Recording File Size:	       12.67 MB (in mp3 format)
 * suggestions:
 * its best that you listen to the session while having the respective presentations 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.)

Additional Resources:

 * Homepage of OntologySummit2012
 * OntologySummit2012 Launch Event - ConferenceCall_2012_01_12
 * OntologySummit2012 session-02 "Ontology for Big Systems: What's In Scope" - ConferenceCall_2012_01_19
 * [ontology-summit] mailing list archives - http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
 * Wiki pages devoted to Track-1&2: Ontology for Big Systems and Systems Engineering
 * OntologySummit2012_BigSystemsEngineering_CommunityInput (open)
 * OntologySummit2012_BigSystemsEngineering_Synthesis (maintained by MatthewWest, HensonGraves)
 * to subscribe to this discussion list: send a blank message from your subscribing email address to  or visit http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ and subscribe yourself there
 * Homepage of the Summit series - see: OntologySummit

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)

 * 1. Call in from a phone or from skype: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_01_26#nid32V1
 * 2. Open chat in a new browser window: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/summit_20120126
 * 3. Download presentations for each speaker here: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_01_26#nid32UR
 * or, 3.1 (access our shared-screen vnc server, if you are not behind a corporate firewall)

Conference Call Details

 * Date: Thursday, 26-Jan-2012
 * Start Time: 9:30am PST / 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm CET / 17:30 UTC
 * ref: World Clock
 * Expected Call Duration: ~2.0 hours


 * Dial-in:
 * Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... (long distance cost may apply)
 * ... [ backup nbr: (415) 671-4335 ]
 * when prompted enter PIN: 141184#
 * Skype: joinconference (use the PIN above) ... generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer)
 * for skype users who have trouble with finding the Skype Dial pad ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"


 * 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"
 * 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 (where applicable) and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.


 * In-session chat-room url: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/summit_20120126
 * instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field from "anonymous" to your real name, like "JaneDoe").
 * 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.
 * 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_20120119@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!


 * Discussions and Q & A:
 * Nominally, when a presentation is in progress, the moderator will mute everyone, except for the speaker.
 * To un-mute, press "*7" ... To mute, press "*6" (please mute your phone, especially if you are in a noisy surrounding, or if you are introducing noise, echoes, etc. into the conference line.)
 * we will usually save all questions and discussions till after all presentations are through. You are encouraged to jot down questions onto the chat-area in the mean time (that way, they get documented; and you might even get some answers in the interim, through the chat.)
 * During the Q&A / discussion segment (when everyone is muted), If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please raise your hand (virtually) by clicking on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the session moderator (again, press "*7" on your phone to un-mute). 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 "*6" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)


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


 * RSVP  to [mailto:peter.yim@cim3.com peter.yim@cim3.com] appreciated, ... or simply just by adding yourself to the "Expected Attendee" list below (if you are a member of the team.)


 * 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_2012_01_26


 * Please note that this session may be recorded, and if so, the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content, along with the proceedings of the call to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.

Attendees

 * Attended: (and showed up in the chat room)
 * MatthewWest (chair)
 * HensonGraves (phone only)
 * AliHashemi
 * AmandaVizedom
 * AnatolyLevenchuk (panelist)
 * BobSmith
 * BobbinTeegarden
 * BobSchloss
 * BrianDavis
 * BruceBray
 * ChristopherSpottiswoode
 * CoryCasanave
 * DeborahMacPherson
 * DicksonLukose
 * DougFoxvog
 * EricChan
 * ErnaniSantos
 * ErnieLucier
 * EvanWallace
 * FabianNeuhaus
 * FrankOlken
 * GaryBergCross
 * GiancarloGuizzardi (panelist)
 * JackRing (panelist)
 * JoelBender
 * JosephSimpson
 * KathyEllis
 * LeoObrst
 * LinePouchard
 * MartinGladwell
 * MartinSerrano
 * MaryBrady
 * MattHettinger
 * MichaelGruninger
 * MikeBennett
 * MikeRiben
 * NicolaGuarino
 * NikolayBorgest
 * PavithraKenjige
 * PeterYim
 * RamSriram
 * RamGouripeddi
 * ReginaldFord
 * RexBrooks
 * RogerBurkhart
 * RosarioUcedaSosa
 * TerryLongstreth
 * TimDarr
 * ToddSchneider
 * TomTinsley
 * VictorAgroskin


 * Those whom we were also expecting (who may have joined without announcing themselves or signing into the chat-room):
 * LarryLefkowitz
 * AzamatAbdoullaev
 * JeanneHolm
 * TimBoland
 * DaliaVaranka
 * (please add yourself to the list if you are a member of the Ontolog or OntologySummit community, or, rsvp to )
 * (please add yourself to the list if you are a member of the Ontolog or OntologySummit community, or, rsvp to )


 * Regrets:
 * HensonGraves (traveling, but will try to call in partially)
 * TrishWhetzel
 * SteveRay
 * DavidPrice
 * MuratTanik
 * SherriDeCoronado
 * KhalilBenMohamed