ConferenceCall 2013 03 14

= OntologySummit2013: Panel Session-09 - Thu 2013-03-14 =

Summit Theme: "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"

Summit Track Title: Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria

Session Topic: Ontology Development Methodologies for Reasoning Ontologies

Session Co-chairs: Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council; Hypercube, UK) and Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK) - intro slides

Panelists / Briefings:


 * Dr. JoanneLuciano (RPI-TWC, US) - "A Generalized Framework for Ontology Evaluation (GOEF)"  slides
 * Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE, US) - "Developing Quality Ontologies Used for Reasoning"  slides

Archives:


 * Abstract
 * Agenda
 * Prepared presentation material (slides) can be accessed by clicking on each of the title links below:
 * [ 0-Chair ] . [ 1-Luciano ] . [ 2-Obrst ]
 * transcript of the online chat during the session
 * Audio recording of the session ... [ 1:45:46 ; mp3 ; 12.11 MB ]
 * its best that you listen to the session while having the respective presentations (linked above) opened in front of you. You'll be prompted to advance slides by the speaker.
 * Additional Resources

Abstract
OntologySummit2013 Session-09: "Ontology Development Methodologies for Reasoning Ontologies" - intro slides

This is our 9th 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 Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle."

Currently, there is no agreed methodology for development of ontologies, and there are no universally agreed metrics for ontology evaluation. At the same time, everybody agrees that there are a lot of badly engineered ontologies out there, thus people use -- at least implicitly -- some criteria for the evaluation of ontologies.

During this OntologySummit, we seek to identify best practices for ontology development and evaluation. We will consider the entire lifecycle of an ontology -- from requirements gathering and analysis, through to design and implementation. In this endeavor, the Summit will seek collaboration with the software engineering and knowledge acquisition communities. Research in these fields has led to several mature models for the software lifecycle and the design of knowledge-based systems, and we expect that fruitful interaction among all participants will lead to a consensus for a methodology within ontological engineering. Following earlier Ontology Summit practice, the synthesized results of this season's discourse will be published as a Communique.

At the Launch Event on 17 Jan 2013, the organizing team provided an overview of the program, and how we will be framing the discourse around the theme of of this OntologySummit. Today's session is one of the events planned.

In this 9th virtual panel session of the Summit, we will look at methodologies for developing ontologies used for reasoning applications.

More details about this OntologySummit is available at: OntologySummit2013 (homepage for this summit)

Briefings:

 * Dr. JoanneLuciano (RPI-TWC, US) - "A Generalized Framework for Ontology Evaluation (GOEF)"  slides
 * Abstract: ... This talk willpresent an approach for a framework for Ontology evaluation and engineering. It presents the role of the use case for evaluating function, the standards requirements (business or external utility), and components, which are modules that can be individually validated. The approach can be utilized for modular development and test. It is suggested that a SADI service (sadiframework.org) would be a good implementation.


 * Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE, US) - "Developing Quality Ontologies Used for Reasoning"  slides
 * Abstract: ... Ontologies are by default intended for reasoning over. Otherwise simpler semantic models should be used. This talk will discuss ontology development practices that lead to ontologies having greater quality. Intrinsic and extrinsic properties apply, and apply across the ontology lifecycle, but the ontology development cycle must include a projected architecture as to how it will be used. The architecture includes what the reasoning component will consist of, and the language it will use.

Agenda
OntologySummit2013 - Panel Session-09


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


 * 1. Opening (co-chairs) - MatthewWest / MikeBennett [10 min.] ... [ slides ]
 * 2. Panel briefings - JoanneLuciano, LeoObrst - [~30 min. each]
 * 3. Discussion - how do criteria and development methodologies vary between integrating and reasoning ontologies, or are they the same? [All: ~30 min.] -- please refer to process above
 * 4. Wrap-up / Announcements (co-chairs) - MikeBennett / MatthewWest [5 min.]

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 --

-- Chat transcript from room: summit_20130314 2013-03-14 GMT-08:00 [PDT] --

[10:10] PeterYim: Welcome to the

= OntologySummit2013: Virtual Panel Session-09 - Thu 2013-03-14 =

Summit Theme: Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle


 * Summit Track Title: Track-C: Building Ontologies to Meet Evaluation Criteria

Session Topic: Ontology Development Methodologies for Reasoning Ontologies

Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council; Hypercube, UK) and Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK)
 * Session Co-chairs:

Panelists / Briefings:


 * Dr. JoanneLuciano (RPI-TWC, US) - "A Generalized Framework for Ontology Evaluation (GOEF)"


 * Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE, US) - "Developing Quality Ontologies Used for Reasoning"

Logistics:


 * Refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_03_14


 * (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: AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom, AstridDuqueRamos, BobSmith, BobSchloss, BobbinTeegarden, DaliaVaranka, DennisWisnosky, DougFoxvog, FabianNeuhaus, FredHosea, GaryBergCross, HansPolzer, JamesMichaelis, JoanneLuciano, JoelBender, JohnBilmanis, KenBaclawski, LamarHenderson, LeoObrst, LudgerJansen, MatthewWest, MeganKatsumi, MichaelDenny, MichaelGruninger, MichelDumontier, MikeBennett, MikeDean, PavithraKenjige, PeterYim, RichardMartin, RosarioUcedaSosa, SamirTartir, SteveRay, TerryLongstreth, ToddSchneider, TorstenHahmann, YuriyMilov, vnc2

Proceedings:
[10:19] anonymous morphed into AstridDuqueRamos

[10:23] anonymous morphed into BobSchloss

[10:24] Astrid: Hello Peter

[10:24] Astrid: I am not able to speak

[10:24] Astrid: I have problems with my microphone

[10:24] Astrid: But I will listen.

[10:25] Lamar Henderson morphed into LamarHenderson

[10:25] anonymous morphed into MichelDumontier

[10:26] Astrid morphed into Astrid Duque

[10:27] PeterYim: No problem, Astrid ... I was suggesting that you (and everyone else who hasn't already) to morph your name into the nominal WikiWord name (as per your identity on our wiki) - like AstridDuqueRamos, or JoanneLuciano, BobSmith, etc. ... thanks (that helps the automatic link generation on the wiki)

[10:29] Astrid Duque morphed into AstridDuqueRamos

[10:29] MichelDumontier: hi!

[10:30] PeterYim: Hi Michel, welcome!

[10:30] SteveRay: Lots of hiss on the line.

[10:30] BobSchloss: On the telecon audio bridge, there is a heavy buzzing which is making it hard for me to hear you, Peter, as well as the other person who is speaking.

[10:30] BobSchloss: If I am the only person who hears the hissing, I can call in again.

[10:30] MikeBennett: We all hear it. Also someone talking.

[10:30] MikeBennett: This will clear when Peter mutes everyone

[10:31] BobSchloss: It sounds like 2 telecon lines are crossed.....

[10:31] anonymous morphed into AliHashemi

[10:31] AmandaVizedom: Yes, in the meantime, perhaps those who aren't speaking can self-mute (*6)

[10:31] anonymous1 morphed into TorstenHahmann

[10:32] anonymous morphed into DougFoxvog

[10:32] anonymous1 morphed into MichaelDenny

[10:34] anonymous morphed into LudgerJansen

[10:34] PeterYim: == MikeBennett opening the session on behalf of the co-chairs ... ... see: the [0-Chair] slides

[10:35] anonymous morphed into RosarioUcedaSosa

[10:35] List of members: AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom, AstridDuqueRamos, BobSmith, BobSchloss, DaliaVaranka, DougFoxvog, FabianNeuhaus, HansPolzer, JamesMichaelis, JoanneLuciano, JohnBilmanis, LamarHenderson, LeoObrst, LudgerJansen, MatthewWest, MeganKatsumi, MichaelDenny, MichaelGruninger, MichelDumontier, MikeBennett, MikeDean, PeterYim, RichardMartin, RosarioUcedaSosa, SamirTartir, SteveRay, TerryLongstreth, TorstenHahmann, vnc2

[10:37] Samir Tartir morphed into SamirTartir

[10:38] anonymous: where can one download the slides

[10:39] PeterYim: links to slides can be found under: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_03_14#nid3NPF

[10:41] PeterYim: == JoanneLuciano presenting ... see: the [ 1-Luciano ] slides

[10:48] GaryBergCross: Is the link for SADI service (sadi.org) on the page the correct???

[11:00] MikeDean: @Gary SADI service is at http://sadiframework.org

[11:03] GaryBergCross: Mike, yes that is what I thought. The session page has it wrong.

[11:03] PeterYim: @GaryBergCross, @MikeDean - thank you, the link has been updated on the session page now

[10:51] TerryLongstreth: Joanne - can you give an open reference /url for the Cockburn Method?

[11:04] JoanneLuciano: http://alistair.cockburn.us/Basic+use+case+template the use case template appears to be broken there --we have a local copy (and I'll send the to Alistair to let him know. I think I forgot to do this when I was in contact with him a while ago: http://tw.rpi.edu/media/latest/UseCase-Template_SeS (someone please try this RPI link and verify it works). thanks

[11:05] MikeBennett: That link works.

[11:06] MikeDean: @Joanne http://tw.rpi.edu/media/latest/UseCase-Template_SeS works, downloading a Microsoft Word template

[11:07] MeganKatsumi: Thanks!

[11:07] JoanneLuciano: @MikeBennett Thanks for checking.

[11:23] JoanneLuciano: For those downloading the use case template -- recall that is the "starting point" -- that is what needs to be formalized so that an ontology (or part of one) can be evaluated with respect to it.

[10:55] anonymous morphed into BobbinTeegarden

[10:48] HansPolzer: Regarding Joanne's presentation, I would suggest looking at a range of contexts for ontology evaluation, not just a use case. Another way to look at this is as a set of use cases that span the range of ontology application contexts

[10:51] MikeBennett: @Hans I think that defines a difference between an ontology which is to be developed for a specific application, and an ontology that is to be developed as a standard, which would necessarily be use case agnostic. Though of course, if ontologies developed for applications are designed to be broader than just one use case, then they can be reused by others. I think this opens up an interesting line of discussion we can cover in the discussion.

[10:53] MatthewWest: I know people who argue that Use Cases are inadequate as a statement of requirements, because they are point requirements, whereas what you really want is to develop a required capability. Use cases can be very helpful in informing such a required capability, and later illustrating it, but are not a substitute.

[10:54] AmandaVizedom: @Hans - alternative but compatible view (I think): identify elements or characteristics of use cases that matter (or are hypothesized to matter) for ontology suitability, so that these elements can be reused to analyze and describe other use cases. Some of these will clearly be contextual, but the path to reuseful reasoning is better defined. As I understand it (Joanne can confirm/disconfirm) this is part of the first-stage support that is envisioned for GOEF.

[10:56] ToddSchneider: Use cases can be used to discover requirements (i.e., an analysis tool).

[10:57] HansPolzer: Use cases also have lots of implicit scope, which can lead to overlooked requirement assumptions. On the other hand, a set of use cases can help understanding of a range of application contexts, since "range" is often difficult to conceptualize while use cases are typically presented as quasi-concrete examples.

[10:59] AmandaVizedom: @Matthew: I would agree with that; there is an analysis stage between use case description and technical requirements specification that utilizes knowledge of both the operational background/need and the technical specifics.

[10:59] TerryLongstreth: Joanne question - Does your methodology necessarily reveal the existence of an Ontology?

[11:12] JoanneLuciano: @TerryLongstreth, I don't understand your question. Let's discuss during the discussion.

[11:00] MeganKatsumi: @Amanda: Can you clarify what you mean by elements or characteristics of use cases?

[11:06] AmandaVizedom: @Megan - I should probably let Joanne talk about what she means first. ;-) At least, if I'm correct in saying that this is a reasonable way to describe what she is talking about in the description of the 1st stage of the GOEF framework, in which the use case is analyzed and specified. I think, from Joanne's description (and previous discussions), that this specification is not open-ended but focuses on capturing particular aspects of the use case that are known or believed to be needed as input in order to evaluate how well various candidate ontologies might fit that use case.

[11:06] JoanneLuciano: my original presentation from 2008 is on slideshare (you'll notice I used Leo's template for that (I was at MITRE).

[11:50] JoanneLuciano: should it come up. here's the link to the slideshare presentation: http://www.slideshare.net/joanneluciano/luciano-pr-08849ontologyevaluationmethodsmetrics (from 2008!) it was a proposal for internal research at MITRE.

[11:07] JoanneLuciano: I am listening to Leo and I still have a bad cold, so I'm happy to discuss after during discussion.

[11:00] PeterYim: == LeoObrst presenting ... see: the [ 2-Obrst ] slides

[11:03] FabianNeuhaus: Leo: could you tell us when you switch slides?

[11:09] DougFoxvog: There can be problems with a separation into T-Box & A-Box. In nature guides, for example, lots of statements are made of properties of classes (e.g., types of living thing). These classes, themselves are instances of higher-order classes (Species, Genus, ... Phylum, etc.). These types are both instances & classes. The same thing happens when talking about part types. The classic Wine Ontology had huge problems in expressing properties of types of wine, ending up defining the narrowest classes as instances of the next broader class, because of restrictions of the A/T box restrictions it was operating under.

[11:10] AmandaVizedom: @Megan, @Joanne, I'd expect, for example, that the kinds of things Leo is discussing now (slides 2-3: how complex is the reasoning needed for the use case, if any?) would be a subgroup of the use case characteristics that can be described and matter for ontology suitability.

[11:11] DougFoxvog: Leo discussing DL not being able to represent many rule types. I suggest that this is a reason to avoid using DL languages.

[11:12] MikeBennett: @Doug avoid in general, or avoid for specific requirements / usages of the ontology?

[11:14] AmandaVizedom: @doug +1 regarding the Wine Ontology example. It is a good example of the approach suggested, and choices forced, by a particular kind of DL-based language. It is also a good example of why for most reasoning, or cross-specialty integration, applications, that approach is crippling.

[11:14] DougFoxvog: @Mike: I suggest avoiding unless the only use of the "ontology" is to be used as a taxonomy. If you use rules or want to integrate, a more powerful language is called for, imho.

[11:15] MikeBennett: @Doug - thanks. I guess that comes under the heading of what Leo calls "not an ontology" :)

[11:15] DougFoxvog: @Mike: +1

[11:17] anonymous morphed into PavithraKenjige

[11:19] DougFoxvog: Re Slide 7, "tractable reasoning": even a higher order language can exhibit tractable reasoning, when the rules reasoned over permit it. Note that normal computer languages are intractable, but people still program using them. A programmer would not want to program in a guaranteed tractable language.

[11:18] PavithraKenjige: Requirements are written in statements can be shown as use cases and scenarios to capture how user use a system to meet those requirements

[11:20] PavithraKenjige: So in my opinion, Use Cases and scenarios and test cases that are based on Use Cases & scenarios are verification or evaluation of meeting the requirements

[11:21] JoanneLuciano: I think SADI services can help - I'd like to incorporate GOEF development into https://github.com/timrdf/DataFAQs/wiki I'd love to have some "clinics" to discuss and develop the implementation. I have a paper in the works that will use the iChoose example throughout. The current draft version doesn't have a single example (because these ideas have only been able to be developed in fits and starts). It includes some mock up screen shots to help get ideas across.

RE: not an ontology -- the 'spectrum' seems to help cover bases and avoid "semantic" arguments (which is a challenge in a "semantic" community)

[11:22] DougFoxvog: Re slide 8. 3D/4D reasoning can be left out of most ontologies. If a given application requires committing to one or the other, it can also inherit a small ontology that specifies the 3D+1 or 4D theory.

[11:25] DougFoxvog: re slide 9: There is a huge ontology of "part-of". Transitivity often won't work if one switches between different types of "part-of".

[11:26] MikeBennett: @Doug presumably part terms like "nearside front wheel" versus part terms like Wheel have different requirements in this regard.

[11:29] DougFoxvog: @Mike: Yes.

[11:29] GaryBergCross: @MikeBennett wheels may be "components" rather than a simple part.

[11:31] MikeBennett: @Doug thought so. I think distinguishing between those usages (e.g. what is a Component) per Gary, depends on using a suitable upper ontology that distinguishing something-in-a-role from something-in-itself. So there is a dependency between these two considerations I think.

[11:31] DougFoxvog: @Gary: "componentOf" would be a specialization of "physicalSubpartOf".

[11:33] GaryBergCross: I sometimes think of these bridging, integrative ontologies as simpler bridging schemas.

[11:33] DougFoxvog: @Mike: Yes. the truth of (componentOf Car2087532408 Wheel234752347) is time dependent.

[11:34] GaryBergCross: @Doug Yes that is a good specialization.

[11:29] DougFoxvog: re slide 10: Do you need human capability to formulate queries using the computer's query language? A user interface should obviate this. One does not require a human capability to formulate SQL queries for someone to ask for information from a database.

[11:33] anonymous morphed into FredHosea

[11:35] DougFoxvog: Re slide 12: "Anyone we know" might be Insectivore.

[11:36] DougFoxvog: The Venn diagram does not intersect Reptile and Mammal, so the "Anyone we know" circle includes some mammals, some reptiles, and some other living things.

[11:35] AmandaVizedom: Relating Leo's talk to my own (two weeks ago,) about getting from business requirements to ontology evaluation): most of the questions Leo is talking about are the sorts of things that should be asked at the stage when "business requirements" are being transformed into technical requirements (for the ontology and/or system). The answers should: figure into ontology/system design; be used to development constraints, goals, steps; be used to identify what should be evaluated when to make sure requirements are being met and maintained. I would say that this is the knowing-what-to-develop/knowing-what-to-check-for aspect of the Big Issues in Ontology Evaluation; the how-to-check-for-X/evaluation methods aspect is a parallel Big Issue.

[11:38] MikeBennett: @Amanda +1 - these kinds of technical considerations are a parallel to what in conventional technology development would be non functional requirements - but they clearly deliver benefits to the business integrity of a model of the business domain. That opens up a lot of interesting questions.

[11:39] MatthewWest: @LeoObrst - please go ahead and cover you backup slides as well.

[11:40] AmandaVizedom: re: collaborative development: big tool need in the OWL world: tunable automatic checking on addition (commit-time; rejection if inconsistent). More comprehensive automatic bookkeeping on assertions and inferences so that problems can be debugged, fixed and modules/packages re-submitted.

[11:40] JoanneLuciano: I'm wondering how many times Leo has been around the circles and items on slides#18-21. I don't think I want to count. BTW, Happy Pi Day (3.14 in the way the US does month day).

[11:46] AmandaVizedom: @Leo - slide 20 - yes indeed, often looped around, etc., *and* often there are interdependencies with other components of a larger system. At various points, there is or should be cross-checking to see whether things are (still) in sync, whether they are on-track to work together as desired.

[11:47] MikeBennett: @Amanda +1 - not only for collaborative development but I think we need a tool that does for ontologies what UML does for software designs, including what you have there, and also visualizations both to business domain and to implementers.

[11:48] AmandaVizedom: @MikeBennett: Agreed.

[11:49] AmandaVizedom: @MikeBennett: I should note that the capabilities I mentioned already do exist in some development environments, especially Cyc and to a degree in some in-house, specialized systems. But not, to my knowledge, in OWL tools generally.

[11:40] PavithraKenjige: @Amanda, Use Cases follow the requirement or use cases & scenarios represent detail requirements.. which is followed by design phase. In UML, Object diagrams are done as design stage..

[11:41] PavithraKenjige: Ontology development is a phase that can be mapped to design stage ..

[11:50] PeterYim: == Q & A and Open Discussion, MatthewWest moderating ...

[11:50] MatthewWest: In the previous talk in Track C we were looking at methodologies for integrating ontologies. The first thing that struck me was that easily the biggest priority was achieving consistency in the ontology, particularly in the face of large ontologies with many contributors who are geographically dispersed. The other thing that came across was the need for an architectural approach, providing structure to taking the right decisions in the right order.

[11:51] MatthewWest: Today's session on development methods for reasoning ontologies also impressed on me the need for an architectural approach, although the emphasis was slightly different here. The other thing that struck me is that ontology development is often done directly at the implementation level. You start by developing your ontology in CL or OWL, already in its implementation environment. This is how it was once in database development, but that was a long time ago. It would now be considered normal to develop data models at multiple levels, a conceptual level which just gives the outline, the logical level that is complete, including all the rules, but still independent of any implementation environment. Finally there is a data model that takes account of the implementation environment, and the processing needs of the application. This separation would indicate a level of maturity in understanding the ontology development process, but will need tool support that does not exist yet as far as I am aware.

[11:52] DougFoxvog: Ref the capabilities Amanda referred to. The OBO ontologies have obviously not had such tools, since, e.g., disjoint classes had had common subclasses in several posted ontologies.

[11:52] MikeBennett: Oops! (pun intended :) )

[11:56] AmandaVizedom: It is good to see more tools for evaluating ontologies, including OWL if for no other reason than that so many people are developing ontologies in it and are in severe need of evaluation help. :-) It's important to note, though, that the infrastructure for easy/automated testing of collaborative additions to a large ontology, or addition of new ontologies to a repository of ontologies that are meant to be compatible, is also very much needed.

[11:56] MikeBennett: I should add that we have the same problems in the FIBO development - we have defined upper ontology partitions to distinguish e.g. independent v relative things (like the parts examples) but don't know when these have been misapplied until we can run external checks on it. Something like what UML tools do, where illegal model efforts are flagged up as non compliant, would be useful in a tool.

[11:59] AmandaVizedom: And, along the lines of Joanne's GOEF ideas and Leo's exposition of important requirements questions and design decisions, tools are also very much needed to support this kind of analysis, and recording of the results, so that people can figure out what they need and what to test for in the first place.

[12:00] JoanneLuciano: I agree w Leo - need many kinds of testing (at many levels)

[12:01] JoanneLuciano: Agree w/ Amanda's comments

[12:02] JoanneLuciano: The reason I like the "component" aspect is it facilitates testing (and Leo just mentioned unit testing). an important "component"

[12:01] BobbinTeegarden: @Mike is it possible that when one starts with tree structures (categorization) when modeling something essentially graph shaped, that we end up in unintended stovepipes?

[12:02] DougFoxvog: @Bobbin: yes. Modeling a graph structure as a tree will almost always lead to trouble.

[12:02] MikeBennett: @Bobbin I think that is a real danger - unless some serious imagination is used in defining abstractions "What kind of thing is this" asked iteratively until you get to a very atomic meaningful concept. I don't know how you would validate / verify for that.

[12:04] MikeBennett: @Bobbin plus you need to apply faceted classification, which would require some additional notation. There is no reason for any given class to only have one parent (except, of course, when you are designing for an application and need to think about the reasoning overhead of multiple inheritance).

[12:08] DougFoxvog: re Mike's reference to faceted classification: specifying the facets is difficult, and ensuring those facets that should be coverings or partitions are such can be hard to model in a simple ontology language. Higher-level languages such as Cyc, enable this by reifying the facets as meta-classes.

[12:10] MikeBennett: @Doug thanks - I've been trying to figure out if there's a way of defining some OWL annotation properties to signify facets - the obvious basis for a classification facet seems to be the OWL Union Class - but need to decorate that somehow to identify what property of the parent class has different values in the child classes in that facet.

[12:13] DougFoxvog: @Mike: Using OWL-Full, one can create Facets & define classes as instances of the facets. If several types of facets are defined.

[12:14] MikeBennett: @Doug thanks

[12:16] DougFoxvog: ... If several types of facets are defined: Partition, Covering, ..., with rules attached, it could force the appropriate disjointnesses and would be good for annotation, even if later use of the ontology would drop such facets as mere documentation in order to allow for a simpler (e.g., DL) reasoning scheme.

[12:21] MikeBennett: @Doug I'll look into that - this is going to be very useful in classifying financial instruments for example. Different facets are suited to different use cases, so it would make sense to extract a single-inheritance taxonomy for a given use case - but different ones for different use cases (e.g. investment management versus risk and compliance).

[12:02] AmandaVizedom: Re: Todd's question: debugging when things don't go right - This is one reason why ontology development / management systems should have much, much more automated bookkeeping and inference traceability than many do. Again, Cyc & some other systems have this, but it is lacking in many commonly-used environments, with real consequences.

[12:05] MichaelGruninger: Competency questions are great for evaluating whether or not there are enough axioms in our ontology, but there are still two outstanding issues. 1. Are these the right competency questions? 2. The competency questions themselves introduce their own ontological bias

[12:05] JoanneLuciano: Agree with what Michael is saying - the competency questions aren't enough, and yes the 2nd level addresses the external requirements (Compliance standards, for example) which again is a different level than the OWL / intrinsic level.

[12:06] AmandaVizedom: @Michael +1 Questions embed some ontological commitments. That can be OK *if it does done intentionally*, i.e., if you design your questions to test for compatibility with those commitments. But it's a real problem with many published test approaches - they embed *assumed* commitments that may not be shared in real cases in which people attempt to apply those questions.

[12:06] LeoObrst: @Matthew's comments: re: ontology development still seems to be research. Yes, that's why ontology training (a previous Ontology Summit) is very important.

[12:07] ToddSchneider: To what extent are the discussions about ontology evaluations assuming a non-dynamic environment (of ontology changes)?

[12:07] JoanneLuciano: not assumed in the GOEF approach

[12:08] JoanneLuciano: interesting though about autonomous systems

[12:12] AmandaVizedom: @Todd: I assume that dynamic is in fact more typical, perhaps biased by environments I have worked in. I think that much research and tool development assumes a more static model, though, and/or that individual ontologies reach a "done" stage, after which they are rarely changed and new work is on other ontologies.

[12:09] AmandaVizedom: @Matthew, @Leo -- true, but consider also the role of capturing our (ontology community) dispersed knowledge and lessons learned. Some things are better understood than others, but the understanding is unevenly distributed and redundant research continues. Or, at least, mature hypotheses can be formed, rather than the sort proto-wheel ones that still get run up the flagpole.

[12:12] LeoObrst: @Fabian: I agree. Please place that in the chat, so we don't lose the comment, i.e., the 3-n things you need for evaluating ontologies.

[12:18] FabianNeuhaus: My two questions are: (1) Assuming you need to make a recommendation to somebody who develops an ontology. What are the three most important aspects that you think that the person should evaluate and how? (2) Could you identify the kind of tools that would make it easier for ontology developers to perform the recommended ontology evaluation?

[12:11] DougFoxvog: Does anyone want to create an ontology of the ontology evaluation & development concepts and issues that we have been discussing? With such a tool, individual ontologies could have their properties specified using this ontology.

[12:14] AmandaVizedom: @doug - that is one of the hackathon & clinic proposals, though I don't know that there will be enough interest or participation for it to pass the selection gate.

[12:15] AmandaVizedom: Ontology of Ontology Evaluation proposal is at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013_Hackathon_Clinics#nid3O90

[12:17] LeoObrst: Folks, I must go to another meeting. Thank you for your comments and participation!

[12:17] MikeBennett: Thanks @Leo

[12:18] JoanneLuciano: @LeoObrst THANK YOU -- always!

[12:19] TerryLongstreth: USE cases vs. capabilities wrt evaluation - If we assume that Use cases are elaborated into capabilities, then evaluation based on use cases would be elaborated into more detailed evaluations, and so on until we arrive at evaluation

[12:19] TerryLongstreth: based upon implementation

[12:18] JoanneLuciano: When I say "Function" I include in that "Capability"

[12:19] JoanneLuciano: The feedback is useful - I'll make it more explicit next time

[12:20] JoanneLuciano: words alone will often get us into trouble. -- I don't like that I use standard for the "second" level, for example

[12:23] JoanneLuciano: We used to use functional specifications, they worked

[12:22] FabianNeuhaus: @Pavithra, Matthew: maybe you could take this discussion offline?

[12:23] PeterYim: join us again, same time next week (Thu 2013.03.21), for OntologySummit2013 session-10: "Software Environments for Evaluating Ontologies - II" - Co-chairs: MikeDenny & PeterYim - see developing session page at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_03_21 ... please pay special attention to the start-time (for the folks in the US and Canada, unlike this particular session, we will back to our normal start-time next week)!

[12:23] PeterYim: great talks, thank you Joanne & Leo

[12:23] AmandaVizedom: Thanks all!

[12:23] DougFoxvog: Thanks, all

[12:23] SamirTartir: Thanks all

[12:24] JoanneLuciano: I want to acknowledge JamesMichaelis and Nicolau Depaula from CTG SUNY Albany for their contributions to my presentation

[12:24] PeterYim: -- session ended: 12:23pm PDT --

-- 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.
 * (in case you aren't already a member) you may also want to join the ONTOLOG community and be subscribed to the [ ontolog-forum ] listserv, when general ontology-related topics (not specific to this year's Summit theme) are discussed. Please refer to Ontolog membership details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
 * kindly email  if you have any question.

Additional Resources:

 * Homepage of OntologySummit2013
 * Proceedings from earlier sessions of this Summit can be found under: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013#nid3KMZ
 * [ontology-summit] mailing list archives - http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
 * 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
 * Ontology Summit 2013 Community Library - http://www.zotero.org/groups/ontologysummit2013
 * Homepage of the Summit - see: OntologySummit

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)

 * 1. Dial in with a phone or from skype: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_03_14#nid3NPQ
 * 2. Open chat-workspace in a new browser window: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/summit_20130314
 * 3. Download presentations for each speaker here: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_03_14#nid3NPF
 * or, 3.1 optionally, access our shared-screen vnc server, if you are not behind a corporate firewall

Conference Call Details

 * Attention: Please take special note on the start time of the event, as the US will be on daylight saving (summer) time on this day, while the EU is still on standard (winter) time! ... For participants from the US and Canada, for example, this session will start an hour later than usual, whereas for those from the EU, the start-time will be the same as last week's.


 * Date: Thursday, 14-Mar-2013
 * Start Time: 10:30am PDT / 1:30pm EDT / 6:30pm CET / 17:30 GMT/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 Conference ID: 141184#
 * Skype: joinconference (i.e. make a skype call to the contact with skypeID="joinconference") ... (generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer)
 * when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
 * Unfamiliar with how to do this on Skype? ...
 * Add the contact "joinconference" to your skype contact list first. To participate in the teleconference, make a skype call to "joinconference", then open the dial pad (see platform-specific instructions below) and enter the Conference ID: 141184# when prompted.
 * Can't find Skype Dial pad? ...
 * for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... 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 on 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. ... (ref.)


 * 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_20130314
 * 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) summit_20130314@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] with your affiliation appreciated, ... or simply just by adding yourself to the "Expected Attendee" list below (if you are a member of the community already.)


 * 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_2013_03_14


 * 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:
 * MikeBennett (co-chair)
 * MatthewWest (co-chair)
 * JoanneLuciano
 * LeoObrst
 * PeterYim
 * AliHashemi
 * AmandaVizedom
 * AstridDuqueRamos
 * BobSmith
 * BobSchloss
 * BobbinTeegarden
 * DaliaVaranka
 * DennisWisnosky
 * DougFoxvog
 * FabianNeuhaus
 * FredHosea
 * GaryBergCross
 * HansPolzer
 * JamesMichaelis
 * JoelBender
 * JohnBilmanis
 * JulienCorman
 * KenBaclawski
 * LamarHenderson
 * LudgerJansen
 * MeganKatsumi
 * MichaelDenny
 * MichaelGruninger
 * MichelDumontier
 * MikeDean
 * NancyWiegand
 * PavithraKenjige
 * RichardMartin
 * RosarioUcedaSosa
 * SamirTartir
 * SteveRay
 * TerryLongstreth
 * ToddSchneider
 * TorstenHahmann
 * YuriyMilov


 * Expecting:
 * JeffBiala
 * please add yourself to the list if you are a member of the Ontolog or OntologySummit community, or, rsvp to  with your affiliation.
 * please add yourself to the list if you are a member of the Ontolog or OntologySummit community, or, rsvp to  with your affiliation.


 * Regrets:
 * AldoGangemi