OntologySummit2007 Process/Draft1

= OntologySummit2007: OntologySummit2007_Process proposal-1 (draft) =

First proposed: PeterYim / 2007.02.14

A 5-Step Process

 * Convener Grouping: Summit participants ("conveners") are dispersed into 'teams' (constituencies[1]), each representing major communities within the broader ontology community space
 * we can use a survey[2] to help identify which team an individual participant is affiliated with
 * an analysis of the survey results can also provide clues as to whether we have balanced representation in different constituencies, and if not, remedial 'recruitment' actions may be taken
 * a participant can choose to be in more than one team
 * each team is encourage to elect a champion to help coordinate and track progress (this is optional, though)


 * Understanding the Community Vocabulary: Each constituency will:
 * identify the context (vantage point) from which their inputs are derived; there may be needs to create further subdivisions. (For example: if "Biomedical informatics practitioners" is one such constituency, and it turns out that that the "bio-informaticists" and the medical-informaticists" don't share the same vocabularies, then they may want to subdivide and collect inputs for each of these sub-teams.
 * (each team) or each sub-team will come up with the gloss for what do they mean when they use the term "ontology"
 * identify other ontology-related terms that is in their constituency's common vocabulary,
 * and come up with the gloss for each of these terms
 * also assess the Likelihood that someone may refer to each of these terms as "ontology"
 * ( 0 = totally unlikely; 5 = some would; 9 = almost always )
 * identify conspicuous ontology (or ontology-like) artifacts[3] within their constituency
 * the above is discovered through dialog over the [ontology-summit] discussion forum, aided (where necessary) by the survey[2] and continuously summarized and synthesized and posted to the wiki to keep all participants in sync.
 * each constituency will complete and vet their glossary and list of ontology (or ontology-like) artifacts


 * Constructing a categorization / typology framework[4]
 * this is done between all coneveners
 * and done in parallel with the virtual discourse described in 2. above


 * Categorize
 * place terms and artifacts into the above categorization framework (by each constituency)
 * reach shared understanding on typology


 * Authoring the Communique
 * draft
 * review, modify, enhance
 * adopt (with list of endorsers)
 * release / publish

Resource & References
[1] different constituencies - see under here

[2] survey - sample of a completed survey that may augment the above process - see: draft survey

[3] ontology (or ontology-like) artifacts for each constituency - see [ http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Process/Draft1#nidU6N sample below]


 * CYC, SUMO, DOLCE, PSL, BFO, GUM, ISO-15926
 * HL7-RIM, SNOMED CT, GO, BioPAX Level 2 Ontology, ...


 * we need both name and version (as different versions of the artifact with the same name may be placed differently in the categorization framework, and hence their typology may differ
 * we need both name and version (as different versions of the artifact with the same name may be placed differently in the categorization framework, and hence their typology may differ

[4] categorization / typology framework - see: OntologySummit2007_FrameworksForConsideration

Survey questions (Draft-1)
1. Respondent information - (name, organization, e-mail, phone)

2a. Constituency affiliation

[ ] Formal ontologists community [ ] Semantic Web communities [ ] Concept Map community [ ] Topic Map community [ ] SEARCH communities [ ] Web 2.0 community [ ] Thesauri community [ ] Taxonomists community [ ] Metadata communities [ ] XML community [ ] Applications Development community [ ] System Architecture Communities [ ] Biomedical communities

2b. Expertise self-assessment


 * 1 = informed layman
 * 2 = practitioner
 * 3 = expert

3a. Remarks (sub-community identification; vantage point; other comments)

3b. Ontology-related Vocabulary from your community


 * Term
 * Gloss
 * Source Reference - (cite papers etc.; URL; point to section/paragrpah if possible)
 * Representative Artifact - (Name, version)
 * Likelihood that some may refer to this as "ontology"
 * (enter a number from 0~9: where, 0 = totally unlikely; 5 = some would; 9 = almost always )
 * Comments

(repeat, say, 8 times, allowing multiple item entries on the form)

Remarks: if a participant chooses to be in more than one team (represented in more than one constituency), he/she will complete and return more than one survey.

Sample of a completed survey (on the prototype form) - (Draft-1)
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/wip/summit71-test02.gif