OntologySummit2007 Process/Draft2

= OntologySummit2007: OntologySummit2007_Process proposal-2 =


 * First proposed: PeterYim / 2007.02.15
 * formally adopted at the 20007.03.20 summit organizing committee meeting
 * ref: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007/OrganizingCommitteeMeeting_2007_03_20#nidVCW

A 6-Step Process

 * 1. Identify constituency representative
 * volunteers, recommendations, ...
 * see our developing list of communities that will form our constituencies here.
 * with help from a survey (see draft-2 survey questions and form below)


 * 2. collect ontology (or ontology-related) terms used in each constituency
 * with a specific e-mail thread for each constituency
 * use of the e-mail forum may help reduce duplication of efforts


 * 3. collect representative ontology (or ontology-like) artifacts from each constituency
 * with a specific e-mail thread for each constituency
 * use of the e-mail forum may help reduce duplication of efforts


 * 4. Constructing a categorization / typology framework[4]  


 * 5. Categorize  


 * 6. Authoring the Communique  

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

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

[3] ontology (or ontology-like) artifacts for each constituency - see 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

Updating from the Survey draft-1 with our ConferenceCall_2007_02_15 and subsequent input. Key changes include: (ref. discussion)


 * we ask representatives from each constituency:
 * what value do they see "ontology" bringing to their work
 * what issues have been encountered
 * specific problems they need help with
 * how they envision those problem can be resolved (say, on a community scale)
 * On the ontology or ontology-like artifacts, we try to capture (ref. AlanBond's post):
 * 1. The community or communities, who have knowledge of the subject, express the ideas and use the knowledge.
 * 2. The theory or language which is used to express the knowledge.
 * 3. The expressed and codified knowledge and its applications in the field.


 * we make the survey a (at least) 2-round exercise
 * Round-1: done mainly with the survey form -- we try to:
 * engage 'conveners' (get people to respond first ... therefore, respondants should be able to get through the survey quickly.)
 * have them identify the constituency (constituencies) they are representing
 * we encourage people who straddle multiple constituencies return more than one completed form
 * for each individual constituency: attempt to capture the 'value', 'issues', 'specific problem' where help is needed, and 'envisaged community solutions'.
 * optionally, try to identify the very conspicuous 'ontology or ontology-like artifacts' for a constituency
 * and possibly they likely will those artifacts be referred to as 'ontologies' within the lingo of the various communities
 * Round-2 will be conducted after we manage to identify and associate representatives to various constituencies. We will then:
 * enumerate the 'ontology or ontology-like artifacts' (for each constitutency)
 * get referenced 'definitions' of what an 'ontology' means to specific constituency (or communities therein)
 * Subsequent Rounds will be conducted in order to place survey entities into the adopted framework (which has been developed in parallel)

Survey questions (Draft-2)
1. Respondent information - (date, name, organization*, e-mail*, phone*)

(Note that the nominal Ontolog IPR policy will apply. as representives of their employers or organizations they are affiliated with, when providing their input in this survey. Organization names, e-mail addresses and phone numbers are collected to facilitate follow-up only. They will remain private and not be published.)
 * except as confirmed under item 6, respondents are providing their input as individuals, and not

2a. Constituency affiliation

[ ] Formal ontology communities [ ] Semantic Web communities [ ] Concept Map community [ ] Topic Map community [ ] SEARCH communities [ ] Web 2.0 communities [ ] Thesauri community [ ] Taxonomy communities [ ] Metadata communities [ ] XML communities [ ] Applications Development, Software Engineering and Information Model communities [ ] System Architecture communities [ ] Biomedical communities [ ] Standards Development communities

2b. Specific community (sub-constituency) you are affiliated with.

2c. Expertise self-assessment (wrt. the constituency or sub-constituency)


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

3. Bringing 'ontology' or 'ontological engineering' to your constituency (or sub-constituency):


 * 3a. What 'value' does 'ontology' or 'ontological engineering' bring to your constituency (or sub-constituency)?
 * 3b. what are the 'issues' being encountered in bringing 'ontology' or 'ontological engineering' into your community?
 * 3c. can you state 'specific problem(s)' that help is needed on?
 * 3d. can you suggest (technology or community) solution(s) to the issue(s) mentioend above?

4. Ontology-related Vocabulary and Artifacts from your community


 * Term
 * Gloss
 * Source Reference - (cite papers etc.; URL; point to section/paragraph 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)

6. Confirmation of participation:

where, a 'convener' is a participants who is making substantive contribution to the discourse, workshops and the written communique for OntologySummit2007, and a 'co-sponsor' is an organization who is providing technical or funding support (e.g. supporting member(s) of its technical staff to participate as a 'convener'), and/or endorsing the objective of this OntologySummit2007,

[ ] I agree that my name can be listed as a 'convener' of OntologySummit2007 [ ] I will consider endorsing the OntologySummit2007 communique. Please send it to me for review when it is ready. I will confirm my endorsement after the review. [ ] I confirm that you may list my organization as a 'co-sponsor' for OntologySummit2007 Name of Organization: _____________  Link to Logo: _______________

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.

Various iterations of our survey form:
Under: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/survey/wip/

(the version with the latest version/date stamp is the currently released version.)

Released Survey: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/survey/summit72.html

 * Sample of a completed survey segment (and explaining to clarify some of the confusion)
 * see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2007-03/msg00042.html