ConferenceCall 2012 01 19

= OntologySummit2012: Session-02 - Thu 2012-01-19 =

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2012: "Ontology for Big Systems"

Session Topic: Ontology for Big Systems - What's In Scope?

Session Co-chairs: Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE, Ontolog) & Dr. NicolaGuarino (ISTC-CNR)

Panelists:


 * Track-1: Large-scale systems engineering - Co-Champions: Dr. HensonGraves, Mr. CoryCasanave
 * Track-2: Large-scale engineered systems - Co-Champions: Dr. MatthewWest, Dr. HensonGraves
 * Track-3: Challenge: ontology and big data - Co-Champions: Mr. ErnieLucier, Ms. MaryBrady
 * Track-4: Large-scale domain applications - Co-Champions: Dr. SteveRay, Dr. TrishWhetzel, Mr. CoryCasanave
 * X-Track-A1: Ontology Quality and Large-Scale Systems - Co-champions: Dr. AmandaVizedom
 * Communiqu� Co-Lead Editors - Dr. ToddSchneider, Mr. AliHashemi
 * Public Relations - champion: Mr. AliHashemi

Archives:


 * Abstract
 * Agenda
 * Prepared presentation material (slides) can be accessed by clicking on each of the title links below:
 * [ 0-Chair ] . [ T1+T2-West-Graves-Casanave ] . [ T3-Lucier-Brady ] . [ T4-Ray-Whetzel-Casanave ] . [ A1-Vizedom ] . [ CD-Schneider-Hashemi ] . [ PR-Hashemi ]
 * Audio recording of the session [ 1:31:20 ; mp3 ; 10.46 MB ]
 * transcript of the online chat during the session
 * Additional Resources

Abstract
OntologySummit2012 session-02 - "Ontology for Big Systems: What's In Scope?"

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 2nd virtual session.

During this 3-month Summit, we seek to explore, identify and articulate how ontological methods can bring value to the various disciplines required to engineer a "big system." The term "big system" is intended to cover a large scope that includes many of the terms encountered in the media such as big data, complex techno-socio-economic systems, intelligent or smart systems, cloud computing, netcentricity and collective intelligence. Established disciplines that fall within the summit scope include (but not limited to) systems engineering, software engineering, information systems modelling, and data mining.

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 communiqu�, with expanded supporting material provided on the web.

The panel today will present how the organizing committee intends to structure the discourse. We will discuss, clarify and refine what is (or should be) in scope during this Summit season. The champions of various tracks and topics will share their plans and solicit the community's involvement and participation.

See developing details on this Summit series of events at: OntologySummit2012 (home page for this summit)

Agenda
Ontology Summit 2012 - Panel Session-02


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


 * 1. Opening (co-chairs) - LeoObrst / NicolaGuarino [15 min.] ... [ slides ]
 * 2. Panelists briefings - MatthewWest, ErnieLucier-MaryBrady, SteveRay-TrishWhetzel, AmandaVizedom, AliHashemi [~5 min.]
 * 3. Q & A and open discussion [All: ~20 min.] -- please refer to process above
 * 4. Wrap-up / Announcements - (co-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-02 - Thu 2012-01-19 =

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2012: "Ontology for Big Systems"

Session Topic: Ontology for Big Systems - What's In Scope?

Session Co-chairs: Dr. LeoObrst & Dr. NicolaGuarino

Panelists:

Track-1: Large-scale systems engineering - Co-Champions: Dr. HensonGraves, Mr. CoryCasanave Track-2: Large-scale engineered systems - Co-Champions: Dr. MatthewWest, Dr. HensonGraves Track-3: Challenge: ontology and big data - Co-Champions: Mr. ErnieLucier, Ms. MaryBrady Track-4: Large-scale domain applications - Co-Champions: Dr. SteveRay, Dr. TrishWhetzel, Mr. CoryCasanave X-Track-A1: Ontology Quality and Large-Scale Systems - Co-champions: Dr. AmandaVizedom Communiqu� Co-Lead Editors - Dr. ToddSchneider (in absentia), Mr. AliHashemi Public Relations - champion: Mr. AliHashemi

Session page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_01_19

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 MikeRiben

NicolaGuarino: Hi everybody

LeoObrst: Hi, Nicola.

anonymous morphed into ChristopherSpottiswoode

anonymous morphed into KenAllgood

anonymous morphed into DougFoxvog

JoelBender: getting "please continue to hold while we locate this subscriber" message and music

AliHashemi: Hi Joel, are you sure you are dialing into the correct room? We're in the call right now.

JoelBender: redialed - all set

anonymous morphed into ElizabethFlorescu

anonymous morphed into IAM <--[ppy: not sure who this is; please use real name (in WikiWord format) in the future. thanks.]

anonymous1 morphed into AndreaWesterinen

anonymous morphed into MaryBrady

anonymous morphed into RamGouripeddi

anonymous morphed into KenAllgood

DuaneNickull: Good Morning all!

anonymous morphed into GaryBergCross

PeterYim: @DougFoxvog - thank you for helping post the (chat-room) attendees roster to the wiki session page last week

RamSriram: I will be leaving early, but we need to decide on the date. We have two options: April 12-13 and April 23-24.

PeterYim: @RamSriram - we will let you and MichaelGruninger decide on the symposium date. Just tell us.

RamSriram: @MichaelGruninger: Is April 12-13 fine with you.

AliHashemi: @RamSriram, MichaelGruninger is not in the chat.

PeterYim: @RamSriram - let's decide at the organizing committee meeting tomorrow, and then announce the decision to the community

RosarioUcedaSosa: Good day to everyone. A comment. Given that we all have different backgrounds and interests, it would be a good idea for the track leaders to post a reading list of papers/materials that they think are foundational/relevant/thought provoking. The track leaders could 'filter' the references if the lists become unmanageable.

NicolaGuarino: @Rosario: excellent idea

AliHashemi: +1 to Rosario's idea as well, it would be very helpful.

ErnieLucier: RosarioUcedaSosa requested a reading list. One reference I like is Ultra-Large-Scale Systems: The Software Challenge of the Future 2006, http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/assets/ULS_Book20062.pdf

KenAllgood: Could definitely use resources for the group around Automatic Programming if that will remain a focus of Track 3 discussions.

RosarioUcedaSosa: I can't access the slides anymore. Get 'Connection to the server was reset' Anybody else has the same problem?

PeterYim: whoever it is who typed in the box next to the hand, the chat input box is further to the left, please re-type your input, thanks

LarryLefkowitz: I was hoping that Track 4 would include -- as part of "large-scale" systems -- those that require large/complex ontologies, not just large data. Is that the case? I didn't see that aspect described in the slides just shown.

SteveRay: Yes, we hope to cover that as well. That is what was meant by "very complex data sets".

LarryLefkowitz: @Steve: Great. Let's talk more because I think the complexity of the required ontology is (or can be) distinct from the complexity of the data. That is, I agree that semantic systems need to model the data, but IMHO also need to model the "domain". Either or both of these models can be large/complex.

SimonSpero: @Steve @Larry - there's also different degrees of "very" (large and/or complex).

JamesOdell: There is also a different between complicated and complex.

RosarioUcedaSosa: @Steve @Larry -- If that's the case, the comment I made to the 3d track really applies to track 4. Large data sets (instance-level) and large models/metadata (class-level). If track 4 is explicitly tackling the two dimensions and their different assumptions (storing/streaming/caching data in the instance-level and integrating/prescribing/describing at the class level) it should be a very interesting discussion.

LarryLefkowitz: Wow, and I thought Clinton was a tough English sentence parser in his "what is is" days Yes, I agree with each of those distinctions.

AndreaWesterinen: There are multiple issues with complex ontologies - both defining (understanding) and storing them, and then reasoning over them. We might want to separate these issues.

JamesOdell: --as well as executing over some part of an ontology (particularly process ontologies)

AndreaWesterinen: Has anyone looked at the DQM vocabulary for some aspects of the quality work?

SimonSpero: @andrea the RPI LODQ ?

AndreaWesterinen: I do not believe that DQM is related to the LODQ, but they might be. Info on DQM is available at http://semwebquality.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=DQM-Vocabulary_Primer.

ChristopherSpottiswoode: @AmandaVizedom, (ref. the X-Track-A1 focus) Are you distinguishing between ontology quality and ontology-based application quality?

ChristopherSpottiswoode: @Amanda. Thank you! (to Amanda's verbal response.)

AmandaVizedom: Capturing here my response to @Christopher on the call, for record: Yes, I am making that distinction, and I am talking about ontology quality specifically. However, the door is open to discuss way in which ontology-based application quality may depend on ontology quality, and how ontology quality in a big systems context can be defined. Additionally, I briefly took off my Champion hat and put on my experienced practitioner hat and stated my view that (applied) ontology quality cannot be evaluated in full without considering (aspects of) the performance of the system of which it is a part.

ChristopherSpottiswoode: Thanks Amanda - your answer, now also on the chat, was good.

ChristopherSpottiswoode: @Amanda, here's another distinction: between functional quality and non-functional quality.

KenAllgood: Excellent discussion Amanda.. Thanks for offering it up as a track!

LinePouchard: I looked at some 2005 work by Stuart Madnick at MIT business school. Also an interesting paper "Data Quality- What can ontological ananlysis contribute?" by Andrew Frank. Interesting. Not related to LOD I believe

GaryBergCross: One might argue that an ontology may have logical quality and/or formal representation quality and/or domain relevance/faithfulness quality...and of course some quality of how these are related in an ontology.

MatthewWest: @Gary: I like those distinctions.

AndreaWesterinen: @Gary: +1

LarryLefkowitz: @Gary: To your list, I'd add an efficiency/utility/effectiveness dimension. Although it might bother the purists who might think that the ontological model should be independent of its use, there is definitely an impact of the design of the ontology and its usefulness.

KenAllgood: @Larry: would second your proposition..

GaryBergCross: @Larry, I guess I was folding efficiency/utility/effectiveness into the Domain part, but is is worth having these considered as part of pragmatic application of an ontology.

MikeBennett: Another aspect of ontology quality I think is ientifying what are the appropriate requirements to be met in a business conceptual ontology versus an operational ontology (representing overall business meaning versus decidable ontologies for semantic apps). I don't know if that's a distinction that's widely shared.

NicolaGuarino: @MikeBennett: your distinction between ontology quality wrt conceptual understanding and ontology quality wrt operational efficiency is very important, in my opinion

AndreaWesterinen: @Mike: DQM is related to requirements.

MatthewWest: @Nicola and @Mike: Indeed this has been a key concern in my area of interest.

MikeBennett: @Nicola and @Matthew glad to hear I'm not alone. We are starting to articulate some of these distinctions in some of our ongoing proof of concept work. It's a bit new to some of the SemTech folks

AmandaVizedom: Thanks to everyone who is making comments related to quality, and suggesting references.

AmandaVizedom: @Gary: regarding your suggestion of different types of quality: In the Unscoped Wilds, there is (as you know) a spectrum of views regarding the universality of standards of ontology quality. At the poles of this spectrum are, roughly, (1) those who see ontology quality as context independent (purely formal, specifiable without reference to application or acctivity, and (2) those who see ontology quality as entirely context-specific, locally-definable, and expedient. Most practitioners fall between these poles, but there is a relatively continuous disagreement on the matter. One reason I think that there is hope for this discussion is that we are not in the Unscoped Wilds; we are explicitly looking at ontology quality and Large-scale systems. Letting the systems discussion shape the quality discussion gives us a way to skip the most intractable parts and focus on quality *as it relates to large-scale systems*, that is, as it affects such systems and/or the engineering of them, and as it can be measured and so made useful within these contexts. In this scope, Quality can be operationally defined as fitness for purpose, where more and less formal criteria can be identified as characteristics contributing (variably) to ontology quality. So, with that in mind, I'd suggest re-casting these distinctions from "kinds of quality" to features relevant to quality, and then asking when and how those features matter, and whether and how we can measure and evaluate them.

GaryBergCross: What is the twitter handle for the 2012 Summit again?

AmandaVizedom: @GaryBergCross (and all): twitter hashtag is #ontologysummit2012

GaryBergCross: #ontologysummit2012 seems to be the twitter handle

anonymous morphed into RexBrooks

anonymous morphed into KathyEllis

anonymous1 morphed into JosephSimpson

anonymous morphed into NancyWiegand

LinePouchard: Hi Nancy

ChrisWelty: This all seems, in contrast to previous years, highly fragmented and unfocused. Will there be a higher level effort to focus the outcome of the summit?

SteveRay: @Chris: Our hope is that we will end up with some specific recommendations about where ontology is particularly well suited to help, be it in the systems engineering process itself, or in the engineered system that results. ... @ChrisWelty - I think more of a focus will emerge as the tracks become more crystallized

ChrisWelty: ...in my experience, "focus" is not an emergent quality

AliHashemi: @ChrisWelty, the reason I suggested that a focus would emerge is that it is not wholly clear to what extent of the different types of systems will be covered. Once the exact scope of the large-systems being investigated (a function of who is involved in the tracks in addition to the mission statements) will greatly narrow the focus

SimonSpero: @ChrisWelty - I think that the cross-tracks will also help lock in

SimonSpero: (it's a question)

SimonSpero: I asked if long was a dimension of big

SimonSpero: I asked if keeping data usable over archival timespans

SimonSpero: 50 years and longer

SimonSpero: [dataset provenance, citation tracking, replication awareness, etc are important issues in large scale systems engineering)

AliHashemi: PeterYim suggests to post questions here, and use the hand for indicating you want to speak.

PeterYim: ref. SteveRay's suggestion (verbal) on prefixing mailing list posts - '''please use [SystemEngineering], [EngineeredSystems], [BigDataChallenge], [Applications] & [Quality] when discussing respective track issues''' (I will document that on the wiki too, just in case people want to refresh their memories later - it'll be under: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012#nid309T

AliHashemi: A preliminary unifying narrative I see is the recommendations for various practitioners. It would seem to begin with identifying what exactly big systems are, and then explicating the various ways that ontologies apply. This would cover tracks 1 & 2. Track 4 supplements those two by providing examples, while track 3 focuses on a problem that persists at the moment.

NancyWiegand: I have an interest in what might be Track 1 or Track 4 regarding how computer architectures hold and use ontologies and other semantic components. For starters, I was thinking of looking at CUAHSI or iPlant to find out how they designed semantics into their architectures. Ilya Zaslavsky and Blazej Bulka from those respectively did answer an email on this and might be willing to give presentations. Others probably know of other systems too.

NancyWiegand: @LinePouchard -- Maybe you could talk about your system too, regarding my comment.

MatthewWest: To try to answer the question being asked about multiple data sets with the same data. What I hope will happen is that the idea of "Authoritative Source" will gain credence, so that those that are the originators of data and are properly the authoritative source will make it available so that the many do not have to curate their own copy.

TerryLongstreth: @MatthewWest: your point about "authoritative source" is well taken, but our current models all assume that the authority is a human. In an archiving environment, transferring authority over the course of years is a hard problem.

AmandaVizedom: @Terry: true of some systems, but notably not true of, e.g., sensor fusion systems (which I think would count as Big in several dimensions!

AmandaVizedom: @Larry, your point a way back about "complexity of the required ontology" can also be viewed through the lens of quality and evaluation, in this sense: one significant barrier to effective ontology evaluation is the lack of effective specifications of ontology *requirements*. Understanding how to specify ontology requirements, including what characteristics/dimensions matter to fitness-for-purpose, is one area in which, IMHO, relatively rapid progress in support of ontology quality could be made.

SimonSpero: It helps

LarryLefkowitz: @Amanda: Agreed. Walking this back even one step further, the question might be how ontology development (including requirement specification) should be driven: in the abstract (e.g, "let's build a weather ontology") vs application-driven. In the latter case, of course, one wants to aim for reusability, but there are definite advantages to having a concrete use case as a driver and as a means of validation.

anonymous morphed into PavithraKenjige

GaryBergCross: When we talk about ontology to help Big Data are we talking about Big Meta-Data? Might play well.

KenAllgood: @Gary: How would you differentiate the two?

SimonSpero: @Gary "All data is metadata"

KenAllgood: @Simon: And all metadata is data

GaryBergCross: @KenAllgood - "How would you differentiate the two?" Ontology is formalized metadata???

KenAllgood: @Gary: It could be described as such, I asked the question to gain insight into how it could be presented cleanly..

LinePouchard: @Gary: in simulation results on large supercomputers, order of magnitude in size still is one of the differences between data and metadata. Another one maybe formats, with results as scalars or arrays, and metadata as somewhat human-readable.

GaryBergCross: @Line. That magnitude factor is a great distinction. I was thinking if we are talking about VERY Big data, then we get to Big metadata...

PavithraKenjige: What are big systems? how do you define large systems? did anyone discuss it already?

MatthewWest: @Pavithra: yes this has been discussed. We got as far as the whole system being beyond the comprehension of a single person.

GaryBergCross: Nicola mentioned FuturICT at last year's Summit, so perhaps an update on that is in order.

GaryBergCross: (ref. Nicola's verbal response) Nicola, thank you for the update. It seems that the project must be considering some of the issues surfaced here.

BruceBray: Shorter subject titles would be better than longer ones

MatthewWest: @Nicola: I agree that an important aspect of the systems we are looking at that is about being intentionally constructed, indeed intentionally construct systems would have been my choice of name for clarity, but for a wider audience I think engineered systems is better, and matches systems engineering.

SimonSpero: @Nicola, @Matthew: Taxis, not Kosmos, in Hayek's terms (Made order, vs. Grown order)

AndreaWesterinen: But, use cases of 1 always work and rarely result in designs that are reusable.

AliHashemi: @Nicola and Matthew, I asked on the list, but i'll repeat here - consider someone trying to understand and do urban planning human's role in ecologies / environment / climate science ... are the people trying to understand (and in some case, conduct interventions in these systems) engaged in engineering? ... Why not _Designed_ Systems ?

AndreaWesterinen: I am not arguing against use cases, just arguing for multiple ones if reusability is a goal.

GaryBergCross: Design is part of Engineering as is analysis and implementation.

NicolaGuarino: @Ali: I agree with you, "designed" is better than "engineered". However, I want to include also the context where designed systems are placed in the notion of system. That's why I am proposing "large scale socio-technical systems"

AliHashemi: @Nicola, that works too, i don't think the notion of function is restricted to engineered systems only.

NicolaGuarino: @Ali: agreed

LarryLefkowitz: @Andrea: I concur (re multiple use cases). One proxy for that is drawing on the experience (embodied both in terms of an extant ontology and in the minds of the practioners) to design for reuse, even in the case of a single (new) app/usecase. I think we both agree that several are better than one and that one is better than none (i.e., developing in the abstract).

AliHashemi: @Gary, my point is that someone who is engaged in design planning, or someone who is trying to build a climate model, could use things from engineering, but would not necessarily define their system as an "engineered system"

AliHashemi: er, could use learning from ontology*

AliHashemi: design planning --> urban design planning*

MatthewWest: @Ali: I don't have a fixed idea of what the name of track 2 should be. If someone makes a suggestion and several others support it, I would be inclined to go with it. As far as designed systems is concerned I think it has similar problems of interpretation as engineered systems. You only need to take a narrow view of the name as you have done with engineered systems.

NicolaGuarino: On the ontology of functions, let me point to the recent special issue of Applied Ontology http://iospress.metapress.com/content/u015875jv78t/?p=ccdb1d13b00943ba931aff599352fd21&pi=2

GaryBergCross: @Ali. I see your point in an urban design planning activity. The resulting urban product might not be called "engineered", but this seems in part to me one of labeling.

SimonSpero: Tall for a philosopher, but short for a basketball player...

AliHashemi: @Gary, I'm also thinking in terms of making the content findable, and such that someone in non-ontology domain would identify with it. If part of the goal of this summit is to foster inter-disciplinary knowledge transfer, then it seems useful to make the terms accurately reflect how different cultures identify their domains.

SteveRay: @Matthew: But we have included "Large" to also mean simply Big, so I would include Facebook in scope.

SimonSpero: @MatthewWest was OS/360 a complex system?

AndreaWesterinen: @Ali: I agree. That was my point earlier about the different aspects of building, understanding, efficiently storing and then reasoning over ontologies.

GaryBergCross: Complex in relation to usual human ability to understand...but not for a chess grandmaster...

AliHashemi: @Andrea, I agree. Especially if track 2 is about ontologies that can be used to describe these systems, they will often include aspects that aren't often within the scope of traditional engineering professions.

SimonSpero: I agree: If enough people say "it is big system", that's enough for now

GaryBergCross: @Amanda I do like your related quality to the largeness and conplexity focus we have.

ChrisWelty: i suggest it would be a mistake to try and define "complex" and "big" ... even "system". It would take a lot of time, generate something most people would simply disagree with, and serve no real purpose

JosephSimpson: For complex systems you must first define the boundary of the system. If you can not clearly define the boundary, it is probably is complex.

ChrisWelty: rather, (...looking for focus...) what seems to be clear here is a nice focus on ontology quality

AliHashemi: @Chris, would it be useful to identify interpretations of systems that fall within scope of the summit?

SimonSpero: @ChrisWelty++

GaryBergCross: Are Big systems from 1970 now considered Big in 2012?

AliHashemi: At least try to make clear which systems we expect our recommendations to apply to, and which do not.

KenAllgood: @ChrisWelty: Agree, and we've run into that ourselves already

ChrisWelty: i think it woudl be useful to make a "big systems may include systems like ..." and make a clearly non-exhaustive list, and then move on

ChrisWelty: they key being to move on

MikeBennett: Apologies, have to drop off for another call. Great session!

AliHashemi: Also, isn't track 2 answering that question to a large degree?

KenAllgood: @Chris: Or at the least arrive at a list of criteria.

LarryLefkowitz: What are the next steps?

ChrisWelty: gotta go

SimonSpero: Would it help to pull a list of the domains that are currently being addressed by the NSF Datanet projects?

GaryBergCross: @ChrisWelty - I think the giving examples of Big Systems is a good one..

SteveRay: @Gary: That's what Track 4 will try to do.

MatthewWest: (ref. AliHashemi's solicitation to ALL to blog, tweet or help spread the word about OntologySummit2012) I'm on LinkedIn so I can say something there.

AliHashemi: There should be some LinkedIn groups where a thread might pick up steam (and could point here)

SteveRay: Thanks all.

AliHashemi: Thanks

GaryBergCross: Bye all.

SimonSpero: Thanks everyone

KenAllgood: Thanks Leo and Steve..

LeoObrst: Thanks, folks!

PeterYim: great session ... thanks!

NicolaGuarino: bye all!

PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:05am 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:	19-Jan-2012 9:38am~11:05am PST
 * Duration of Recording:	1 Hour 31.33 Minutes
 * Recording File Size:	       10.46 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
 * [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
 * 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_19#nid31HT
 * 2. Open chat in a new browser window: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/summit_20120119
 * 3. Download presentations for each speaker here: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_01_19#nid31HJ
 * or, 3.1 (access our shared-screen vnc server, if you are not behind a corporate firewall)

Conference Call Details

 * Date: Thursday, 19-Jan-2012
 * Start Time: 9:30am PST / 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm CET / 17:30 UTC
 * ref: World Clock
 * Expected Call Duration: ~1.5 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_20120119
 * 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_19


 * 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:
 * LeoObrst (co-chair)
 * NicolaGuarino (co-chair)
 * AliHashemi
 * AmandaVizedom
 * AndreaWesterinen
 * BobSchloss
 * BruceBray
 * ChristopherSpottiswoode
 * ChrisWelty
 * CoryCasanave
 * DougFoxvog
 * DuaneNickull
 * ElizabethFlorescu
 * EricChan
 * ErnieLucier
 * GaryBergCross
 * HensonGraves
 * JamesOdell
 * JoelBender
 * KatherineGoodier
 * JosephSimpson
 * KathyEllis
 * KenAllgood
 * LarryLefkowitz
 * LinePouchard
 * MariaKeet
 * MaryBrady
 * Martin Serrano - DERI (arrived late)
 * MatthewWest
 * MikeBennett
 * MikeDean
 * NancyWiegand
 * NikolayBorgest
 * PatCassidy
 * PavithraKenjige
 * PeterYim
 * RamGouripeddi
 * RamSriram
 * RexBrooks
 * RickSteiner
 * RosarioUcedaSosa
 * SimonSpero
 * SteveRay
 * TerryLongstreth
 * TomTinsley
 * TrishWhetzel


 * Other we were expecting (who may have joined after the roll call, or were there but weren't in the chat-room):
 * RichardDetsch
 * DicksonLukose
 * DeborahMacPherson (traveling, but will try to call in)
 * AlineMartinez
 * DaliaVaranka
 * WalidKeyrouz
 * (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:
 * ToddSchneider
 * MarcelaVegetti
 * DaveMcComb
 * ClaudiaStancati
 * DanielKless
 * SherriDeCoronado
 * ElisaKendall
 * KenLaskey
 * EricLittle
 * MichaelGruninger