ConferenceCall 2011 02 17

= OntologySummit2011: Panel Session-4 - (Track-3) "Value Metrics, Value Models and the Value Proposition" - Thu 2011_02_17 =

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology

Session Title: Value Metrics, Value Models and the Value Proposition - Take I

Session Co-chairs: Dr. ToddSchneider (Raytheon) & Mr. RexBrooks (Starbourne)

Panelists:


 * Mr. RexBrooks (Starbourne) - "Introduction" [ slides ]
 * Mr. KurtConrad (Sagebrush) - "Business Value Alignment to Support Ontology Development" [ slides ]
 * Mr. RexBrooks / Mr. ChristianFillies (Semtation GmbH ) - "Ontology Integration" [ slides ]
 * Ms. MaryBalboni (Raytheon) - "Ontology Performance" [ slides (pdf) ]
 * Dr. JohnYanosy (Rockwell Collins) - "Ontology and Business Value" [ slides ]
 * Dr. ToddSchneider (Raytheon) - "Ontology Use Maintenance" [ slides (pdf) ]


 * Archives:
 * Abstract
 * Agenda
 * Prepared presentation material (slides) can be accessed by clicking on each of the title links below:
 * [ 1-Brooks ] . [ 2-Conrad ] . [ 3-Brooks-Fillies ] . [ 4-Balboni ] . [ 5-Yanosy ] . [ 6-Schneider ]
 * Audio recording of the session
 * transcript of the online chat during the session
 * Additional Resources

Abstract
OntologySummit2011 Theme: "Making the Case for Ontology"


 * Track-3 Focus: "Value Metrics, Value Models and the Value Proposition"
 * Session Title: Value Metrics, Value Models and the Value Proposition - Take I

This is our 6th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by NIST, Ontolog, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit is: "Making the Case for Ontology."

This year's Ontology Summit seeks to address the need to provide concrete evidence of successful deployment of ontologies by examining several application domains for such examples, and in better articulating where different "strengths" of ontological representation are best applied. To support that, the summit also aims to classify the categories of applications where ontology has been, and could be, successfully applied; to identify distinct types of metrics that might be used in evaluating the return on investment in an ontology application (cost, capability, performance, etc.); to lay out some strategies for articulating a case for ontological applications; and to identify remaining challenges and roadblocks to a wider deployment of such applications that represent promising application areas and research challenges for the future. The findings of the summit will be documented in the form of a communiqué intended for public consumption.

The Panel Session today is organized by our Track-3 co-champions, who has assembled an expert panel to help us explore various aspects of Value Metrics, Value Models and the Value Proposition of Applying Ontology.

See developing details on this Summit series of events at: OntologySummit2011 (home page for this summit)

Agenda
Ontology Summit 2011 - Panel Session-4


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


 * 1. Opening (co-chair) - ToddSchneider / RexBrooks  [ slides ]
 * 2. Panelists presentations - RexBrooks, KurtConrad, RexBrooks-ChristianFillies, MaryBalboni, JohnYanosy, ToddSchneider [10~15 min. each]
 * 3. Q & A and open discussion [All: 20~30 min.] -- please refer to process above
 * 4. Wrap-up / Announcements (co-chair) - RexBrooks / ToddSchneider

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 --

[09:17] PeterYim:.

Welcome to the OntologySummit2011: Panel Session-4 (Track-3) "Value Metrics, Value Models and the Value Proposition" - Thu 2011_02_17

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology

Session Title: Value Metrics, Value Models and the Value Proposition - Take I

Session Co-chairs: Dr. ToddSchneider (Raytheon) & Mr. RexBrooks (Starbourne)

Panelists:


 * Mr. RexBrooks (Starbourne) - "Introduction"
 * Mr. KurtConrad (Sagebrush) - "Business Value Alignment to Support Ontology Development"
 * Mr. RexBrooks / Mr. ChristianFillies (Semtation GmbH) - "Ontology Integration"
 * Ms. MaryBalboni (Raytheon) - "Ontology Performance"
 * Dr. JohnYanosy (Rockwell Collins) - "Ontology and Business Value"
 * Dr. ToddSchneider (Raytheon) - "Ontology Use Maintenance"

.

[09:22] PeterYim: please refer to session details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_02_17

[09:26] SteveRay: All Hail Watson!

[09:28] NicolaGuarino: Hi everybody

[09:29] RexBrooks: Hi All

[09:30] anonymous morphed into BruceBray

[09:32] PatBarkman: hi

[09:34] LeoObrst: Hi, all. My old bearded collie was named Watson, and so I was rooting against the humans. ;)

[09:34] BobSmith: Hello, and Rex, your voice is still fuzzy

[09:35] anonymous morphed into AlexMirzaoff

[09:39] SteveRay: Cheat sheet: *3 to un-mute; *2 to mute

[09:40] vnc2: session starts

[09:41] vnc2: == RexBrooks - introduction ==

[09:46] anonymous morphed into PavithraKenjige

[09:48] anonymous1 morphed into KurtConrad

[09:48] KurtConrad: I'm here

[09:48] SteveRay: Cheat sheet: *3 to un-mute; *2 to mute

[09:49] SteveRay: == KurtConrad presents ==

[09:51] anonymous morphed into RamGouripeddi

[09:54] MichaelGruninger: @Kurt: What are the agents in "agent-specific alignments"?

[09:56] PavithraKenjige: Actually I could hear you, but a little low voice

[09:56] MichaelGruninger: thanks!

[09:56] anonymous morphed into JohnYanosy

[09:56] SteveRay: We're on slide 4

[09:59] SteveRay: Maybe it's just me, but if I were a business person trying to decide whether to invest in an ontological approach, I would be very lost by now.

[10:01] JohnYanosy: This slide is very informative with respect to understanding knolwedge sources, not sure how to incorporate tacit knowledge into ontologies

[10:06] LeoObrst: @Kurt: there is also a technical notion of "dynamic semantics" for natural language semantics that goes back to Kamp, Heim in the early 1980s and Groenendijk and Stokhof in 1990, 1991, that has subsequently been developed by others.

[10:04] SteveRay: == RexBrooks presents ==

[10:04] SteveRay: Go ahead. We can use the downloaded version as well.

[10:06] anonymous morphed into Sarah Goldman

[10:08] PatBarkman: novice here ... anyone want to state what "common tool" he's talking about? Semaphore/smartlogic?

[10:09] SteveRay: Not sure why the name wasn't mentioned. It could have been a UML tool like Enterprise Architect, MagicDraw, or Rational Rose.

[10:09] PatBarkman: ahhh ... thanks Steve

[10:24] RexBrooks: @Pat, as far as modeling tools, SemTalk makes Visio into a real modeling tool, at least for BPMN and several other specific kinds of specialized analytics. It can output XMI and that allows me to import it into Enterprise Architect that then gives me all the UML I need and then some. Both SemTalk and EA output images of diagrams and generate code and have dedicated back end databases. i'm still working on getting some of the conceptualizing into Compendium.

[10:25] PatBarkman: @Rex ... thanks that helps.

[10:13] SteveRay: Still anxious to start hearing suggested metrics...cost? development time? capability? system performance?

[10:15] PatBarkman: I have the same questions, Steve ... cost/benefit breakdowns

[10:19] RexBrooks: @Steve, don't worry, its coming.

[10:19] RexBrooks: @Steve, Since I knew there was all that coming, I felt free to deal with expectations and focusing on the Value Proposition more than the Value Metrics and Models.

[10:19] SteveRay: OK

[10:24] ToddSchneider: Steve, are we getting closer?

[10:24] RexBrooks: hehe

[10:15] SteveRay: By the way, Todd was very clear just now on the phone.

[10:17] RexBrooks: @Pat Sorry, SemTalk uses Visio but adds semantic capabilities to it. I happen to be involved with SemTalk USA and wanted to avoid the appearance of attempting to sell a product.

[10:17] PatBarkman: thanks Rex

[10:25] PeterYim: @MaryBalboni - ref. your slide#5, is there a maturity model for ontology that you are using currently?

[10:25] ToddSchneider: Peter, I don't think so.

[10:25] PatBarkman: ... and yes I'm luvin' the MA here great job Mary!

[10:27] RexBrooks: @Peter I am pretty sure there isn't one that has much support yet.

[10:29] PeterYim: ref. maturity model, it may be nice to compare what is out there ... e.g. ref. LeoObrst's OMM which he posted to the [ontology-summit] list yesterday (http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2011-02/msg00061.html ) - which is at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/reference/ontologyMaturityModel-obrst-2009.pdf

[10:29] SteveRay: @Todd: Yes, I'm breathing a bit easier. So far I'm hearing Performance, and Cost, with some good expansion of each. The reason I'm asking is because I'm thinking of how this will integrate into the other tracks - Use cases, and Application framework.

[10:29] ToddSchneider: Steve, understood.

[10:31] SteveRay: Not sure I would conflate risk and performance...

[10:32] JohnYanosy: great job

[10:32] SteveRay: Great talk by Mary - brings out some good metrics.

[10:33] MaryBalboni: thank you

[10:33] PatBarkman: yes ... I think that's a jump as well Steve, but given the maturity/prevalance of ontology implementations ... it's a fair stepping stone in MA

[10:33] Ramdsriram: Are there any case studies (with data) out there which describe how ontologies improved a system performance?

[10:33] JohnYanosy: Todd, I will have to be leaving soon for a customer meeting, approx 15 minutes

[10:33] ToddSchneider: All, we have to save questions. JohnYanosy has a hard stop time.

[10:34] RexBrooks: It's almost time to introduce John.

[10:34] PeterYim: @Todd ... are you doing Q&A after all the panelists have finished their presentations?

[10:37] ToddSchneider: Peter, yes.

[10:34] PatBarkman: thanks Mary ... great job ... will be referencing your work in mine, so thanks

[10:35] PavithraKenjige: thank you Mary

[10:35] MaryBalboni: thanks everyone - glad to be part of this group

[10:38] LeoObrst: Concerning ONTOCOM, which is basically an ontology cost model, it identifies as cost drivers: Building, Reuse, Personnel, and Project, with sub-categories for each of these. Example: Building: Domain Analysis Complexity, Conceptualization Complexity, Implementation Complexity, Instantiation Complexity, Required Reusability, Documentation Needs. Etc. It also has developed a spreadsheet with these factors, and one can compute the estimated cost based on their data and factor weights - http://ontocom.sti-innsbruck.at/.

[10:38] SteveRay: I interpret John's presentation as addressing Capability as the metric in question.

[10:40] SteveRay: It's very hard to quantify Capability in the abstract, but in specific examples they could be enumerated.

[10:40] ToddSchneider: John is providing a operational view.

[10:41] RexBrooks: John's work is particularly useful in the SOA context, especially the emerging ecosystem view.

[10:42] RexBrooks: But the evaluation metrics need to be fleshed out a bit.

[10:42] SteveRay: Slide 4 has some good raw material for metrics.

[10:43] RexBrooks: It's difficult to measure inferencing except for accuracy, e.g. internal consistency with its own definitions.

[10:44] ToddSchneider: Rex, the performance of inferencing should be measurable.

[10:44] PatBarkman: Thanks John

[10:46] JohnYanosy: You are welcome and sorry for not being able to provide more detail, but will be posting more material on the wiki and think the previous metrics would be interesting to apply to these business areas. Great job and will be more active in future. Good by thanks

[10:44] RexBrooks: We'll get there eventually Todd,

[10:45] BobbinTeegarden: Is part of the value of inferencing in code NOT written (and associated costs')?

[10:46] MaryBalboni: Thanks Todd - :)

[10:47] PeterYim: == ToddSchneider presenting ==

[10:50] SteveRay: @Todd: Just because the consequence of error is different, it doesn't follow the METRIC is different, just that the value and weighting of that metric may be different.

[10:52] RexBrooks: There are some real misunderstandings about the differences between qualitative and quantitative metric and the relationship between them, but that's almost a topic of its own. I come from an Advertising background and we had to provide quant. to satisfy the customer's need to rationalize while appealing to unstated qual. that are often the actual driving motivation to purchase or not in the marketplace.

[10:52] LeoObrst: As part of the DARPA HPKB (High Performance Knowledge Bases) and RKF (Rapid Knowledge Formation) programs, large ontology integration efforts to solve a command and control/situational awareness problem, the Program Manager Murray Burke (and before him, Dave Gunning) tried to capture ontology axiom reuse metrics.

[10:54] BobbinTeegarden: @Leo Results of that reuse work? Any references online?

[11:15] LeoObrst: @Bobbin: yes, some of it is online. See the paper Schrag, Robert, Mike Pool, Vinay Chaudhri, Robert C. Kahlert, Joshua Powers, Paul Cohen, Julie Fitzgerald, and Sunil Mishra. Experimental Evaluation of Subject Matter Expert-oriented Knowledge Base Authoring Tools.

[10:56] MikeBennett: Does this mean that it would be possible to define a quantitative difference between ontologies with losts of "Equivalent class" links versus ontologies which make use of high level patterns or archetypes? Could this make the case for better use of sharing and integration ontologies? Just a thought.

[10:56] SteveRay: OK. So far I have heard the following classes of metrics: Cost, Capability, Performance, Quality, System Complexity. Any others?

[10:58] SteveRay: People can un-mute themselves. *3 to un-mute; *2 to mute

[10:58] MaryBalboni: Maturity related to the depth of model and breadth of validation ...

[11:00] SteveRay: @Mary: Wouldn't maturity manifest itself to a customer in terms of capability? In other words, I would put the maturity of a model as a property that feeds in to the capability metric.

[11:01] SteveRay: @Mary: Put another way, I would imagine that a customer isn't as interested in the maturity of an embedded ontology itself, but rather in how that might affect performance of their system.

[11:01] MaryBalboni: @SteveRay - more capability may be part of maturity - or could be more correctness while operational --- also had thoughts on Complexity can be measured like the old Halsteads measures perhaps...

[11:02] SteveRay: @Mary: OK. I accept that model maturity can manifest itself through several classes of metrics, including correctness (which think of as a specialization of the Quality metric).

[11:03] MaryBalboni: Operators and operands were counted and an assumption was made on how complex code was based on those numbers - not sure if Ontology could be discected in such a way

[11:03] PeterYim: unlike other maturity models, the Capability Maturity Model for Software Engineering (SEI CMM) for example, in Ontology, "more mature" may correlate with "more sophisticated, and better grasp of semantics (stronger semantics) in the system" and may not correlate directly with performance, much less effectiveness, or even whether it is appropriate. ... Therefore: (a) mapping metrics to the application framework may be necessary, (b) different metrics should be expected at different level of Ontology Maturity (as how the the applications are implemented would be radically different.)

[11:03] SteveRay: I'm trying to separate in my own mind the distinction between intrinsic measures of an ontology, versus extrinsic metrics of business value which will be the ones that a customer or decision maker will be evaluating when being pitched.

[11:06] RexBrooks: I'd be interested to hear how people think we can measure inferencing.

[11:06] AlexMirzaoff: by success of the inference?

[11:07] SteveRay: @Rex: Also by maximum compute time

[11:07] RexBrooks: What happens if the inference extends over different systems that may offer different definitions in different cases?

[11:08] BobbinTeegarden: Measure value of inference in terms of equivalent code it would take to do the same thing in code (as a 'savings' or negative cost)?

[11:09] MaryBalboni: cost avoidance

[11:09] BobbinTeegarden: No, genuine 'savings'?

[11:09] RexBrooks: @Bobbin: Excellent. Never thought of that. Point is, we need lots of use cases to check against.

[11:11] MikeBennett: On CMM, there is also a "Data Management Maturity Model" in development by the EDM Council, in collaboration with Carnegie Mellon as owners of the CMM model. This is still in very early stages of development, so there is potential to input to this with metrics for ontology maturity if / when these are defined.

[11:11] PatBarkman: but I think there are intrinsic benefits in using CMMi (MA/PPQA) in a before/after comparision ... an existing implementation that gets an ontology added to the architecture

[11:14] RexBrooks: @Pat: Yes, seeing the difference in those before and after results would lead to new insights, I'm sure.

[11:15] MichaelGruninger: Since we want to demonstrate the benefits of ontologies, let's first consider the benefits in a software application. We can leverage the existing approaches to software engineering by considering functional and nonfunctional requirements. For functional requirements, we need to demonstrate that ontologies can be used to deliver new functionalities. For nonfunctional requirements, we can use existing software metrics such as performance, cost, quality, maintenance. In each case, we want to compare an application without an ontology and an application with an ontology, and show that there is an improvement.

[11:11] SteveRay: I completely concur with the points just made by MichaelGruninger.

[11:12] PeterYim: +1

[11:13] RexBrooks: +2

[11:17] BobbinTeegarden: There must be some way to capture the wider comprehension, collaborative common interactions, group understanding, ease of extension, ... some of the things that make use of ontologies truly a step forward.

[11:17] RexBrooks: == Leo presenting his maturity model ==

[11:17] RexBrooks: Peter just put it up on the vnc!

[11:19] TerryLongstreth: Leo's is a very valuable start, but it doesn't address cost/value

[11:17] MaryBalboni: DoDAF also is expanding their framework to concentrate on data such as the CMMI-DM - have not explored if DoDAF new version is addressing Ontology/semantics in detail

[11:18] RexBrooks: @Mary: Slowly pulling teeth along the way--I participate in DoDAF Metamodel 2 WG.

[11:20] MaryBalboni: @Rex DoDAF is a late bloomer in Data Modeling .. :)

[11:20] RexBrooks: @Mary: Yup!

[11:07] PavithraKenjige: How Are these different than system development life cycle?

[11:18] MichaelGruninger: On the other side, there are costs associated with using ontologies within an application, and perhaps these are not completely covered by the analogy to software engineering

[11:20] ToddSchneider: Michael, one of those out-of-band costs/risks is the availability of experienced people to do the work

[11:20] AlanRector: For us, the notions of sustainability and persistence are more relevant than maturity - or perhaps are some of the relevant metrics for maturity for ontologies.

[11:21] MichaelGruninger: Did the software engineering community ever do an analysis of the benefits of using object-oriented approaches to software design? We are perhaps facing an analogous problem ...

[11:21] SteveRay: @Todd: Your point raises the additional metric of Risk (in this case, risk of not being able to maintain the system over time, for example).

[11:22] JeffZhuk: Mary, did you start using ontology or in the development stage?

[11:23] AlanRector: One key step for our cases is when the primary identifiers ontology moves from text identifiers that inevitably change and are language specific to "nonsemantic IDs", and when there is a sensible ID management scheme in place with the display names in annotations (usually rdf:label or one of the skos:label family.

[11:24] MaryBalboni: @MichaelGruningerThere have been OO studies in SW Development - Rationale may have study papers .. probably biased .. but the OO giants in industry are at Rationale

[11:25] MaryBalboni: @Yefim Jeff Not at the moment implementing an Ontology but interested in its usefulness in an IA domain

[11:26] AlanRector: Maturity of "ontology technology" rather than of a specific ontology?

[11:28] MikeBennett: Mills did mention one or two case studies where there were measured costs of doing it the hard way, and then using ontologies. However most of our Case Studies to date have not included explicit metrics.

[11:33] PeterYim: folks from Canada did have some hard numbers - ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2011-02/msg00017.html & 2nd presentation at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2010-12/msg00002.html

[11:30] SteveRay: Probably about time to wrap things up...

[11:31] JeffZhuk: Thanks!

[11:31] PatBarkman: Productive and informative ... great session, thanks all

[11:31] SteveRay: Thanks for a good session!

[11:31] MaryBalboni: thanks to all!

[11:33] PeterYim: Great session ... thank you!

[11:33] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:32am 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:	17-Feb-2011 9:40am~10:32am PST
 * Duration of Recording:	1 Hour 43 Minutes
 * Recording File Size:	       11.8 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 OntologySummit2011
 * Ontology Summit 2011 Launch Event - ConferenceCall_2011_01_20
 * "Ontology Application Framework" session - ConferenceCall_2011_02_03
 * "Ontology Applications & Use Cases - I" - ConferenceCall_2011_01_27
 * "Ontology Applications & Use Cases - II" - ConferenceCall_2011_02_10
 * [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 this annual Summit series - see: OntologySummit

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)

 * 1. Dial in with a phone: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_02_17#nid2NHA
 * 2. Open chat in a new browser window: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontolog_20110217
 * 3. Download presentations for each speaker here: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_02_17#nid2NGZ
 * or, 3.1 (access our shared-screen vnc server, if you are not behind a corporate firewall)

Conference Call Details

 * Date: Thursday 17-Feb-2011
 * Start Time: 9:30am PST / 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm CET / 5:30pm GMT / 17:30 UTC
 * see world clock for other time zones
 * do note that this is 1 hour earlier than the usual 1:30 EST Ontolog event time!
 * Expected Call Duration: ~2.0 hours
 * Dial-in Number:
 * from a US telephone (US): +1-218-844-8060 (domestic long distance cost will apply)
 * When calling in from a phone, use Conference ID: "4389979#"
 * from Europe, call:
 * Austria 0820-4000-1577
 * Belgium 070-35-9992
 * France 0826-100-280
 * Germany 01805-00-7642
 * Ireland 0818-270-037
 * Italy 848-390-179
 * Spain 0902-886-056
 * Switzerland 0848-560-327
 * UK 0844-581-9148
 * callers from other countries please dial into either one of the US or European numbers


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


 * Discussions and Q & A:
 * (Unless the conference host has already muted everyone) Please mute your phone, by pressing "*2" on your phone keypad, when a presentation is in progress. To un-mute, press "*3"
 * You can type in your questions or comments through the browser based chat session by:
 * pointing a separate browser tab (or window) to http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room and enter: Room="ontolog_20110217" and My Name="Your Own Name" (e.g. "JaneDoe")
 * or point your browser to: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontolog_20110217
 * instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field). 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.
 * (when everyone is muted) If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, 'please "raise your hand (virtually)" by click on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the speaker or the session moderator (again, press "*3" on your phone to unmute). 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 "*2" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)
 * 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_20110217@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!


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


 * RSVP to [mailto:peter.yim@cim3.com peter.yim@cim3.com] appreciated.


 * 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_2011_02_17


 * Please note that this session will be recorded, and the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.

Attendees:

 * Attended:
 * RexBrooks
 * PeterYim
 * MaryBalboni
 * JohnYanosy
 * ToddSchneider
 * KurtConrad
 * SteveRay
 * NicolaGuarino
 * JackPark
 * BruceBray
 * TerryLongstreth
 * AlStevens
 * AmandaVizedom
 * BobSmith
 * YefimZhuk
 * RamSriram
 * LeoObrst
 * PavithraKenjige
 * YuriyMilov
 * ElgarPichler
 * AlanRector
 * BobbinTeegarden
 * JackRing
 * MichaelGruninger
 * MikeBennett
 * YuLin
 * PatBarkman
 * RamkiranGouripeddi
 * SarahGoldman
 * AlexMirzaoff
 * HasanSayani
 * BoNewman


 * Expecting:
 * MarcWalker
 * SylvereKrima
 * AnneHunt
 * SinaMadani
 * ChristopherBaker
 * ... if you are coming to the session, please add your name above (plus your affiliation, if you aren't already a member of the community) above; or e-mail  so that we can reserve enough resources to support everyone's participation. ...
 * ... if you are coming to the session, please add your name above (plus your affiliation, if you aren't already a member of the community) above; or e-mail  so that we can reserve enough resources to support everyone's participation. ...


 * Regrets:
 * ChristianFillies
 * AldenDima