ConferenceCall 2009 11 05

= OntologySummit2010 (Pre-launch) Community Input and Planning Session - Thu 2009-11-05 =


 * Topic: Refining the ideas around the challenge of OntologySummit2010: "Creating the Ontologists of the Future"


 * Co-chair: Dr. SteveRay & Professor BarrySmith


 * Agenda: This is a (pre-launch) communitywide brainstorming and planning session for OntologySummit2010.


 * Archives:
 * Slides: . [ 1-Ray ] . [ 2-Smith ]
 * audio recording of the session (mp3)
 * transcript of the online chat during the panel discussion

Conference Call Details

 * Date: Thursday, 5-November-2009 
 * Start Time: 10:30am PST / 1:30pm EST / 7:30pm CET / 6:30pm GMT / 18:30 UTC
 * see world clock for other time zones
 * Expected Call Duration: 2.0~2.5 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_20091105" and My Name="Your Own Name" (e.g. "JaneDoe")
 * or point your browser to: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontolog_20091105
 * 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_20091105@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_2009_11_05


 * 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:
 * SteveRay (co-chair)
 * BarrySmith (co-chair)
 * LeoObrst
 * AmandaVizedom
 * TerryLongstreth
 * KurtConrad
 * FabianNeuhaus
 * BettinaSchimanski
 * PeterYim
 * KenBaclawski
 * YavuzEren
 * DougHolmes
 * MikeBennett
 * MichaelGruninger
 * FrankChum
 * AntonyGalton
 * JeffAbbott
 * ArturoSanchez
 * RexBrooks
 * ToddSchneider
 * PavithraKenjige
 * RaviSharma


 * (Also) Expected - registered participants:
 * AlexanderGarcia
 * AndrewOsterman
 * SanjivaNath
 * DeniseBedford
 * ... 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:
 * JamesDavenport
 * HowardMason
 * MatthewWest
 * NicolaGuarino

Abstract
Increasingly, major national and international projects centered on ontology technology are being advanced by governments and by scientific and industrial organizations. This brings a growing need for ontology expertise and thus for new methods and institutions for the training of ontologists. The 2010 Ontology Summit will explore strategies to address this need in terms of curriculum, establishment of new career tracks, role of ontology support organizations and funding agencies, as well as training in the analysis and comparison of methodologies for designing, maintaining, implementing, testing and applying ontologies and associated tools and resources.

This is a a (pre-launch) communitywide brainstorming and planning session for those who are passionate about the subject and would like to influence and help drive the outcome by helping refine the ideas, organization and process, around our challenge of OntologySummit2010: "Creating the Ontologists of the Future."

See: our Ontology Summit 2010 Home page at: OntologySummit2010


 * See also:
 * OntologySummit2009
 * OntologySummit2008
 * OntologySummit2007
 * UpperOntologySummit (2006)

Agenda & Proceedings:
1. Introduction and ideas  SteveRay (co-chair)

2. Some more ideas  BarrySmith (co-chair)

3. Open floor for even more ideas (All) -- please refer to [ process above]


 * Brainstorming of ideas that support the "Creating the Ontologists of the Future." theme
 * o Topics, Speakers, Invitees, Sponsors, Marketing, ... and more

4. Summary and wrap-up (SteveRay)

Proceedings:
Please refer to the archives above

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:

(The chat transcript below has been lightly edited to help improve on clarity of the conversation.)

VNC2: Welcome to the OntologySummit2010 (Pre-launch) Community Input and Planning Session - Thu 2009-11-05


 * Topic: Refining the ideas around the challenge of OntologySummit2010: Creating the Ontologists of the Future


 * Co-chair: Dr. SteveRay & Professor BarrySmith


 * Agenda: This is a (pre-launch) communitywide brainstorming and planning session for OntologySummit2010.

Please refer to details on the session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2009_11_05

anonymous morphed into BettinaSchimanski

anonymous morphed into KurtConrad

anonymous morphed into ArturoSanchez

anonymous1 morphed into AntonyGalton

anonymous morphed into JeffAbbott

anonymous1 morphed into BarrySmith

anonymous morphed into FabianNeuhaus

anonymous morphed into RexBrooks

TerryLongstreth: @barry: is this an extension of computer application development? What are the pre-reqs?

PeterYim: @Barry - can one get properly "trained" on OWL 2.0, say, in
 * one day* ?

PeterYim: or "ontology mapping" or even "logic for ontologists" ... you would probably need a whole bunch of prerequisites to make the "one day" plan

ToddSchneider: Barry, why is university accreditation needed? Are there other organizations that could do this?

FrankChum: @Todd, to guarantee a certain standard?

ToddSchneider: How about the Open Group? They provide administrative services.

SteveRay: I'm thinking that assembling a curriculum comes first, then certification comes afterwards.

ToddSchneider: Barry, how were these costs arrived at?

ToddSchneider: Steve, I agree: The curriculum could be compressed to the certification. I talked with Barry about this approach.

SteveRay: @Todd: What do you mean, "compressed to the certification"?

BettinaSchimanski: How would this certification compare to other certifications that already exist, like from Semsphere (http://www.semsphere.com/)?

BettinaSchimanski: I would like to clarify - I did not mention Semsphere for any marketing reasons as I am not affiliated in any way with this company. I just mentioned it as an example of another company that also has provided certification possibilities.

ToddSchneider: Steve, I'm assuming a curriculum would be more comprehensive and a certification would be a subset of it.

ToddSchneider: The notion to be addressed is interoperability in the broader sense.

ArturoSanchez: Ontology creation and ontology use are tighly coupled ...

PeterYim: do we *really* need "ontologists"? ... is it a profession, or a role tagged onto some exisiting professionals ... what is an Ontologists anyway? How many types of "ontologists" are there? ... maybe what we need are knowledge-engineers-plus, or software-engineers-plus, or systemn-architects-plus (where, "plus" meaning those people with some additional training)

PeterYim: Marketing questions -
 * who needs "ontologists"?
 * how big is the "market" for (various types of) ontologists? ... now, and in 1,3,5 years?
 * how are we expecting "ontologists" to be showing up as?
 * bring them in-house, as part of the software team?
 * go to a university, and support their professors and research students to get the work done?
 * hire an independent consultant?
 * go to an established "professional services" firm that has the expertise to offer?
 * assuming you were the hiring manager ... how much are you willing to pay for the expertise?

DougHolmes: So, in what significant way is an "ontologist" different from a knowledge engineer? There are courses of instruction that exist in that area that might be leveraged...

anonymous morphed into PavithraKenjige

PeterYim: ArturoSanchez expressed interest to support in an environmental scan on the issue at hand

PeterYim: we can do an online survey (like we did in OntologySummit2007) ... join AntonyGalton et al. in their IAOA effort?

ToddSchneider: Ontology development paradigms are more aligned with systems engineering.

BettinaSchimanski: I agree that designing and building ontologies does not solely rely on Computer Scientists. They are the ones to implement them. The content, however, must come from SMEs, and not just from biologists as was just mentioned.

PeterYim: I got a proposal (from someone who has been watching how we were doing the past summits) suggesting that we should have "proposals" prepared as part of the summit deliverables ... that would take us one more step, beyond just releasing a communique.

RexBrooks: What kind of proposal did this person mean, Peter?

PeterYim: @Rex - that person was referring to grant proposals

RexBrooks: Thanks for the clarification. Would this be proposals in response to RFPs, or unsolicited in terms of target area?

AmandaVizedom: @Peter: I like the proposal to prepare proposals very much. I'd like to suggest that this, too, be modular in that we will have an easier time working through proposals if those focusing on overall architecture are separate from those focusing on content segments, audience, requirements, etc.

ToddSchneider: Ontology Works and Top Quadrant already provide training services, among others. Could we get them to cooperate?

SteveRay: @Todd: I was just talking to Ralph Hodgson of TopQuadrant about this yesterday, and he did have some suggestions, so I'd say yes, I believe they would participate.

FrankChum: Semantic Arts also provide a 5-day ontology design training course

BettinaSchimanski: @Todd: I know Top Quadrant has been very open with training at conferences so I would think, if invited, they might be interested. I am unfamiliar with Ontology Works.

AmandaVizedom: If we want to produce a truly usable and meaningful certification, we need to make sure we are addressing, in both content and presentation, the broad range of very different practices that come under the heading of Ontology.

BettinaSchimanski: @Frank: I am also aware of this Semantic Arts course and have good things to say about it.

FrankChum: @Bettina: The course has been taught by DaveMcComb and his staff. I took it a few years ago. It was really good.

AmandaVizedom: ... I don't mean the bad stuff, obviously. I do mean that we need to consider that some ontologists are focused on creating a single-viewed best possible model of some part of the world, in abstraction from any particular user community or context. Some are explicitly focused on creating a model of the world as conceptualized by members of some community of practice. Some work within a domain and some work across domains.

FrankChum: We may need to certify the trainers first!

ArturoSanchez: yes

AmandaVizedom: It is absolutely critical that new ontologists have some understanding of what practices they are part of, and be able to distill and understand methodological guidances in that context.

ArturoSanchez: So, that is another thread of discussion. What does ONTOLOG think

ArturoSanchez: a good certificate program should look like ...

ArturoSanchez: Wow, good ear!

LeoObrst: I was going to mention the IAOA too, as a potential certifier of the certification programs, to provide trustworthiness.

SteveRay: @Leo - that might be a better legal entity to do the certification of the certifiers than Ontolog.

ArturoSanchez: Legal issues aside, ONTOLOG--as part of this upcoming summit--

FrankChum: There is a class of people out there building database/xml schemas and convert them into ontologies and then call themselves ontologists

BettinaSchimanski: @Frank: That is another possibility for a module topic. I do not have a background with database work but often when I work with others who have, they want to know what benefits ontologies offer that databases cannot provide. It is not often a straightforward discussion.

FrankChum: @Bettina: Yep. Explaining ontology concept to database people can turn into lengthy discussions.

BettinaSchimanski: Great, I'm glad to hear Deb is already aware of the summit and will be a part of it. I'm sure therefore that Jim knows about it as well. I also agree that more than a Computer Science presence needs to be there. Any suggestions?

DougHolmes: There is a joint initiative between MIT and the University of Southampton in England called The Web Science Research Initiative (WSRI) that probably ought to be part of this summit...

ArturoSanchez: propose a formal curriculum that would define what an ontologist is ...

BettinaSchimanski: @Doug: On that same note, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute has two key Semantic Technologists (JimHendler and DebMcGuinness) who have developed a curriculum that should perhaps also be considered for inclusion in ths summit.

DougHolmes: @Bettina I think it be very good to have Jim as part of this Summit

PeterYim: @Bettina - I did speak to DebMcGuinness last week, and has her support for this upcoming Summit

ArturoSanchez: @Bettina: DeborahMcGuinness is an habitue of the summit ... it would be great to have JamesHendler as well ...

FrankChum: @Bettina: Yes, but both of them are computer scientist and sometimes they are not the ideal people to do ontology modeling.

ArturoSanchez: @FrankChum: "sometimes they are not the ideal people to do ontology modeling." **this puzzles me ... can you elaborate?

AmandaVizedom: @Barry - Suggestion: replace current module 13 (UCore) with a module that surveys the landscape of existing, in-use ontologies: where they come from, what there characteristics (logically, in use, etc.) are, what they can and should be used for, how to find and assess more.

PavithraKenjige: Steve : I beleive to build Ontology one needs to understand, logic of relationships of things, how they can be described ( properties) in ones domain. I am not sure where exactly the phsycology fits in! However, people with phycology communicate with people well, not necessarily things..

DougHolmes: Thanks Ken; I have a very hard time distinguishing what we seem to be talking about from knowledge engineering...

BettinaSchimanski: When I (a Computer Scientist) have designed ontologies, I have often partnered with a Technical Librarian. That is what made it successful in my opinion.

LeoObrst: I periodically teach a series of 3 courses through our MITRE Institute, each 8 hrs long: 1) Introduction to semantics, ontologies, knowledge representation, and Semantic Web technologies; 2) a more foundational course, Introduction to Logic and Logic Programming (this really should be taught first, in my opinion); and 3) an advanced course on Ontology Engineering and Applications of Ontologies. These are currently scheduled independently, but I am considering teaching them in sequence in one week. I've found these are too short at 8 hrs each, and yet that is all people can allocate time for, at least here, i.e., maximally 24 hrs over 3 days.

AmandaVizedom: Indeed, RPI is another frequent producer of nascent ontologists, as is UMD. RPI seems to be coming out of CS. There are many strong ontologists working today who came originally from Philosophy, Linguistics, Information Sciences, and so forth. To be usable by folks who want to hire ontologists, the certificate may incorporate elements that originated in all of these and more, but the focus must be not on theoretical background for its own sake, but on the actual knowledge and skill needed to do good work as a working ontologist.

PeterYim: @Amanda - I talked to TimFinin (UMD) at ISWC last week, and he is very supportive too!

DougHolmes: I personally think that even a small step away from computer science leads immediately and inevitably to philosophy and there is no bottom to that swamp...

FrankChum: @Auturo: As Bettina mentioned, with Librarian, also social scientist, domain knowledge engineers.

BettinaSchimanski: Maybe it helps too that my background is in Artificial Intelligence / Cognitive Science.

BettinaSchimanski: I think those fields might need to be included as well.

FrankChum: Philosopher too.

ArturoSanchez: @FrankChum: strongly agree ... the ontology is the collaborative product of modelers and--so-called--domain experts ...

AmandaVizedom: @Doug: That's only true of bad philosophy. (half-joking, bc I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but serious in saying that while some critical elements come from philosophy, including conceptual analysis, applied ontology (as opposed to the philosophical subfield of ontology) is distinct from that ancestral home in part because it does
 * not* include unconstrained swamp-diving, except when done badly.

DougHolmes: @Amanda no slight intended to philosophers or Philosophy; it just takes a very long time to resolve anything in that realm

BettinaSchimanski: @All: I enjoyed this discussion and look forward to further ones. Unfortunately I need to leave now for another meeting. Have a good day!

SteveRay: @Bettina - thanks for your participation.

MikeBennett: There are also a bunch of people at Brunel who are working in the ontology area. Might be worth talking to them?

PeterYim: @MikeBennett and all - can you, or anyone here, identify who these people are ... and/or talk to them on behalf of this community

MikeBennett: @Peter: will do. The person to talk to at Brunel is Sergio de Cesare, I'll drop him a mail and copy you.

PeterYim: @MikeBennett - great! thanks

JeffAbbott: Peter and group, I just wanted to put down my input in text, in case I don't get may audio working. We come from a Human Systems Integration (HSI)perspective. We have the first HSI certification program in the USA online at UCSD in San Diego, that is supported by UCSD and SPAWAR. We always do an Analysis of Alternative (AOA), see what's out there before we proceed as part of our process. We are currently developing a HSI for the System Engineer course. Peter, I just got back from the W3C and attended the HCLS Healthcare group (where I also talked with Mark Musen) and the Healthcare group certainly uses ontologies and deals with the integration of ontologies, which could be a course by itself.

JeffAbbott: Yes, System Engineering. We are doing the HSI to SE (because it's in one of our domains) and would like to do Ontology to SE.

PavithraKenjige: Jeff, I agree with that. I learnt it when I was studying software systems engineering..

BettinaSchimanski: @Steve and Barry - thank you for your presentations and proposals.

FrankChum: http://videolectures.net/Top/Computer_Science/Semantic_Web/Ontologies/

JeffAbbott: Pavithra and group, you have to develop curriculum to the audience and it's logic and level of ability and need.

LeoObrst: @Todd: I taught an elective course on my topic 1 to UVA's Accelerated Masters program in Systems Engineering.

PeterYim: @Antony and All - please document the salient points you just talked about on this chat board, if you please (that will help tremendously when I start boiling the input down to a work plan, and to manage follow-up activities)

AntonyGalton: Just to put on written record what I was saying. The IAOA include educational matters as an important part of its activities. One thing we want to do is to compile a database of what is already out there, i.e., existing courses or modules with ontological content, much along the lines of what Arturo suggested, and I have already started work on this - but so far I mainly only have material from the UK. Another idea is to create a library of resources that teachers can draw on when designing courses, e.g., research papers, tutorial material, example ontologies in various formats, editing tools, etc. A third idea is to put together a set of recommendations for a set of "standard" curricula. This could relate to the idea that was mentioned about IAOA being a possible certification or accreditation body for ontological courses. Finally, I drew attention to the workshop we are planning to hold at FOIS 2010 on ontology education - we will need to look at how we can coordinate this with the activities of this summit. I'll be distributing a call for contributions for this workshop soon.

FrankChum: @Doug: BarrySmith was (or still is) a philosopher'

JeffAbbott: You need a ontology basis to go between domains and get a System of Systems view.

MikeBennett: @Doug: I disagree profoundly. Ontology should be multi-disciplinary (think santa Fe type of approach). It has philosopical underpinnings if it's done right. IT/comp sci does not, if it's done wrong

ArturoSanchez: @AntonyGalton: great ideas! I'll look into the FOIS workshop you mentioned ...

AmandaVizedom: @Arturo, @Frank: Yes, this is a critical point of difference between contemporary applied ontologists due and both some theoretical ontology (in philosophy) and some historical projects: By far the majority of projects are collaborative in many ways, including between ontological specialists and subject matter experts. Many people who have theoretical training turn out to be unable to do applied ontology in such contexts. Also, a dismaying number of both supposedly-trained ontologists and customers are unaware of the substantial research that has taken place in the last 20 years -- especially the last 10 -- around these collaborations and the consequences of moving the input/formalization closer to, or further away from, the SMEs.

PeterYim: ToddSchneider suggested that BarrySmith might come up with an ontology on the domain of "education and training of ontologists"

ToddSchneider: So Barry, are you suggesting a department of ontology would focus on research in the domain of ontology?

DougHolmes: @Mike I think that a multi-disciplinary perspective is good - probably essential, but I also think there is an essential engineering perspective that has to be grounded in a particular product. That is, as far as I can see, a computer science product...

MikeBennett: @Doug, it is certainly engineering and should be grounded in well established engineering methodology. This is what I don't tend to see when IT folks who call themselves engineers, get hold of a new toy or a new language to learn. Results can be variable!

AmandaVizedom: @Doug: None taken! Just piping up because sometimes people focus on the more abstracted or least empirically connected schools, within certain subareas of philosophy, thinking that's all there is. There are, however, a substantial number of us out here with Ph.D.s in philosophy *and* many years of experience as working, applied ontologists in non-academic environments. We do, however, tend to come from more pragmatic schools of thought, and often from different sub-areas within philosophy.

DougHolmes: @Mike can't argue with that

MikeBennett: @Doug and Amanda, I think we have a core module here

FrankChum: @Amanda: Philosophers can be working ontologists too.

DougHolmes: @Frank as long as its ontology with a "small o"

AmandaVizedom: @Doug, @ Mike, and others: I agree that the engineering aspect is critical. In fact, I might argue that the certificate client organizations want is very importantly an *applied* ontology certificate. I have seen too many people hire folks with theoretical training only, and no engineering understanding or intuitions. This causes project failure *and* gives the field a bad reputation.

MikeBennett: @Amanda agree wholeheartdly. Maybe we should be talking to engineering insstitutions

DougHolmes: IEEE

ArturoSanchez: @MichaelGruninger: good summary ... which sums up the threads that can be defined for the summit ...

PeterYim: we need "champions!"

ArturoSanchez: "we don't need another hero" "Tina Turner"

RexBrooks: I didn't want to inject a tangent, but I wish I had some ontology students to help with doing ontologies for use in IT standards.

JeffAbbott: Peter, I will send you my information and will be in contact. thx

PeterYim: @Jeff - yes ... thanks

ArturoSanchez: Thanks y'all Nice weather here in NE Florida

PeterYim: Great session ... I'll try to get the chat-transcript and audio recording posted (onto the session page) within the next working day ... please check back!

TerryLongstreth: @Peter: Could you put together a list of things people could help on?

PeterYim: @Terry ... I guess that would be what the "organizing committee" will need to get to next - before the OntologySummit2010 Launch Event on 10-Dec-2009

LeoObrst: I agree with Fabian, that we need to distinguish between university (Masters level) curricula, and a professional curricula. I personally think that they are the same. I would advocate a commmon curriculum, which could be taught in 3 ways: 1)a university academic MS degree in ontology engineering, which could be prelude to a PhD program; 2) a university terminal professional MS degree in ontology engineering; 3) a non-university professional accreditation course. In all cases, there should be recognition via a certification: the first 2 via a university degree, the 3rd via the course provider backed by accreditation itself via a professional organization such as the International Association for Ontology and its Applications.

PeterYim: session adjourned 12:03pm PST

PeterYim: Bye everyone ... closing chat session now! =ppy

- 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.

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:	5-Nov-2009 10:38am~12:03am PST
 * Duration of Recording:	1 Hour 21 Minutes
 * Recording File Size:	       9.3 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.)

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_2009_11_05#nid231J
 * 2. Open chat in a new browser window: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontolog_20091105
 * 3. Download presentations for each speaker here: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2009_11_05#nid23GR
 * or, 3.1 http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2009_11_05#nid23GV (for the shared screen, where supported)