SWAO:Conference Call 20220114 - Revision history

Arwesterinen: Added title of Gary's paper

2022-02-01T14:50:29Z

Added title of Gary's paper

Arwesterinen: Updated with comments from RobertR

2022-02-01T14:48:21Z

Updated with comments from RobertR

Arwesterinen: Removed text regarding IOF's upper ontology evaluation since it appeared biased

2022-02-01T14:44:05Z

Removed text regarding IOF's upper ontology evaluation since it appeared biased

Arwesterinen at 01:05, 1 February 2022

2022-02-01T01:05:29Z

Arwesterinen: Finished adding meeting notes

2022-01-31T17:03:40Z

Finished adding meeting notes

Arwesterinen at 03:49, 31 January 2022

2022-01-31T03:49:08Z

Arwesterinen: Initial input of minutes

2022-01-31T03:47:12Z

Initial input of minutes

Arwesterinen: Updated agenda

2021-12-19T21:35:02Z

Updated agenda

Arwesterinen at 21:52, 15 December 2021

2021-12-15T21:52:05Z

Arwesterinen: New meeting page

2021-12-15T21:51:34Z

New meeting page

New page

{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left: 10px;" border="1" cellpadding="10"
|-
! scope="row" | Number
| [[sequence::95]]
|-
! scope="row" | Duration
| [[duration::1 hour]]
|-
! scope="row" rowspan="3" | Date/Time
| [[has date::January 14 2022 19:00 GMT]]
|-
| 11:00am PST/2:00pm EST
|-
| 7:00pm GMT/8:00pm CET
|-
! scope="row" | Convener
| [[User:Arwesterinen|Andrea Westerinen]]
|}

'''IAOA Semantic Web Applied Ontology (SWAO) SIG'''

THIS MEETING TAKES PLACE ON FRIDAY 14 JANUARY 2022
Meetings have moved to the second Friday of the month at 2pm Eastern Time.

* We use Zoom for these meetings - details at [[SWAO:Connection Details GTM|Connection Details]]

== Agenda ==

* Actions from last meeting
** RobertR liaison status with the IAOA Education Committee
* Discussion/presentation of RobertR's ontology definitions spreadsheet
* Continued discussion of ontology and knowledge graph definitions from the December SWAO meeting
** Posted in this [https://swao.s3.amazonaws.com/Ontology-Graph-KG-Commitment.docx document]
* Housekeeping and next meeting
* AoB

== Proceedings ==

=== Next Meeting ===

== Attendees ==

== Previous Meetings ==
{{#ask: [[Category:SWAO]] [[Category:Conference_Call]] [[has date::<<{{#show:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|?has date}}]]
|?|mainlabel=-|sort=has date |order=desc| format=ul| limit=3}}

[[Category:SWAO| ]]
[[Category:Conference_Call| ]]

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 *** It was noted that this seems heavy but can be valuable for very large, heavily referenced/reused ontologies
 ** As part of the discussion, 'incremental development of semantics' was discussed
-*** This is addressed in a forthcoming paper in the Journal of Applied Ontology, "
+*** This is addressed in a forthcoming paper in the Journal of Applied Ontology, "Issues in Incrementally Adding Better Semantics to Knowledge Graphs" by Gary Berg-Cross
 *** The theory is to add data to an ontology/knowledge graph and then fix the ontology in order to support it
 *** This is as opposed to a top-down/upper ontology definitional approach

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 * Discussion of upper ontologies migrated to a discussion of IOF ([https://www.industrialontologies.org/ Industry Ontology Foundry])
-** There is concern that all upper ontologies could be rejected due to issues with one (such as BFO)
+** There is concern that all upper ontologies could be rejected due to issues and systemic bias for a single one (such as BFO)
 ** BFO issues include the requirement for realism and the lack of multiple inheritance
-** Committing to an upper ontology means committing to its conceptual distinctions
+** Committing to an upper ontology means committing to its conceptual distinctions, formal semantics, philosophical worldviews, metaphysical biases, etc., and thus claims about how the world is
-*** These need to be evaluated that they are relevant and consistent with the desired world view for the ontology to be developed
+*** These need to be evaluated for relevance, agreement with potential users and developers, complexity, and consistency with the beliefs and desired world views (if any) of the ontology to be developed
 ** Is valuable to understand where BFO is used and where it is used but its issues are "worked around"
 ** The majority of the following insights on IOF were provided by ToddS:

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 ** AndreaW updated the SWAO meeting connection details to reflect KenB's Zoom information
-* Discussion of upper ontologies migrated to a discussion of the use of BFO in the IOF ([https://www.industrialontologies.org/ Industry Ontology Foundry])
+* Discussion of upper ontologies migrated to a discussion of IOF ([https://www.industrialontologies.org/ Industry Ontology Foundry])
 ** There is concern that all upper ontologies could be rejected due to issues with one (such as BFO)
 ** BFO issues include the requirement for realism and the lack of multiple inheritance
 ** Committing to an upper ontology means committing to its conceptual distinctions
 *** These need to be evaluated that they are relevant and consistent with the desired world view for the ontology to be developed
 ** The majority of the following insights on IOF were provided by ToddS:
 *** Development principles for IOF are in harmony with OntoCommons
@@ Line 57: / Line 58: @@
 *** IOF Core to be released soon, with BFO formally embedded
 *** A release where BFO is "hidden" has also been discussed as a possibility
 * Discussion of the [https://jbiomedsem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13326-017-0172-7 MIRO article]

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 *** IOF Core to be released soon, with BFO formally embedded
 *** A release where BFO is "hidden" has also been discussed as a possibility
-*** BFO, Dolce and UFO were originally studied as options for the foundational ontology
+*** BFO, Dolce and UFO were studied as options for the foundational ontology, but the criteria for evaluation was incomplete and heavily weighted (due to member participation) in favor of BFO
 *** Results from the evaluation included that the BFO natural language descriptions were better and that Dolce was too axiomatized
 ** Is valuable to understand where BFO is used and where it is used but "worked around"

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:03, 31 January 2022
Line 63:		Line 63:

	* Discussion of the [https://jbiomedsem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13326-017-0172-7 MIRO article]		* Discussion of the [https://jbiomedsem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13326-017-0172-7 MIRO article]
		+	** MIRO is the acronym for "Minimum Information for Reporting an Ontology"
		+	** Provides a set of guidelines to facilitate consistency and completeness when documenting published ontologies
		+	** There are 7 areas for documentation, and 3-11 guidelines within each area (34 guidelines total)
		+	*** 28 guidelines are MUSTs, 3 SHOULDs and 3 OPTIONALs
		+	*** Topic areas are 'basics', motivation, scope and dev community, knowledge acquisition, content, change mgmt, and testing/QA
		+	*** It was noted that this seems heavy but can be valuable for very large, heavily referenced/reused ontologies
		+	** As part of the discussion, 'incremental development of semantics' was discussed
		+	*** This is addressed in a forthcoming paper in the Journal of Applied Ontology, "
		+	*** The theory is to add data to an ontology/knowledge graph and then fix the ontology in order to support it
		+	*** This is as opposed to a top-down/upper ontology definitional approach
		+	*** The underlying definition of the concepts is in TypeScript
		+
		+	* Discussion of ontology concepts by RobertR
		+	** Need alternate wording than upper/top-level/... ontology since these imply direction and specific architectures, as opposed to intent
		+	*** "Core" implies "center" with other ontologies extending from it or layering around it
		+	*** "Upper" implies that other ontologies are below it and that there are levels of gradation
		+	*** "Top-level" vs "foundational" imply that other ontologies are "below"/"above" them
		+	**** For example, in computer science, hierarchies are typically drawn with the most general at the top, whereas in biology, the most general is at the bottom
		+	*** "Conceptual" ontology could be either broader or narrower
		+	** "General", "generic", "common" ontology may be more appropriate names
		+	** '''Take-aways''':
		+	*** Important to have definitions for the various types of ontologies
		+	*** Should explore the possible architectures of linked ontologies with varying degrees of generality
		+	*** Does it matter if an ontology is only categorical or abstract, or also includes instances?
		+	*** Important to understand how the world is perceived/partitioned, and put the conceptual archetypes within that structure
		+	**** For example, "prescribed vs described", "occurrent vs endurant", "dependent/relative/mediating", "concrete vs abstract" , ...
		+	*** Important to define these concepts and then assess whether they are needed when developing an ontology
		+	*** Need to distinguish between "truth makers" (what something is/semantic building blocks) and the data that one has about the thing
		+	**** Also need to understand the quality of the data

	=== Next Meeting ===		=== Next Meeting ===

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 '''IAOA Semantic Web Applied Ontology (SWAO) SIG'''
-THIS MEETING TAKES PLACE ON FRIDAY 14 JANUARY 2022.
+THIS MEETING TOOK PLACE ON FRIDAY 14 JANUARY 2022. (Meetings have moved to the second Friday of the month at 2pm Eastern Time.)
 * We use Zoom for these meetings - details at [[SWAO:Connection Details GTM|Connection Details]]
@@ Line 29: / Line 27: @@
 * Actions from last meeting
-** RobertR liaison status with the IAOA Education Committee
+** RobertR liaison status with the IAOA Education Committee still has not occurred since no meetings have yet been held
 * Discussion/presentation of RobertR's ontology definitions spreadsheet
 * Discussion of the [https://jbiomedsem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13326-017-0172-7 MIRO article]
 * Continued discussion of ontology and knowledge graph definitions from the December SWAO meeting
@@ Line 39: / Line 36: @@
 == Proceedings ==
 === Next Meeting ===
 == Attendees ==
 == Previous Meetings ==