Difference between revisions of "SWAO:Conference Call 20200803"
| Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
== Attendees == | == Attendees == | ||
| − | + | * MikeBennett | |
| − | + | * RobertRovetto | |
| − | + | * KenBaclawski | |
== Next Meetings == | == Next Meetings == | ||
Latest revision as of 16:15, 7 September 2020
| Number | 81 |
|---|---|
| Duration | 1 hour60 minute 3,600 second 0.0417 day |
| Date/Time | August 3 2020 19:00 GMT |
| 12:00pm PDT/3:00pm EDT | |
| 8:00pm BST/9:00pm CEST | |
| Convener | Mike Bennett |
IAOA Semantic Web Applied Ontology (SWAO) SIG
NOTE NEW TIME: 3pm Eastern Time going forward
Meetings are normally on the first Monday of the month at these times.
- We will use GoToMeeting for this meeting - details at Connection Details
Agenda
- Ontology Articulation Guidelines
- New activity focusing on best practice for the semantics aspects of ontology development
- Next steps
- Status and updates
- Current progress and prospects for the special issue on explanation.
- Housekeeping
- AoB
- Next Meeting
Proceedings
Housekeeping
SoapHub is not dead
Action: reinstate the URL and description to the Comms page on the wiki
Ontology Articulation Guidelines
Are we being idealistic in thinking that we can accommodate each of the various stances and describe them in a broader context rather than presuming what is right or wrong
Example - Realism - there is no one kind of Realism it needs to be stated in a context e.g. according to this group they may subscribe to this kind of Realism, this definition of Realism.
Similar computational versus non computational ontologies - may be different views in those spaces.
So we can't really say that even a given stance like Realism is one thing, it needs to be framed in a given context.
Where to start?
Characterize the contexts of usage of these different notions.
Some considerations:
On the computational side - developers of a given ontology may not have in mind the more abstract concepts in mind
They may not be looking at the same grounding of concepts as would be seen in a 'philosophical' ontology.
A lay person might have a different view again.
So a given ontology may not have a world view in mind because these questions are not raised and addressed.
This is a good statement of the problem space we are trying to address.
Important to not be imposing something of these upon the group that developed the thing.
So we have a good framing - when someone present an ontology they often will not have made those distinctions (may not even accept them in some cases) - can we use this in our framing / introduction of the exercise?
So we have material for an introductory page for what we want to do.
Actions to take this forward
Write introductory page - MB (with help from RR)
Somewhere to put such stuff. Where? (KB)
Put it in the wiki.
What to call the main page for this effort?
Call it: Ontology Articulation Guidelines
Some resources
Smith, Sowa, Guizzardi, also others (insert below)
Robert rovetto: R.Mizoguchi
Robert rovetto: Heinrich Herre & Frank Loebe
Robert rovetto: Adam Pease
We did a library for Ontology Summit some years ago.
MB has it somewhere.
Was it on the Ontolog forum wiki (the old cim3 one).
It was in some special tool? Not sure
MB to look into this.
Clarify the goal for this task
Create a web page that has guidelines for ontology design? Or something else?
A clearing house of pointers?
Start with context of terms like Realism itself.
e.g. may take a given applied ontology, it may state that it is Realist or Conceptualist but you can't take it without further detail.
It may even be Realist wrt specific entities but not others. If your domain requires a certain category and you might find that the ontology you want to use won't allow that because of its commitments. Should not fit your subject matter under the world view of another. Need the ontology to be transparent about what it would accept, reject or differently characterize according to its world view.
Also relates to ethics in ontology development.
Also there are sometimes commercial drivers to the language used for things. Need to get past to what is being committed to.
Need to be able to say when you use or not use a given TLO - e.g. some people are advocating certain TLOs as they are in ISO, but it might not be the one for that particular usage.
See ISO Part 1.
AS IAOA we need to encourage more diversity.
Encourage awareness of all work d views and corresponding ontology.
Next steps
Start to grow the wiki (1st page, then grow an area around it
Start to build the Bibliography
Special Edition
NTR
Housekeeping (cont'd from above)
GoToMeeting - has a note taking feature.
KB: Listed as a new feature, separate from the transcription. Also separate from the use of the Chat Log
Called Smart Meeting Assistant.
KB to look into that and see it's something we can use.
Seems to be a search feature for searching the transcript or something. Will take you to the part of the video corresponding to that part of the transcript.
GTM - still using MB account. Doesn't have the above features.
AoB
Next Meeting
Sept 7 - is that Labor Day? It is
So next meeting = 14 September
Report to IAOA - when?
Post a note about our meeting on the IAOA website.
We need to do one of these after each meeting
How: Send KB a couple of sentences. MB to draft. RR can review.
By...
Attendees
- MikeBennett
- RobertRovetto
- KenBaclawski
