Difference between revisions of "SWAO:Conference Call 20220114"
From IAOA Wiki
Arwesterinen (talk | contribs) m |
Arwesterinen (talk | contribs) (Finished adding meeting notes) |
||
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 === |
Revision as of 17:03, 31 January 2022
Number | 95 |
---|---|
Duration | 1 hour60 minute 3,600 second 0.0417 day |
Date/Time | January 14 2022 19:00 GMT |
11:00am PST/2:00pm EST | |
7:00pm GMT/8:00pm CET | |
Convener | Andrea Westerinen |
IAOA Semantic Web Applied Ontology (SWAO) SIG
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 Connection Details
Agenda
- Actions from last meeting
- 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 MIRO article
- Continued discussion of ontology and knowledge graph definitions from the December SWAO meeting
- Posted in this document
- Housekeeping and next meeting
- AoB
Proceedings
- Preliminary discussion about the antifraud ontology announced on the Ontology Forum distribution list
- GAO Antifraud Resource is based on GAO’s Fraud Ontology — "a rigorous classification of fraud schemes affecting federal programs and operations—serves as the backbone for understanding, evaluating, and measuring all aspects of federal fraud schemes, including their participants, mechanisms, and impacts"
- The site provides a user friendly, web-based platform for interacting with the model and identifying resources to support fraud risk management
- This project was overviewed by Leia Dickerson in the 2021 Ontology Summit series
- Question was raised whether this could be more integrated with cyber security
- GAO Antifraud Resource is based on GAO’s Fraud Ontology — "a rigorous classification of fraud schemes affecting federal programs and operations—serves as the backbone for understanding, evaluating, and measuring all aspects of federal fraud schemes, including their participants, mechanisms, and impacts"
- For the next 6 months or so, SWAO will need another individual to run the meetings (AndreaW has several other commitments, as does MikeB)
- Either ToddS or KenB will run the sessions for the coming months
- 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 (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
- IOF is less concerned about BFO's requirement of realism and more concerned with 'practical application' for physics and mathematics for manufacturing
- 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 was chosen but the criteria for evaluation may have been incomplete
- 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"
- Discussion of the 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
- Need alternate wording than upper/top-level/... ontology since these imply direction and specific architectures, as opposed to intent
Next Meeting
The next meeting will occur on February 11, 2022, at 19:00 GMT/2pm EST.
Attendees
- Ken Baclawski
- Mike Bennett
- Robert Rovetto
- Todd Schneider
- Andrea Westerinen