|Duration||1 hour60 minute |
|Date/Time||July 9 2018 17:30 GMT|
|10:30 PDT/1:30pm EDT|
|6:30pm BST/7:30pm CEST|
IAOA Semantic Web Applied Ontology (SWAO) SIG
Meetings are normally on the first Monday of the month at these times.
3. Discussion of new initiatives
5. Next Meeting
[13:33] Mike Bennett: Notes:
[13:34] Mike Bennett: There is a new W3C group called AI/KR - see below:
[13:34] brandon w: link to w3c AI KR group: https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/
[13:35] Mike Bennett: Part of our remit at this SIG is to reach out to people who are in the various spaces of KR and Semantic Web so we should reach out to these folks.
[13:35] Mike Bennett: What is their goal?
[13:35] Mike Bennett: BW: Not clear yet "Chair" talking about structures, learning algorithms and how they can interact, their expanse and extent, as well as the legal implications behind these things. So far mainly introductions.
[13:35] Mike Bennett: Are they likely to develop any ontologies?
[13:36] Mike Bennett: Unclear the chair has mentioned ontologies specifically and it is likely they may create several - but this is not yet clear. Depends on the direction the group thinks it wants to go.
[13:36] Mike Bennett: There is still opportunity for folks to join and influence these things.
[13:37] Mike Bennett: TS would discourage them from creating ontologies. Currently there are other groups doing this including one that does not know much about semantic technologies.
[13:37] Mike Bennett: That groups is focusing on patterns but learning more about semantics. Some slides, copying statements from the W3C site about how expressive OWL is (!) so there is education to do.
[13:38] Mike Bennett: The chair for the new group has alluded to FOL. More in line with Sowa's writings, i.e. knowledge focused, like Conceptual Graphs.
[13:38] Mike Bennett: There is a meeting of the IOF in Buffalo next week.
[13:39] Mike Bennett: Barry Smith one of the drivers, along with NIST, to come up with a clone of the OBO Foundry, for industry. A good idea. However, TS assumes 'we' are going to adopt BFO.
[13:40] Mike Bennett: TS not in favor of any particular foundational ontology.
[13:40] Mike Bennett: MB not convinced of the applicability of Realism (per BFO) to business.
[13:41] Mike Bennett: TS not clear if there is any really logical impact of realism on the actual ontology, versus simply the way the ontology is arrived at.
[13:41] Mike Bennett: BW inclined to agree the best part of BFO is the way you organize your thoughts bout what you are modeling and how you share these with other people.
[13:41] Mike Bennett: Also 'do you need BFO' in a given reasoner. Does it make a difference.
[13:44] Mike Bennett: Does the reasoner ever get to the upper level assertions if you have a sound domain model?
[13:44] Mike Bennett: Would depend on how the reasoner is traversing the graphs.
[13:44] Mike Bennett: Whether you need an UO versus whether you need BFO.
[13:45] Mike Bennett: BFO also incorporates Welty and Guarino Ontoclean work.
[13:45] Mike Bennett: Trying to subscribe to a particular dogma is contrary to engineering.
[13:46] Mike Bennett: MB on ontology for conceptual CIM versus ontology as part of an application.
[13:48] Mike Bennett: There are useful techniques that can be used to e.g. transform from a CIM ontology to an application ontology using e.g. annotations that transform to stuff that can be reasoned over.
[13:48] Mike Bennett: so this group is interested in being able to bring this multiplicity of perspectives o places like that W3C group.
[13:49] Mike Bennett: We also hope that they will come up with good definitions for the stuff they are doing.
[13:49] Mike Bennett: Hope they will bring stuff to ISO.
[13:49] Mike Bennett: Which ISO?
[13:50] Mike Bennett: TS: there was an exercise by XXX, trying to identify whether a given thing is a continuant, a role and so on.
[13:52] Mike Bennett: Many of the notions that people currently care about are really roles.
[13:54] Mike Bennett: Going back up: Mitch and co have used annotations for second order statements. Taking those out and running a reasoner so that they then became second order properties.
[13:54] Mike Bennett: The reasoning you perform on those annotations is firsts order.
[13:54] Mike Bennett: It gives the impression of being second order because of the way these come about (?)
[13:55] Mike Bennett: This is an example of contextual reasoning. Any kind of contextual reasoning, where you reason over the context rather than over what is contextualized, gives you the second order nature of things as described above.
[13:55] Mike Bennett: Why relevant?
[13:55] Mike Bennett: TS: relates to whether you want to embed a foundational ontology or leave this hanging.
[13:57] Mike Bennett: MB this is distinct from the approach given in McCusker, Luciano and McGuinness, where they recommend the CIM ontology and operational (application) ontology have separate namespaces.
[13:58] Mike Bennett: MB: one of the strengths of OWL is the relative absence of upper ontology commitments such as mereology or roles.
[14:01] Mike Bennett: Actions
[14:01] Mike Bennett: Events
[14:01] Mike Bennett: The Industry and Demonstrations Workshops.
[14:03] Mike Bennett: KB: Interested in doing a paper for the Industry and Demo track.
[14:03] Mike Bennett: Topic:
[14:03] Mike Bennett: Working with folks at Oracle. Has talked about this in other conferences already. Might be repetitious.
[14:04] Mike Bennett: How close is this to issue of conceptual ontology?
[14:05] Mike Bennett: KB: Upper ontology is Situation Theory. Most of your data is contextualized, compactified into small situations. Advantages such as being able to have a large data structure which is monotonic and the rest, and even have an UO for that, but within the situation you can do efficient [something] reasoning and have the best of both worlds - efficient and also monotonic (open).
[14:05] Mike Bennett: This is a concern for industry, given performance.
[14:06] Mike Bennett: If they are told that reasoning is going to be undecidable or double exponential or whatever that would need fast efficient reasoning. So the application (of the ontology) is in the situations.
[14:07] Mike Bennett: Possibly submit to Onto com?
[14:07] Mike Bennett: http://www.mis.ugent.be/ontocom2018/
[14:08] Mike Bennett: More pragmatic and industrially oriented, not really concerned with the conceptual ontology side.
[14:09] Mike Bennett: KB just gave a tutorial at a cog sci event. Asked for more abstract ideas in terms of what is going on in ontologies from a more theoretical POV. KB did a tutorial on those issues, including modal logic and upper ontologies. Including the philosophical aspects.
[14:09] Mike Bennett: People liked that.
[14:10] Mike Bennett: Also e.g. people mention 'context'.
[14:11] Mike Bennett: Also intent.
[14:12] Mike Bennett: so we are seeing people on the business side starting to engage with the conceptual issues, including contexts, intent, and the rest.
[14:15] Mike Bennett: MB: the Industry track is looking doubtful as no submissions yet - but KB welcome to submit something. Would need some extension.
[14:27] Mike Bennett: ISWC also has an industry track.
[14:27] Mike Bennett: Infrastructure
[14:27] Mike Bennett: Coming along well.
[14:27] Mike Bennett: Are there any changes?
[14:28] Mike Bennett: KB: Looking to have it out...
[14:28] Mike Bennett: (when?)
[14:28] Mike Bennett: Holdup is writing possible papers for these July 9 deadlines as above.
[14:29] Mike Bennett: ISWC includes thins like open government risk and compliance. Also manufacturing and automation.
[14:30] Mike Bennett: KB will send around an email once the things work and people are formally able to sign up to be IAOA members.
[14:31] Mike Bennett: AoB?