taxonomies

Information architects have been singing the praises of metadata, thesauri, and controlled vocabularies for years. But there is a new game in town: the Semantic Web.

* [Ontolog] Joint OpenOntologyRepository-OntologySummit2008 Panel Discussion Session - "An Open Ontology Repository: Rationale, Expectations and Requirements - Session-2" - co-chaired: LeoObrst and FabianNeuhaus - Panelists: DougLenat, DekeSmith, MarciaZeng, DeniseBedford, PatHayes, MalaMehrotra and RobRaskin - Thu 2008.04.03 * see the session page on the Ontolog wiki at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2008_04_03

* Subject Dr. Pat Hayes from the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition ("IHMC") was our invited speaker. His presentation was entitled: "A logic for ontology interoperation" where he talked about Common Logic (CL) and its extension, IKL - a system of logical notations and formalisms that can act as an expressive foundation for ontology interchange. * Date Thursday, October 26, 2006 * ONTOLOG Forum session page (with agenda and link to slides) http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2006_10_26 * Abstract (by Pat Hayes) Over the past few years a series of initiatives have converged on the design of a 'common logic' into which a large variety of alternative logical notations and formalisms can be projected, and so can act as an expressive foundation for ontology interchange and standardization. This talk will briefly survey the design principles that have emerged from these discussions and the outline of the resulting framework, which is currently going through ISO approval as ISO Common Logic, and a more recent extension called IKL, designed explicitly for ontology interoperation, which provides a variety of powerful naming conventions which enable it to explicitly describe relationships between ontological frameworks. We will illustrate the talk with examples showing how description logics such as OWL, modal and temporal logics, hybrid logics and context logics can be mapped into CL and IKL.

* Subject NIST-Ontolog-NCOR Mini-Series: "Ontology Measurement and Evaluation" Kick-off Session, with Dr. Steven Ray, Dr. Chris Welty et al. * Date Thursday, October 19, 2006 * ONTOLOG Forum session page (with agenda and link to slides) http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2006_10_19 * Session Abstract (by Steve Ray) This mini-series will explore the landscape, issues and solutions relating to the measurement, evaluation, quality and testing of ontologies. * Pertinent Issues we might explore during this and subsequent sessions, such as: o 1. Why do we need to care about ontology quality? o 2. What are objective means of classifying something as an ontology, taxonomy, data model, semantic networks, or tagged markup, etc. o 3. How can ontologies be evaluated and measured? o 4. How can the quality of Ontology Design Tools be assessed? ... and so on. * Keynote Presentation Titles and Abstracts: ** Ontology Quality and the Semantic Web - Dr. Christopher A. Welty Abstract: One of the guiding principles of the web and its machine interpretable successor the semantic web is to "let a million flowers bloom." HTML was based on technology nearly two decades old at the time (Hypertext), for which a research community concerned mainly with Human-Computer interaction was investigating what the "right way" to use hypertext for effective communication was. The vast majority of early HTML pages completely ignored this and yet the web thrived. Still, as the web became a serious medium for dissemination, institutions for whom effective communication was critical did begin to take this research seriously and today's highly visible web pages are designed by people with experience and training on how to "do it right". The progress and evolution of the semantic web should follow the same path - the semantic web standards (RDF, OWL, and RIF) are based on decades-old technology from Knowledge Representation and Databases, and there has been for about 15 years a research community associated with this field that has studied what the "right way" to use these systems is. This field, which I will call "ontology engineering" for this talk, is concerned among other things with ontology quality and its impact. In this talk I will discuss research on characterizing ontology quality and measuring the impact of quality on knowledge-based systems.

* Subject Ontolog Mini-Series: "Database and Ontology" Kick-off Panel Session with Dr. Matthew West (Program Lead), Dr. Tatiana Malyuta and Dr. Leo Obrst * Date Thursday, October 12, 2006 * ONTOLOG Forum session page (with agenda and link to slides) http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2006_10_12 * Session Abstract (by Matthew West) Broadly ontologies describe what exists. Databases hold facts about what exists. It is therefore not surprising that ontology can help in the design of databases by having the design match reality more closely. On the other hand ontologies are things about which we wish to hold information, and databases are powerful ways to store information so that it can be retrieved by many people, especially when there is structure to the information. Different databases will have their own, sometimes implicit, ontologies. Identifying and mapping between these ontologies is key to data integration. Finally, databases, whether for ontology tools or other applications, need to have a human interface. The use of ontology in design and implementation of the human computer interface can transform the utility of a system. This mini-series will explore these interactions, how ontologies and databases are mutually supportive, and identify the main issues people in these fields are grappling with. * Pertinent Issues we might explore during this and subsequent sessions: o 1. How does ontology improve database design? o 2. What is there beyond ontology in database design? o 3. How do you design a database to manage an ontology? o 4. What are the limitations of databases in supporting ontologies? o 5. How do you discover the ontology implicit in a database? o 6. How do you map between ontologies? o 7. How does ontology help with the design and implementation of human computer interfaces? o 8. What are the key challenges in developing human computer interfaces using ontologies? * Talk Titles and Abstracts: ** Improving Database utilization with Ontology - Dr. Tatiana Malyuta Abstract: Databases do not provide open and explicit descriptions of data semantics. This prevents efficient, qualitative, and automated data utilization. Ontology, as an open and standard semantics provider, can help in resolving the problems of data utilization. Issues of building a productive relationship between Ontology and Database are discussed. ** Ontologies and Databases: Similarities and Differences - Dr. Leo Obrst Abstract: Ontologies and databases have much in common, but there are many differences too. Databases focus on local semantics that have only aspects of the real world, typically keep that semantics implicit, use logic structurally, and their schemas are not generally reusable. Ontologies focus on global semantics of the real world, make that semantics explicit and machine interpretable by using a logic-based modeling language, and are reusable as true models of a portion of the world. ** Ontology in Database Design - Dr. Matthew West Abstract: Databases hold information. The information is about things. What things there are is at the heart of ontology. Some key concerns of database design, and how ontology can help are presented.

* Subject Professor Alan Rector from the University of Manchester (UK) presents: "Terminologies and Ontologies: What are they for? What would it mean to QA an ontology (specifically in healthcare?)" * Date Thursday, September 14, 2006 * ONTOLOG Forum session page (with agenda and link to slides) http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2006_09_14 * Abstract (by Alan Rector) Terminologies and 'Ontologies' serve several disparate purposes: o Providing a controlled vocabulary and/or standard set of identifiers o Providing a means of browsing and finding appropriate vocabulary or identifiers o Providing the linguistic terms - synonyms, translations, etc.. - to go with the controlled vocabulary o Cross mapping and translation between different systems o Providing logical criteria which can be used for inference and query expansion o Providing additional 'universal' or intrinsic information about the entities involved o Serving as an index for other background knowledge and resources Most current biomedical ontologies serve primarily the first three functions, with varying efforts towards formal logical criteria. However, there are aspirations, and sometimes claims, for more rigorous functions, and many standardisation efforts pre-suppose more and more formal structure. Each of these functions implies criteria for quality assurance. For example, for managing controlled vocabularies, process issues such as version control and coverage are most critical. Browsing raises issues of human computer interaction, and language raises its own issues. The last three all require a degree of logical coherence and rigour. In addition to many biomedical ontologies, scaling is critical. Biomedical ontologies are large and potentially combinatorially explosive. For some applications, small enumerated terminologies are sufficient. For others, indefinitely large compositional ontologies that cannot, in principle, be pre-enumerated are required. Finally almost all ontologies are based on many poorly articulated assumptions. Any quality assurance methodology must take account both of what can be understood independent of consultation with the originators and what conclusions can be reached after consultation with the originators. Overall we propose an approach to quality along two dimensions - process and content - and a two stage process - the first independent of consultation with the originating authority, the second in consultation with the originating authority.

* Subject Dr. York Sure, Assistant Professor at the Institute AIFB of the University of Karlsruhe (Germany) and currently visiting researcher at Stanford University (USA), presents to the community his talk entitled: "What does Sparkling Wine have to do with Semantics?" * Date Thursday, August 17, 2006 * ONTOLOG Forum session page (with agenda and link to slides) http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2006_08_17 * Abstract (by York Sure) In this talk recent advances of semantic knowledge technologies are presented. Tangible results, both in the area of technology such as the Semantic Media Wiki and the area of ontology engineering methodologies such as cost estimation for ontologies, are highlighted. The results are put in a wider perspective to give an overview of currently ongoing projects in the EU. Of course, an answer to the question posed in the title will be given as well.

* Subject Co-Moderators Mr. Duane Nickull (Adobe) and Mr. Rex Brooks (Starbourne Communications), SOA experts themselves, put together a very knowledgeable panel that included Mr. Ron Schmelzer (Zapthink), Dr. Ken Laskey (MITRE) and Ms. Rebekah Metz (Booz Allen Hamilton), and together with a great group of participants, explored the role of ontologies and taxonomies in Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) designs and applications. * Date Thursday, August 10, 2006 * ONTOLOG Forum session page (with agenda and link to slides) http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2006_08_10 * Abstract (by Duane Nickull and Rex Brooks) To explore what role ontologies and taxonomies play within a service oriented architecture environment. Ontologies and taxonomies can be employed in service oriented environments in numerous ways, through ontologies of domains, for instance health informatics or plastics manufacturing, or taxonomies of services or service categories within domains, so we want to explore how ontologies and taxonomies can improve the availability and performance of services in these roles. 3 guest speakers will each bring a unique perspective on the topic and speak for 10 minutes followed by a quick Q-and-A. After the final session, a longer group Q-and-A and discussion will take place among all participants in the session.