1 Everyday Requirements for an Open Ontology Repository Denise Bedford Ontolog Community Panel Presentation April 3, 2008.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ontology Assessment – Proposed Framework and Methodology
Advertisements

Records Management Ontologies Denise A. D. Bedford Collaborative Expedition Workshop #63 July 18, 2007.
OMV Ontology Metadata Vocabulary April 10, 2008 Peter Haase.
Ontology Assessment – Proposed Framework and Methodology.
RSP Summer School14-16 September 2009 UK Institutional Repository Search: a collaborative project to showcase UK research output through advanced discovery.
Information Resources Management January 23, 2001.
Basics of Knowledge Management ICOM5047 – Design Project in Computer Engineering ECE Department J. Fernando Vega Riveros, Ph.D.
Transformations at GPO: An Update on the Government Printing Office's Future Digital System George Barnum Coalition for Networked Information December.
Using the Semantic Web to Construct an Ontology- Based Repository for Software Patterns Scott Henninger Computer Science and Engineering University of.
Object-Oriented Analysis and Design
Knowledge Acquisitioning. Definition The transfer and transformation of potential problem solving expertise from some knowledge source to a program.
Case-based Reasoning System (CBR)
The Software Product Life Cycle. Views of the Software Product Life Cycle  Management  Software engineering  Engineering design  Architectural design.
Course Instructor: Aisha Azeem
ÆKOS: A new paradigm for discovery and access to complex ecological data David Turner, Paul Chinnick, Andrew Graham, Matt Schneider, Craig Walker Logos.
CORDRA Philip V.W. Dodds March The “Problem Space” The SCORM framework specifies how to develop and deploy content objects that can be shared and.
Enterprise Architecture
Leaving a Metadata Trail Chapter 14. Defining Warehouse Metadata Data about warehouse data and processing Vital to the warehouse Used by everyone Metadata.
DITA and Topic Maps Bringing the Pieces Together Topic Maps Conference 2008, Oslo Joe Gelb President, Suite Solutions.
Developing Enterprise Architecture
Teaching Metadata and Networked Information Organization & Retrieval The UNT SLIS Experience William E. Moen School of Library and Information Sciences.
WP.5 - DDI-SDMX Integration E.S.S. cross-cutting project on Information Models and Standards Marco Pellegrino, Denis Grofils Eurostat METIS Work Session6-8.
1 IBM Software Group ® Mastering Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with UML 2.0 Module 1: Best Practices of Software Engineering.
Ontology Development Kenneth Baclawski Northeastern University Harvard Medical School.
Ontology Development in the Sciences Some Fundamental Considerations Ontolytics LLC Topics:  Possible uses of ontologies  Ontologies vs. terminologies.
Knowledge based Learning Experience Management on the Semantic Web Feng (Barry) TAO, Hugh Davis Learning Society Lab University of Southampton.
Clément Troprès - Damien Coppéré1 Semantic Web Based on: -The semantic web -Ontologies Come of Age.
9/14/2012ISC329 Isabelle Bichindaritz1 Database System Life Cycle.
Learning Science and Mathematics Concepts, Models, Representations and Talk Colleen Megowan.
Interfacing Registry Systems December 2000.
Metadata Models in Survey Computing Some Results of MetaNet – WG 2 METIS 2004, Geneva W. Grossmann University of Vienna.
1 Schema Registries Steven Hughes, Lou Reich, Dan Crichton NASA 21 October 2015.
1 Introduction to Software Engineering Lecture 1.
NIEM Information Exchange Package Documentation (IEPD) Mini Kanwal NIEM Technical Advisor Department of Homeland Security September, 7 th 2006.
FEA DRM Management Strategy Presented by : Mary McCaffery, US EPA.
S&I Integration with NIEM (DRAFT) Standards Development Support June 8, 2011.
10/24/09CK The Open Ontology Repository Initiative: Requirements and Research Challenges Ken Baclawski Todd Schneider.
NASA Perspectives on Data Quality July Overall Goal To answer the common user question, “Which product is better for me?”
Oreste Signore- Quality/1 Amman, December 2006 Standards for quality of cultural websites Ministerial NEtwoRk for Valorising Activities in digitisation.
Of 33 lecture 1: introduction. of 33 the semantic web vision today’s web (1) web content – for human consumption (no structural information) people search.
Independent Insight for Service Oriented Practice Summary: Service Reference Architecture and Planning David Sprott.
Metadata By N.Gopinath AP/CSE Metadata and it’s role in the lifecycle. The collection, maintenance, and deployment of metadata Metadata and tool integration.
1 Open Ontology Repository initiative - Planning Meeting - Thu Co-conveners: PeterYim, LeoObrst & MikeDean ref.:
Ontology Evaluation, Metrics, and Metadata in NCBO BioPortal Natasha Noy Stanford University.
Achieving Semantic Interoperability at the World Bank Designing the Information Architecture and Programmatically Processing Information Denise Bedford.
April, 2005 ebSOA Based on FERA Reference Model Vasco Drecun Collaborative Product Development Associates, LLC Goran Zugic ebXMLsoft Inc.
Data Warehouses, Online Analytical Processing, and Metadata 11 th Meeting Course Name: Business Intelligence Year: 2009.
An Ontological Approach to Financial Analysis and Monitoring.
Information Architecture & Design Week 9 Schedule - Web Research Papers Due Now - Questions about Metaphors and Icons with Labels - Design 2- the Web -
Be.wi-ol.de User-friendly ontology design Nikolai Dahlem Universität Oldenburg.
SNOMED CT Vendor Introduction 27 th October :30 (CET) Implementation Special Interest Group Tom Seabury IHTSDO.
Sharing personal knowledge over the Semantic Web ● We call personal knowledge the knowledge that is developed and shared by the users while they solve.
1 Developing an Ontology of Ontologies for OOR Ontology Summit 2008 April 28-29, 2008 Michael Gruninger and Pat Hayes.
Fedora Commons Overview and Background Sandy Payette, Executive Director UK Fedora Training London January 22-23, 2009.
Verification vs. Validation Verification: "Are we building the product right?" The software should conform to its specification.The software should conform.
Semantic Web. P2 Introduction Information management facilities not keeping pace with the capacity of our information storage. –Information Overload –haphazardly.
Semantic Web Technologies Readings discussion Research presentations Projects & Papers discussions.
Developing our Metadata: Technical Considerations & Approach Ray Plante NIST 4/14/16 NMI Registry Workshop BIPM, Paris 1 …don’t worry ;-) or How we concentrate.
Data Grids, Digital Libraries and Persistent Archives: An Integrated Approach to Publishing, Sharing and Archiving Data. Written By: R. Moore, A. Rajasekar,
Definition CASE tools are software systems that are intended to provide automated support for routine activities in the software process such as editing.
ece 627 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
SOA Implementation and Testing Summary
Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom
International Research and Development Institute Uyo
Methontology: From Ontological art to Ontological Engineering
ece 627 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
2. An overview of SDMX (What is SDMX? Part I)
Service Oriented Architectures (SOA): What Users Need to Know.
BUILDING A DIGITAL REPOSITORY FOR LEARNING RESOURCES
Versioning in Adaptive Hypermedia
Presentation transcript:

1 Everyday Requirements for an Open Ontology Repository Denise Bedford Ontolog Community Panel Presentation April 3, 2008

2 Key Questions  Addressing three questions in the context of what I do each day  Everyday work context involves full ontology life cycle: Creating and adapting ontologiesCreating and adapting ontologies Implementing and maintaining existing ontologiesImplementing and maintaining existing ontologies Share ontologies from time to timeShare ontologies from time to time  Main question for me in thinking through the issues was: is there a difference between what I expect from my internal registry and repository, and what I would expect from an external one?  Are there differences based on whether we’re talking about a registry or repository?

3

4 Institutional vs. Community OORs  In my everyday work environment I use both registries and repositories to manage ontologies Registry in the form of a master data store which provides basic metadata and metainformation about each sourceRegistry in the form of a master data store which provides basic metadata and metainformation about each source Repositories or source systems which actually contain the ontologiesRepositories or source systems which actually contain the ontologies  Registries can take as a baseline ISO but needs considerable extension to provide all the metainformation (fitness for use) needed to make decision to use/not use Metainformation about the ontology is critical not just metadataMetainformation about the ontology is critical not just metadata  Repositories implications …. Different architectures suited to the nature of the ontologyDifferent architectures suited to the nature of the ontology More important to me that the repository be suited to the ontology than that I try to force fit an ontology into a single repository structureMore important to me that the repository be suited to the ontology than that I try to force fit an ontology into a single repository structure Application implications for accessing and using the ontologyApplication implications for accessing and using the ontology

5 OOR Requirements  Given these distinctions, purpose of an OOR would be to provide a framework for documenting and helping anyone to understand features and dimensions that should be or were considered in the design, creation, management and exchange of ontologies  Four dimensions for what I need to know about an ontology before I create it or consider using it… Context and purposeContext and purpose Content and conceptsContent and concepts Structures and relationshipsStructures and relationships GovernanceGovernance  My everyday decision for an ontology design or whether to use an existing one builds as I consider each of these dimensions

6 What I Need to Know – Context & Purpose  What kind of a domain does it represent? Topical, process oriented, personal, institutional, political, economic, research vs. application….  Does it represent a formal or an informal knowledge domain  Is the design top down or bottom up? (users vs. intermediaries and developers?)  is it intended for human or machine use and application?  What is the intended application context – search, financial analysis, logical inference, simple classification, dynamic clustering, conceptual indexing, knowledge mapping, metadata representation??

7 What I Need to Know -- Content  Purpose and warrant -- intended audience, basic functionality supported  Type of content -- data/numbers, calculations or ratios, words, grammatical fragments, logical statements, rule expressions or engineering equations  Degree of ambiguity built into the content -- contextual sensitivity or insensitivity of the content  Representational form – does it have a usable encoding form or specification or do I have to do a log of manual transformation?does it have a usable encoding form or specification or do I have to do a log of manual transformation? Is the data distinct from the business rules? Can I use one without the other?Is the data distinct from the business rules? Can I use one without the other?  Degree of conceptualization – is it theoretical or applied?

8 What I Need to Know – Structure & Representation  What form do the relationships take? Grammatical, mathematical, logical?  How do the relationships behave – what kind are there? derivational, causal, equivalence, representational or instance, class membership only, etc.  Have the relationships been validated? Can I trust them? Fully subjective, grammatical validation only, mathematical validation, logical rigor?  How tested – is methodology exposed?  What is the encoding structure? Are there conversion programs available?  What is the business logic – is it exposed and can I review it?  Do I need to use their business logic to interpret? Can I strip it out and add my own?

9 What I Need to Know -- Governance  Does it have a formal, standard set of guiding principles which I can interpret or adapt, or is it entirely home grown and serendipitously developed?  How are the GPs enforced? Prescriptive vs. description – how reliable is the enforcement?  What is the change management process? Can I access changes?  Is it extensible or can I build upon it in its current form?  How current is the ontology? Does it represent a 1980s view and is that view still valid for the context?  Do I trust the organization or people who have built and maintained it? How much effort will I have to put into reconciling?

10 Application Value to My Work  From an ontology life cycle perspective, there are three major stages in which an OOR can provide value Creation and deployment stageCreation and deployment stage Maintenance and management stageMaintenance and management stage Sharing or exchange stageSharing or exchange stage  I would expect an OOR to provide me with information I need at any stage of the life cycle

11 Value of Community OOR  Knowledge value current knowledge of ontologies is limited to who we know and our social networkscurrent knowledge of ontologies is limited to who we know and our social networks Open registry would have tremendous general knowledge domain value (registry)Open registry would have tremendous general knowledge domain value (registry)  Collaboration value We’re working on a business model to make some of our ontologies available in a collaborative space to support shared development (Registry + repository)We’re working on a business model to make some of our ontologies available in a collaborative space to support shared development (Registry + repository)  Simple publish and subscribe value Same business model can be used to make ontologies available for reuse and adaptation by others (registry + repository)Same business model can be used to make ontologies available for reuse and adaptation by others (registry + repository)

12 Advice and Suggestions  Just because ontologies are available does not mean they will be used – set the success factor at increased knowledge and participation  Start small and learn with a registry model, then incrementally build in the complexity of repositories for different types and degrees  Eventually, an OOR will be used to evaluate or characterize ontologies  Development of an OOR must go hand in hand with the metrics used to evaluate ontologies -- build the registry on attributes that will be used by people and machines to evaluate

13 Thank You!