ppy/chat-transcript_unedited_20131107a.txt ------ Chat transcript from room: ontolog_20131107 2013-11-07 GMT-08:00 [PST] ------ [9:18] PeterYim: Welcome to the = OntologyBasedStandards mini-series session-06 - Thu 2013-11-07 = Session Co-chairs: Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council) & Professor WilliamMcCarthy (Michigan State U) Topic: Ontology-based Financial Standards: Some Ongoing Work Panel / Briefings: * Professor BillMcCarthy (Michigan State U) - "ISO 15944-4 (2nd edition) and the REA accounting ontology" * Mr. DaveMcComb (Semantic Arts) - "Taming Complexity in the Financial Services Industry" * Mr. MikeBennett (EDM Council) - "FIBO and Shared Semantics" * Dr. ElieAbiLahoud (University College Cork, Ireland) - "On The Road to Regulatory Ontologies: Expressing Regulations in Structured Natural Language - use of SBVR to create regulatory ontologies" * Mr. JohnHall (Model Systems, UK) - "Interpreting Regulation: some snippets from a methodology" Logistics: * (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your RealName * Mute control (phone keypad): *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute * Attn: Skype users ... see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_10_31#nid3ZTO ** you may connect to (the skypeID) "joinconference" whether or not it indicates that it is online (i.e. even if it says it is "offline," you should still be able to connect to it.) ** if you are using skype and the connection to "joinconference" is not holding up, try using (your favorite POTS or VoIP line, etc.) either your phone, skype-out or google-voice and call the US dial-in number: +1 (206) 402-0100 ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184# ** Can't find Skype Dial pad? *** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad" *** for Linux Skype users: please stay with (or downgrade to) Skype version 2.x for now (as a Dial pad seems to be missing on Linux-based Skype v4.x for skype-calls.) Please refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_11_07 Attendees: AdamWyner, AlexShkotin, AmandaVizedom, BartGajderowicz, BillMcCarthy, BobbinTeegarden, DaveMcComb, DavidBooth, DennisWisnosky, DonaldChapin, EdBernot, ElieAbiLahoud, ElisaKendall, FrancescaQuattri, FrankOlken, GaryBergCross, GenZou, IsabellaDistinto, JesperKiehn, JoanneLuciano, JohnMcClure, JohnHall, LamarHenderson, MartinGladwell, MaxGillmore, MichaelGruninger, MichaelUschold, MikeBennett, PaulFodor, PeterYim, RichardBeatch, RichardMartin, SimonSpero, TaraAthan, ToddSchneider, == Proceedings == [9:18] anonymous morphed into IsabellaDistinto [9:27] anonymous morphed into DaveMcComb [9:27] anonymous morphed into RichardBeatch [9:27] anonymous1 morphed into MartinGladwell [9:29] anonymous morphed into BartGajderowicz [9:31] anonymous morphed into JohnHall [9:32] anonymous morphed into FrancescaQuattri [9:32] anonymous1 morphed into ElieAbiLahoud [9:33] FrancescaQuattri: Hi Peter, It's me ... [thanks. =ppy] [9:34] anonymous morphed into DavidBooth [9:34] anonymous1 morphed into MichaelUschold [9:34] anonymous morphed into JesperKiehn [9:35] JoanneLuciano: Hi Everyone! [9:35] anonymous1 morphed into MaxGillmore [9:35] MikeBennett: sorry I changed windows in skype and can't find the dial pad again [9:36] ElieAbiLahoud: in the menu under Call [9:36] MikeBennett: Yes, once you go to another chat window the main skype window no longer shows the call. Found it in the end. [9:36] anonymous morphed into DonaldChapin [9:36] FrankOlken: FrankOlken is on the teleconference and chat room. [9:38] JoanneLuciano: the vnc is asking for a password VNC authication [9:38] MikeBennett: ontolog [9:38] JoanneLuciano: thanks Mike! [9:39] anonymous morphed into SimonSpero [9:39] anonymous1 morphed into JohnMcClure [9:49] jkiehn morphed into JesperKiehn [9:39] PeterYim: == MikeBennett and BillMcCarthy starts the session - see slides at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_11_07#nid40I9 [9:40] List of members: AdamWyner, AlexShkotin, AmandaVizedom, BartGajderowicz, BillMcCarthy, DaveMcComb, DavidBooth, DonaldChapin, EdBernot, ElieAbiLahoud, FrancescaQuattri, FrankOlken, GenZou, IsabellaDistinto, JesperKiehn, JoanneLuciano, JohnMcClure, JohnHall, MartinGladwell, MaxGillmore, MichaelUschold, MichaelGruninger, MikeBennett, PeterYim, RichardBeatch, RichardMartin, SimonSpero, TaraAthan, ToddSchneider, vnc2 [9:51] ToddSchneider: We should avoid using the term 'meaning', it's misleading in the context of the use of explicit semantics in information systems. 'Interpretation' is the more correct (and descriptive) term. [9:54] AlexShkotin: @Todd, 'meaning' is logical term, 'interpretation' - maths. We need both:-) [9:56] MikeBennett: Hmmmm... [9:56] ToddSchneider: Alex, humans may make sense of 'meaning', computers interpret. [9:58] AlexShkotin: @Todd, and we have 'definition' in common;-) [9:56] PeterYim: == BillMcCarthy presenting ... [10:01] JoanneLuciano: [ re. BillMcCarthy's slide#4 ] not clear what the different color in the lines (and different types of lines) mean [10:02] MikeBennett: @Joanne, Black = independent view; red = view as seen from within the firm and reported in the accounts. [10:08] MichaelUschold: [ re. BillMcCarthy slide#8 ] Does this mean Public Administration agents are not Organizations? What definition of Organization excludes a Public Administration? [10:10] MikeBennett: There's potential there for a more comprehensive ontology of organizations, persons, legal persons, persons defined by their function (such as public admin; business etc.) and so on, I think. [10:13] JoanneLuciano: feedback to presenter: arrows on dashed lines in slides 13 and 14 would help the slide convey the static slide [10:11] RichardBeatch: Mike, leaving granularity aside for now, are the categories here consistent with FIBO? Do they need to be? [10:15] MikeBennett: @Richard At present, no. Firstly, we model "Party" as a relative thing (some entity in some role); and secondly we distinguish between legal persons, organizations, and things which are both. Hence (per my note above) Public Administration would not be in the top level set. We have autonomous agent (corresponds to ISO Person), split into legal person, human being and organization; and separately we have entities defined by their function (business, non profit, special purpose vehicles etc.). But it's a close fit. [10:22] JoanneLuciano: @MikeBennett re @Richard -- not consistent but a close fit? is that same_as or different_from close but no cigar? :-) ... what are the implications of them not being consistent? what doesn't work? what is gained with consistency? (interoperability?) [10:23] MikeBennett: @Joanne a good example of the kind of thing I want to try to unpack in my presentation :) [10:23] MaxGillmore: I think that it would be perfectly possible to apply REA concepts to conversion transactions (machine can be abstracted as an Agent) [10:26] FrancescaQuattri: really sorry to leave but I am knocked down by the late hour. Peter, do you think we can reach a compromise with the world clock for the next sessions? Thanks to All Presenters for the slides. [10:49] PeterYim: @FrancescaQuattri, ... the regular Ontolog event timing is almost an institution (some community members actually carve out this time slot in their busy schedules to participate); that said, the community collectively, makes the call ... let's discuss this offline ... noting though, that "asynchronous" participation is already supported, in a significant way. [10:28] PeterYim: == DaveMcComb presenting ... [10:30] JoanneLuciano: [ re. DaveMcComb's slide#5 ] @Dave - laughing at his joke - make you an offer you can't understand [10:30] MichaelUschold: Yeah, no laugh track, just is not the same :-) [10:38] anonymous morphed into SimonSpero [10:38] MikeBennett: Hi Simon, you got a good mention on the previous presentation. [10:40] SimonSpero: @mike- yeah- tablet browser dropped me from chat, but Skype lives [10:40] anonymous morphed into ElisaKendall [10:41] SimonSpero: Gist (on the internet) is tied in to github :-) [10:42] SimonSpero: ( https://gist.github.com ) [10:41] MichaelUschold: FYI: The core of the REA model has a very natural and fairly direct mapping to gist. [10:42] JoanneLuciano: +1 on reducing the complexity -- I like the way gist looks/sounds [10:45] BobbinTeegarden: Man as the anti-entropic force in the universe -- Dave's GIST is a great example of just that. [10:43] MikeBennett: Things should be as simple as possible and no simpler. Hence the importance of high level, atomic concepts I think. [10:47] AmandaVizedom: I agree, with the caveat that maximum simplicity sometimes means using high-level atomic concepts and sometimes means using more specific ones. The Einstein quote (@MikeBennett [10:43]) has a corresponding principle regarding generality: Concepts and relations should be asserted as generally as possible (at the most general level at which the relation you want to assert is true), and no more generally. [10:49] SimonSpero: An employee, a customer and a pilot walk in to a bar [10:50] JoanneLuciano: @Amanda - yes, to me, goes without saying, but at the same time, it's good to have (re)stated so we know we agree. occam's razor [10:50] AmandaVizedom: @DaveMcComb: Nice articulation of where the complexity comes from and how it is amenable to reduction. [10:55] AmandaVizedom: @Joanne: I mention it because I don't think it goes without saying -- I do think that many here understand it, but in practice, people model both too specifically (which Dave was mostly addressing) and too generally (choosing a high-level model that encumbers future extensions and models with expectations that may not fit.) I think that Dave's emphasis on the lightweight nature of the high-level notions probably is addressed to this, but as it wasn't explicit, I thought it worth noting. [10:58] JoanneLuciano: @AmandaVizedom, Nice articulation of Dave's nice articulation summarizing the lessons learned from merging data in business applications and that it's useful to start with understanding from SME and getting the gist. @ Amanda -- you're right. I was making an assumption in the context of the call. Glad that you made it explicit. [10:58] AmandaVizedom: Perhaps @DaveMcComb or @MichaelUschold can tell us if I'm right about that aspect of gist. [11:05] MichaelUschold: TO Amanda: which aspect of gist? [11:10] MichaelUschold: We have a gist introduction white paper that describes the design rationale of gist; if you cannot find it online, ping me. [11:17] AmandaVizedom: @MichaelUschold - Thanks, I'll check it out. [11:10] MichaelUschold: A key thing about this is that it is small enough to get your head around and actually start using, but specific enough to have a starting place for modelling almost anything that arises in a typical enterprise. Also specific enough in terms of axioms, to do useful consistency checking to catch errors. [10:45] PeterYim: == MikeBennett presenting ... [10:45] anonymous morphed into JohnHall [10:59] JoanneLuciano: [ re. MikeBennett's slide#7 ] @Mike, "Relative thing" to me looks like "Role" [11:06] MichaelUschold: [ re. MikeBennett's slide#16 ] @Mike, Is a FIBO Aspect like a part or component of something, or more like a property or attribute of something? [11:23] MikeBennett: @Michael not a component, more like an attribute or more accurately a side or viewpoint. It's very underspecified at this point. [11:08] AmandaVizedom: @Michael: That the high-level aspects are lightweight, thus potentially mitigating people's tendency to model too generally, as well as what Dave talked about explicitly wrt mitigation of modeling too specifically, [11:09] ElisaKendall: @Joanne @Mike regarding relative thing looking like role -- for the most part in the current ontology, we're restricting Mike's notion of relative things exactly to parties in a role -- so, for example, with regards to parties in the context of a trust agreement, we have trustor, trustee, beneficiary, all of which are parties to the trust agreement and have identity of an independent party (beneficiaries in particular don't need to be legal persons, but can include minors, etc.). [11:12] SimonSpero: @MikeBennett: contract has fairly specific meaning in law. A [11:13] SimonSpero: essential feature is that it is legally enforceable [11:14] MikeBennett: @Simon precisely. This is why it makes the whole model simpler if you don't regard agreement and contract as the same kind of thing. [11:14] PeterYim: @BillMcCarthy, @MikeBennett - [ re. MikeBennett's slide#17 ] is there an adequate mapping (or harmonization) between "transactions" concepts in REA and XBRL [11:15] MikeBennett: @Peter we had just started to look at the formal mapping into XBRL when we temporarily suspended this series of calls to focus on other more immediate technical issues. We intend to fiure out how to align these concepts with XBRL-GL and we are confident that the use of the Aspect concept makes this possible. [11:17] PeterYim: @MikeBennett - would it be easier to have FIBO be grounded on a single Ontology (say REA) and *then* map to other system/ontology(s)? [11:18] MikeBennett: @Peter that's the original intent of the FIBO Foundational ontology components. REA concepts live in a specific context, though we were able to promote a number of those terms to a broader context. [11:19] MikeBennett: What I hope to have shown is that there is potential to do this kind of thing more broadly across semantic-based standards communities. [11:11] PeterYim: == ElieAbiLahoud presenting ... [11:15] AmandaVizedom: Aside: Something I like about all of these presentations: The modeling approaches are explicitly *both* realistic *and* multi-perspectival. I think that this is probably the only way to adequately model a complex domain with multiple actor-types, each with its own view on (part of) the domain. It is worth calling out an applauding as a practical approach, however, because it resists the methodological pressures from certain corners of the field to either reject any talk of an underlying reality (and talk only of conceptualizations) or to reject the need for, or validity of, multiple perspectives on a domain. [11:23] SimonSpero: would like to come back to the sources - as warrants and authority: There's CFR and USC, where CFR authority must be found in the USC (and scope of definitions can be a common source of income for DC Circuit lawyers [11:26] PeterYim: == JohnHall presenting ... [11:31] MikeBennett: @Simon I think there's a lot of scope for taking concepts that we simply put in the taxonomic hierarchy, and putting more legal and social constructs around them. Ultimately we should be able to use Searle's ontology of social constructs to do justice to most of those. [11:32] SimonSpero: Mike: this is what I'm talking about [11:36] SimonSpero: [Ejusdem generis] [11:42] PeterYim: == Wrap up ... [11:43] JohnMcClure: [ re. trying to make a verbal remark, but was on mute, and we ran out of time ] too bad [11:44] JohnMcClure: REA model is missing public goods, externalities and open source [11:44] PeterYim: let's do our Q&A and open discussion asynchronously on the [ontology-based-standards] mailing list - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-based-standards [11:44] PeterYim: Join us again, in two weeks (Thu 2013_11_21) for the RulesReasoningLP mini-series session-03: Concepts and Foundations of Rules and Ontologies: Logic Programs, Classical Logic, and Semantic Web - II - Co-chairs: LeoObrst & PascalHitzler [11:45] PeterYim: next in this series - 2013_12_12 - Thursday: OntologyBasedStandards mini-series session-07: "How ontologies can help with the formal specification of the natural language standards" - co-champions: SimonSpero, KenBaclawski, RichardMartin, AdamWyner, MarkJohnson [11:46] JohnMcClure: thanks peter and presenters! great info [11:46] AlexShkotin: Great plans! Bye. [11:46] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:46am PST -- ------