...

Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://duraspace.zoom.us/j/952326581

Or iPhone one-tap :
    US: +16468769923,,952326581#  or +16699006833,,952326581# 
Or Telephone:
    Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): 
        US: +1 646 876 9923  or +1 669 900 6833  or +1 408 638 0968 
    Meeting ID: 952 326 581
    International numbers available: https://duraspace.zoom.us/zoomconference?m=UwwKqz4RbGAsBAZgCE9XMorMuL0CeV4Q
more details»  copy to my calendar

Attendees

1. Brian Lowe
2. Anna Kaszprik
3. Muhammed Hossein
4. Mike Conlon

Resources

Ontology Interest Group Google Folder https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1RGBh4fDZdzpJdwyiUMO8OPWwkcmVYrI0

Agenda

1. Updates
2. Updated documents since our last meeting:
3. New: Early Thoughts on Representing Grants and Projects in VIVO http://bit.ly/2Iwaeoj
Updated: Discussion of Early Thoughts on VIVO Subsumption Hierarchy httphttps://bit.ly/2Ekg7m6
4. Updated: Early Thoughts on Open Ontology Issues http://bit.ly/2Rc67BK
5. Updated: Early Thoughts on Representing Language Capabilities in VIVO http://bit.ly/2Rbi8XY
6. Trello board.  See https://trello.com/b/L1b80jtm/version-2-ontology Cards are labeled with blue if they have a corresponding document, and yellow if there is a discussion required about how to proceed. Many cards updated.
7. Conference submissions accepted:
   1. Presentation on VIVO Ontology work
   2. Poster on related domains
8. International Conference on Biomedical Ontologies (ICBO), Buffalo, New York, July 29-August 2.  https://sites.google.com/view/icbo2019/home
9. Discussion regarding how to proceed – Christian, all
10. Aligning semantics – EuroCRIS proposal – Mike, all
11. Topics for future meetings. All
12. docs.google.com/document/d/10Y5j8K_LKa-lAU-Z_p4q1ZnpuuKXEqqTTUb9F-4cFBE/edit#heading=h.vh08fi94n9io
13. Next meeting July 25.  Topic?No meeting June 27. Next meeting July 11.

Google doc for notes: http://bit.ly/2R7dSZm2NMT1N6

Notes

1. Updates (see above)
2. How to proceed
• Christian: Start from more abstract to concrete. Begin by defining concepts (http://bit.ly/2Ekg7m6).
  • Mike: May need to go back-and-forth. It’s not a concrete definition, but a suggestion that may be changed later.
  • Brian: Can pick a document and have a “homework assignment” where we decide what changes we think can be made and then meet back together and discuss what we came up with.
  • Following discussion, group agreed to the homework approach.
3. EuroCRIS interested in an MOU with the VIVO Project
• Meeting was held in Helsinki with Ed Simon, Jan, Michelle of EuroCRIS, Mike (VIVO), Anna (SIGMA)
• Mike: EuroCRIS expressed interest in 2 initiatives:  1) Cerif to VIVO conversion (no interest for now in other direction). Could possibly be a project starting at SIGMA. Not a description of how to map- a working tool.
  • A lot of the semantics are in code tables that can be heavily customized locally.
  • Can a tool be built that converts CERIF 2 VIVO and allows others to use local code tables?
• Second interest, Aligning semantics across a series of projects. (OpenAire, FAIR, CASRAI, VIVO, Freya, ORCiD, Cerif, COAR, KDSF, OBO, etc.)
• Brian: What kind of output? A common ontology or mappings?
  • Mike: That would be the first work item to consider.
• Christian: This seems like a really large project.
• Mike: Getting people together to discuss this might make people realize how big the project is.
• Christian: Maybe have a bridge between ontologies.
  • https://coli-conc.gbv.de/cocoda/dev/ or Wikidata?
• Possible approach: http://oaei.ontologymatching.org/2019/conference/index.html?
• Mike: Aligning ontologies is feasible.  But some people only have a data model, a data structure (relational tables or JSON) and documentation.  We have had this since the 1970s.
• Research Graph has a large scale research graph.  http://researchgraph.org
• RDA may be forming a research graph working group.  
• Freya is creating a “PID Graph” connecting research entities via persistent identifiers
4. Home assigned.  See action item
5. Next meeting July 11.

Action Items

•  Read and comment on Early Thoughts on VIVO Subsumption Heirarchy https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Y5j8K_LKa-lAU-Z_p4q1ZnpuuKXEqqTTUb9F-4cFBE/edit#heading=h.vh08fi94n9io for our next meeting

...

In Progress or Review Ontology Issues

Open Ontology Issues

...

1. The group discussed the subsumption document.
2. Regarding academic degrees. 
   1. There was concern about the assertion "academic degree is a document".  There seems to be two notions around the concept of an academic degree. 1) the degree is the output of an educational process.  The educational process might have a sub-process – the award process which clarifies that the award of a degree has multiple participants – institution conferring the degree, the recipient of the degree, the groups that might have approved/signed-off on elements of the degree.  For a doctoral degree this might include an advisor, members of a thesis committee, the graduate school, the editorial review, and others.  In this context, there is an artifact of the process, which is a document called and academic degree.  As with any document, there is the idea of the degree (FRBR, see below, calls this "the work"), and various manifestations, records, and copies of the degree document. 2) the change that occurs in the person who is the recipient of the degree.  There is a general notion that one that receives a PhD degree in musicology (for example), is not simply "the bearer of a degree in musicology" but rather "has become" a musicologist.  We might say simply Jane has recipient role in a degree award process with output of academic degree.  The award process has a date of conference, the degree has a type, perhaps subject matter. Figure 3 in Early Thoughts on Representing Academic Degrees favors the first notion and may not capture the distinction between an on-going process (a student role) and an award process (a recipient role).
   2. What of honorary degrees?  Seems these can be represented in a similar fashion in which the educational process is replaced with a selection process leading to the award of an honorary degree.
   3. What of other credentials?  Passports?  Certifications?  Licenses?  In each case, it seems there is a process by which the credential is awarded.  In each case there is an entity that confers the credential, and a recipient that receives/bears the credential.  In each case, there is record of the credential, and an artifact (digital or physical) of the credential.  In some cases, we use language to indicate a change in the recipient.  We say things such as "Jane is a licensed physician in the State of New York," or "LYRASIS is a registered non-profit in the State of Pennsylvania."  How do we know these assertions to be true?  There is evidence in the form of an artifact – a license, an incorporation document – resulting from a process in which the license or incorporation document was conferred.  These cases appear to have the same elements as the academic degree situation, but perhaps with a "scope" – Jane is licensed in New York, she may not be licensed elsewhere. 
   4. Academic Degrees have a "type" which indicates an area of mastery, but not a geographical scope.  Some countries have correspondences between degrees in their country and degrees of other countries.  But for VIVO, we may only be interested in the award of the degree – conferrer, date, "type".
3. Regarding events
   1. Event is shown a process.  Some event types are also shown – performance, course.  Conference is a type of event.  But does event include software events such as messaging – a piece of software creates an event that is consumed by another piece of software?  CrossRef has scientometric events of this kind.  We may need to distinguish such "technical events" from "social events."  But are technical events in scope for VIVO?
4. Regarding services
   1. Services are shown as processes.  But perhaps there are three kinds of things that are typically referred to as "service" 1) there is the act of providing service.  This would appear to be a process.  2) a document describing the service – in ERO, a service is asserted to be an information content entity.  This would appear to be this second notion of service, one that might be called a service description.  The provision of the service (a doctor performs a procedure on a patient) is the first notion.  A description of the procedure is the second notion. 3) A service offering, which may have a description or specification, and may or may not be realized.
   2. What defines a service as something distinct from any other process?  In an  economic sense, a service is performed by one party for the benefit of a second party.  The second party "pays" and the first party receives the payment.  Academic processes may involve payment, or other forms of exchange. 
   3. In the US, "service" for a faculty member at a university is typically "service to the profession" which broadly includes participation in editorial and review processes and leadership of the profession, and "service to the university" which includes committee and administrative work.  Clinical, consulting, and contracted services are other forms of service.  While universities lump all these together as "service" (as distinct from teaching and research), each of these might be quite different from an ontological view point.
5. Regarding citations
   1. "What is a citation?"  Seems like a big gap in the subsumption hierarchy as citations are extremely important in the scholarly domain.
   2. Perhaps we could read or reread
      Shotton: CiTO, the Citation Typing Ontology. Journal of Biomedical Semantics 2010 1(Suppl 1): S6. doi:10.1186/2041-1480-1-S1-S6
   3. There is much to discuss in this paper.  Perhaps we can review it together next time.  Citation as an object property, citation counts, citation types, types of works, the FRBR model of documents.

Action Items

...