Developing Semantic Technologies in a Collaborative Work Environment

1. CEW#38 - Semantic Conflict, Mapping, and Enablement: Making Commitments Together Developing Semantic Technologiesin aCollaborative Work Environment by Peter P. Yim <peter.yim@cim3.com> February 22, 2005 at the GSA / AIC / NCO Collaborative Expedition Workshop #38 at NSF (Ballston, Arlington,VA) ( v 1.02 )

2. Outline • Question #1: what is it, that we need to get done? • working as Communities of Practice (“CoP’s”) • with the Internet, collocation takes on a new meaning • working in the “wicked problem” space • CoP’s are just the beginning • transaction process vs. group process • what do “Ontologies” have to do with this? • getting to the real bottom line • “Open” – the final frontier • who holds the real “Key” to success?

3. Question #1: what is it, that needs to get done? • What is your semantic application for? • Reference standards • Transaction process • Information Mapping or Harmonization • Machine-to-machine interoperation • Machine inference • Human Learning & Knowledge Discovery • Natural Language Understanding (by machines) • … others

4. What Resources do you need for your project? • Systems expertise • Domain expertise • Knowledge Engineering / Knowledge Representation expertise • Software Engineering expertise • Program/Project management • Funding • … hopefully, working in a CoP setting

5. Working as Communities of Practice What are CoP’s anyway? • a group of professionals, informally bound to one another through exposure to a common class of problems, common pursuit of solutions, and thereby themselves embodying a store of knowledge.(--Peter & Trudy Johnson-Lenz / ref: http://ps1.cim3.net/ps.php?theurl=http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/definitions.shtml#purp47) • small groups of people who have worked together over a period of time. Not a team, not a task force, not necessarily an authorized or identified group. They are peers in the execution of "real work." What holds them together is a common sense of purpose and a real need to know what each other knows. (--John Seely Brown / ref: http://ps1.cim3.net/ps.php?theurl=http://www.fastcompany.com/online/01/people.html#purp205) • groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and who interact regularly to learn how to do it better.(--Etienne Wenger / ref: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm) • in our case here, it could be groups that work together along lines of business within the government that are dedicated to the support of certain business functions(ref: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?DataReferenceModel_09_2004/TheGlossary_DRM_VolIv1#nid2K8F)

6. Why we need to Collaborate as Communities… communities that will continuously learn and improve themselves • No one knows all the answers (don’t believe me? try addressing the “triple bottom line” ) • A lot of times, we are dealing with problems which we can’t even properly articulate • It’s urgent! We need our solution quick! • Things around us are changing too fast, and unpredictably • Bottom line: we need a collective intelligence to cope • extending from the TQM, Six-SIGMA, QFD … … it’s time for “Bootstrapping” (ref: Douglas Engelbart’s Bootstrap paradigm)

7. Why “Distributed” Collaboration? • Collocation of academia, research, talents and resources were among the key attributes that made the Silicon Valley a hotbed for innovation before • With the Internet, collocation is taking on a new meaning • Face-to-face interaction, while good and sometimes even necessary, is something we can’t afford • The expertise needed is too rare, or just isn’t available locally • Multiple perspectives improves quality • We need to involve all stakeholders, and they aren’t all local • It’s more efficient, and it’s finally feasible

8. CIM Engineering Inc. (dba. CIM3) est. 1989 • Mission: to enable more effective distributed collaboration and virtual enterprise through bootstrapping collective intelligence over the Internet • Products/Services: providing an ISP/ASP based Collaborative Work Environment (“CWE”) infrastructure that enables distributed project teams, virtual enterprise partners and communities of practice to work effectively over the Internet. • Approach-1: People as an integral part of the system • Ref: the Community Spectrum [Kaplan/iCohere] • Affinity Networks • Learning Communities • Communities of Practice (CoP’s) • Project Teams • Approach-2: We optimize our infrastructure, tools and process for CoP’s and Distributed Project Teams … we take care of the infratructure, so that those communities and teams can really focus on their work

9. Our Hosting Facility

10. A walk-through of the <ontolog> Community CWE • CWE - designed to be the community’s Dynamic Knowledge Repository, entailing: • Discussion Forums • Wiki workspace – a read & write website • File-sharing Workspace/Repository • a Community Portal • Some Community Practices & Processes • Archived discussions • Group Project & Sub-projects • Sharing documents and Resources • Augmented Work sessions & Conference Calls • Virtual Presentations & Discussion sessions • Face-to-face Workshops • Knowledge sharing, re-use, access & exploration • Collaboration in tools development • … plus other synchronous collaboration support

11. Case Examples of Communities on the CIM3 CWE • CWE-dev • Ontolog-Forum • Bootstrap • eGov: COLAB • eGov: SINE • Millennium Project(AC/UNU) • Protégé • Digital Art Ontology • … (more)

12. the Bootstrap Community Ontolog-Forum ebXML CCT Ontology NHIN-RFI response the Millennium Project SOFI system development the Protégé Community OASIS - UBL TC eGov – SINE, COLAB & GOV-CWE CoP’s SICoP, NICS, …, DRM Case Examples

13. Working in the “wicked problem” space “ … on tackling 'wicked problems': it's about arriving at a shared commitment, with a shared understanding, augmented by a shared display and a facilitator.” -- citing the work by the IBIS people (Horst Rittle/Jeff Conklin) “wicked” problems are problems that we can’t even properly define … Ref: http://www.poppendieck.com/wicked.htm

14. [CCT-Representation] Project • Goal: To influence the adoption of ontologies and ontological engineering methodologies in eBusiness standards.    [0141] • Mission: To establish an Ontological Basis for ebXML Core Component Types ("CCT") using the methodologies the [ontolog-forum] has established for the UblOntology project; engage representation and participation from the ontological engineering and standards community (particularly from the standards community that developed and implemented the core component types); and, to produce a reference CCT ontology and a report on findings and recommendations for submission to UN/CEFACT CCTS (and possibly the Harmonization) working group(s). • Deliverables: • a reference ontology of approved ebXML Core Component Types ("CCTONT") • a report on findings and recommendations regarding the current CCT specifications

15. [CCT-Rep] Project Results • Focused work on the CCTS approved CCT’s: 10 Core Component Types, and their 44 Supplementary Components • 8 step project plan [017] • Over 20 members (active and observing); broad representation: • from multiple standards working groups; government and citizen efforts; ontologists and domain experts; … • Learning and recommendations reported at the Semantic Harmonization Panel of EIDX Conference Dec. 2004 • Feedback and Recommendation forwarded to UN/CEFACT CCTS-WG Jan. 2005

16. [NHIN-RFI] Response Project • Ontolog-SICoP joint effort • Collaboratively authored the argument and a set of recommendations for the HHS/FHA and ONCHIT to adopt ontological engineering approaches, a common upper ontologies, open standards, open technology and an open community process to develop the NHIN of the future [164] • 20 members (active and observing); broad representation: • Involvement of ontologists, clinical and healthcare system experts; with advice from leadership of standards working groups; government and citizen efforts; … • RFI response was delivered on the Jan. 18, 2005 deadline date [249] • subsequent pilot/demo/presentation effort staged to reinforce our position [272]

17. CoP’s are just the beginning • CoP’s allow us to bring the right people together, and allow these people to understand, over time, who has the real expertise, who they can work with, who they can trust, …etc. • To do real work, we still need: • streamlined processes, and • effective organization • … the traditional processes and organizations that work in brick-and-mortar settings may not be optimal any more.

18. introducing: The Fishnet Organization An Organizational Form that the CWE aims at Supporting – leading us toward Open Virtual Enterprises these are temporary (or semi-permanent) hierarchies, that emerge out of the CoP's, which capitalize on distributed capabilities to achieve specific purposes; when those purposes are achieved (or when the opportunities no longer exist), they disband, and the resources (people, knowledge, skill sets) are returned to the CoP's where they come from. Source: Institute for the Future: Johansen, R., Swigart, R.Upsizing the Individual in the Downsized Organization

19. Transaction System processes vs. Human (group) processes • When we design systems, we expect things to be fully describable, fully online, fully informative, fully accurate, or fully responsible • … sorry, people don’t do that! • we need to start with different assumption when trying to make people work together to produce results Ref: Winograd, Newman, Yim “Including People in CIM Designs”

20. The Case for the Augmentation Approach in CWE • We work towards providing a work environment for both humans and machines, optimizing between objectives like • Supporting the expressiveness that humans need to convey their ideas, and the structure and rigor that machines need to properly interoperate - in essence, promoting both creativity and operational efficacy • The ease-of-use that everyday users need, and the versatility and extensibility that power users need to take their work to the next level • Securing the borders of the cwe to malicious intruders, while encouraging access, participation, sharing and the free flow of information and knowledge among members of the trusted communities • Catering to the quality requirements of information and transaction processing systems and the realities of human behavior that just aren’t * • Our intent is to foster shared understanding and learning • We are trying to spur innovation, as well as organic or emergent behavior in the user communities and teams

21. What do “Ontologies” have to do with this? • “Ontologies” is about shared semantics • and about committing to that shared understanding • on the one hand, we can attempt to fully, and formally represent certain semantics, but • on the other, we also have to be willing to share, and willing to commit

22. The Challenges • We need the “tools”, the “process”, and most importantly the “people” to all work together • We need to be improving at an exponential rate, just to cope with the exponential rate of “change” happening around us • Team building, with distributed individuals who might not even have met one another, is a challenge • Trusted communities cannot be developed overnight • Attributes like entrepreneurship or willingness to take risk (which are also key to the Silicon Valley success story) do not readily transfer from physical space to cyberspace • The current economics and legal infrastructure aren’t meant for, say, fishnet organizations

23. The real bottom line • Knowledge Representation in logic languages and all the formalism are just for capturing the shared understanding and commitment, if we (the people) can't reach that shared understanding or commit to it, then we have a non-starter • ... therefore, it’s all on us (the people … not our tools, not even our process)

24. “Open” – the final frontier • we mean: open standards, open technology (including free and open source software), open content, open knowledge, open process, open access, open mind … and the transparency associated with them • it’s a two-edged sword that we need to learn to handle • however, our unimpeded progress (as in continuous improvement to cope with an exponential rate of change) will depend on it

25. The real “Key” to success • the individual participants hold the key to the communities’ and their project’s success, and it’s all in their “attitude towards sharing and commitment”

26. References • Doug Engelbart's Bootstrap Vision and Mission • [ontolog-forum]: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ • CWE Community: http://community.cim3.net • CIM3 ASP Product/Pricing: Collaborative Work Environment Hosting • More Information: • CIM Engineering, Inc. • Peter P. Yim (bio) (cv)