14:40:06 RRSAgent has joined #ogws 14:40:06 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-ogws-irc 14:40:12 rdecarlo73 has joined #ogws 14:40:13 rrsagent, set log public 14:40:37 Meeting: Oil & Gas Workshop, 2nd day (2008-12-10) 14:41:39 Manoj has joined #ogws 14:42:30 neilmcn has joined #ogws 14:42:55 OnnoPaap has joined #ogws 14:51:30 ram has joined #ogws 14:51:38 Darius has joined #ogws 14:59:45 kendall has joined #ogws 14:59:57 ivan: what's the syntax for scribe nick? 15:00:11 scribenick: kendall 15:00:12 :-) 15:00:30 The Integrated Operations project is based on ISO 15926 15:00:38 thx 15:01:35 Computas works largely on business process modeling & improvements, largely for the public sector 15:02:35 Approach is to make data-driven decisions quickly and accurately 15:02:37 FrankC has joined #ogws 15:03:46 How can we avoid making the same mistake > 1 15:04:14 And how do you manage knowledge through workforce lifecycle, including generational changes, retirements, etc 15:04:20 mario has joined #ogws 15:04:39 LeeF has joined #ogws 15:04:48 socio is good 15:04:58 Focusing on the social aspects of knowledge 15:05:17 Use case: experience transfer in the area of well construction & drilling 15:05:19 socio-technical is better 15:05:51 "Intraproject team transfer" 15:06:55 Tried information retrieval but it wasn't sufficient alone 15:07:31 Started explicitly annotating information, as well as deriving metadata from existing data 15:07:57 -> http://www.w3.org/2008/12/ogws-slides/computas.pdf Slides of Computas 15:09:10 Use an ontology to guide information retrieval and for annotations (as a kind of controlled vocabulary for terms, it seems) 15:09:14 Not so much for inference 15:09:29 Using "semantic distance" notion in their IR 15:10:28 AKSIO drilling ontology created with domain experts, using an interview & observation process 15:10:49 "What can cause bore hole instability?" and then capture the domain knowledge derived 15:10:55 steve has joined #ogws 15:11:17 Evolving this bottom-up ontology into a more formal ontology and reusing it on another project 15:12:40 Benefits of this approach: increased quality of knowledge; increased rate of knowledge reuse; leading to better decisions, i.e., better drill plans 15:13:44 Question: is the AKSIO ontology able to be reused by others? Chevron people want it. 15:14:05 answer: yes 15:14:13 robert has joined #ogws 15:14:28 leef: thx 15:14:50 Chevron trying to populate ontologies in this area 15:15:14 Side-discussion about something; scribe is confused...Monotonicity, I think... 15:16:26 LeeF: No, the weather changes today were responsible for my slide yesterday :> 15:16:42 it's a strange world, this. 15:16:50 Wants to align AKSIO stuff, and other, with ISO 15926 and other things 15:17:31 Computas focuses more on "long lived business processes" rather than execution-BPEL sorts of things 15:18:07 Difficult to elicit knowledge from the experts 15:18:42 Someone repeat teh question for teh scribe? 15:18:50 and the back of the room 15:18:51 ? 15:19:18 "were the abbreviations projects specific or company wide?" 15:19:42 thx 15:20:12 Knowledge elicitation included variance & fault reporting 15:20:32 Chevron is helping to promote SPE's (http://www.spe.org) Open Oilfield Ontology Repository initiative 15:21:03 Question: was the ontology really just a taxonomy or an ontology proper? (axiomatizations) 15:21:18 Answer: It was basically a thesaurus, initially 15:24:19 Supporting long lived work processes -> workflow 15:25:04 Can we align OWL-DL and BPMN 15:25:56 Use case: Daily Production Optimization process 15:25:59 Good question 15:27:17 Turned (something...) into a BPMN ontology 15:27:39 Upshot is that processes and data are described in the same model (ontology) 15:27:54 Lets you consistency check diagrams (cutting edge!) 15:28:12 Extensible via the underlying formalism (OWL-DL) 15:29:07 Commentary: This kind of approach helps explicitly mark information gaps 15:29:41 Fuels the integration-analysis feedback loop 15:30:07 Computas' conclusions: work at a higher level of KR than XML, i.e., RDF andOWL 15:30:13 erp, s/andOWL/and OWL/ 15:30:59 Work process & KM is a way of linking data to process, i.e., data-drive biz processes 15:31:00 Computas supports the creation of a O&G Interest Group! 15:31:28 And SemWeb tech can be a key enabler of O&G IT 15:31:46 do not want to do uncertainty stuff with semantic web.. (Ivan quips: Not yet) 15:32:47 paper on uncertainty reasons for the world wide web : http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/XGR-urw3-20080331/ 15:33:53 Semantic Days 2009, May 19-20 in Stravanger 15:33:58 There is some software that does uncertainty in OWL-DL -- http://pellet.owldl.com/pronto -- Scribe's privilege :) 15:35:09 Earth science also a really world class OWL ontology: http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/ontology/ 15:36:19 What do other operating companies think about this open cooperation required to make standards... 15:38:35 Ontologies being developed to support integration ot geology, geophysics, geography, etc. ... 15:38:36 http://www.geongrid.org/index.php/home/search_results/e71139bdc4c23dadfec1d4579ebd1525/ 15:39:55 Topic: Combining two approaches for ontology building, epsis 15:40:19 -> http://www.w3.org/2008/12/ogws-slides/epsis.pdf slides 15:42:40 Speaker did phd in improving ontology alignment algorithms, including plugin for Protege 15:43:23 Speaker is Jennifer Sampson 15:45:27 Epsis focused on integrated operations in O&G 15:47:26 Working in various ways on O&G standards related to semweb 15:47:38 POSC Caesar, etc 15:48:17 PCA RDL is RDS/WIP discussed yesterday 15:48:59 Question: can you say more about extension work to ISO 15926 15:49:49 RDL: Reference Data Library 15:50:00 RDS: Reference Data System 15:50:12 WIP: Work In Progress 15:51:03 Part 2: ISO 15926 Data Model 15:51:04 How about we let her give her talk? 15:51:29 Part 4: ISO 15926 Reference Data 15:54:52 Three generations if IO development; gen 0 focused on infrastructure level; gen 1 (currently) work process management, collaboration, viz 15:55:15 gen 2: 'smart stuff' -- agents, prediction, integrated scheduling 15:57:12 Question: Most of the value creation will be in gen 2 & 3, right? Answer: yes 15:57:54 Question: Gen 0 was negative value creation? Yes, it's mostly just capital investment. 16:00:00 Data is outstripping processing capabilities 16:01:31 david has joined #ogws 16:02:02 Combine top-down and bottom-up ontology development 16:02:33 with, roughly, top-down aligned to "knowledge" and bottom-up aligned to "experience" 16:05:02 Environment Web Project -- official system of record for emissions & discharges in Norway related to O&G operations 16:27:58 Scribe gives up 16:47:37 ogws has joined #ogws 16:48:21 Discussion Panel: O&G view on Semantic Web 16:48:56 BP: Danny Ducharme 16:49:11 Chevron: Roger Cutler 16:49:21 Shell: 16:49:36 Shell: Richard Sears 16:50:25 Total: Raphaelle Henri-Bailly 16:50:58 Schlumberger: Bertrand duCastel 16:52:01 Moderator - W3C: Ivan Herman 16:52:21 scribenick: LeeF 16:54:22 s/Bailly/Bally/ 16:54:36 s/Raphaelle/Raphaele/ 16:57:42 carlo has joined #ogws 17:07:29 ivan: panel discussion. what are the areas we can work together? 17:07:45 yay! i'm not the scribe now :) 17:07:50 panel introductions 17:08:19 david has joined #ogws 17:08:36 ivan: where is there room for cooperation and work? 17:09:40 richard: not so interested in philosophic ontological development discussions 17:10:34 ... there is an equal jargon disconnect with the industry folks AND with the technical folks 17:10:46 ... need to be convinced that tools are going to help business 17:11:23 raphaelle: common problem of attracting new generation - they need a way to quickly get information they want, which is what this workshop is all about 17:12:01 ramS has joined #ogws 17:12:05 roger: clear to me that this is a technology with potential use in the industry 17:12:40 ... in chevron we've taken baby steps and have had a lot of troubles and solved them ourselves 17:12:51 ... would like to be able to share experiences & best practices with others in the industry 17:13:04 ... wouldn't lead to competitive advantage - should be able to cooperate there 17:13:36 ... another area - if major capital projects expect vendors to use 15926 (or other standard), then we ought to agree on that 17:14:31 ivan: what issues here are specific to the O&G industry? 17:14:45 roger: more specifically, the vendors that supply us with interpretation system are specific to this industry. 17:15:23 ... (G&G interpretation systems) - if we expect the next gen interpretation systems to have some semantic content, we could expect our vendors to supply us with standards-based technologies 17:15:47 danny: misery loves company 17:16:38 ... as an industry, skipped middleware approaches, only taken small steps to SOA, this is another wave for approaching integration 17:16:49 ... from IT it is appealing--how will engineering view this? 17:17:09 ... community can help us with the challenge of what the real tangible things are that can be brought to the business 17:17:15 ... where should we be on the adoption curve? 17:17:21 ... what are the benefits of participating early? 17:18:39 bertrand: upstream - can separate exploration & production - we see a lot of new ventures in the deep sea, ventures where cost of deploying personnel is high 17:18:47 ... new techniques that go beyond human capabilities 17:18:59 ... this points to long-term tendency towards automation 17:20:12 ... one of our challenges is to define the articulations - the points at which things come together 17:21:24 raphaelle: present & future projects have exploration & production working hand in hand - this is an incentive for G&G to get into a semantically organized world 17:21:41 ... business & IT systems that we share are another force pointing in this direction 17:22:23 roger: not just expl & prod - just in prod domain, if you're producing a field - have scientists speaking a different language from the folks working the equipment & different from the maintenance people 17:22:31 ... so just producing a field depends on integration 17:22:56 ... initial semantic wins are infrastructure, under the surface 17:23:44 ... hard to make a sexy case for SW. sexy case for HCLS is inference through complicated pathways to find new answers 17:25:04 richard: production world is data-driven e.g. optimizing reservoir models, fluid flow, history matching 17:25:21 ... inference there is about connecting data/numbers differently & finding significant aspects of models 17:25:27 ... and finding that sooner and deeper than currently 17:26:01 ... exploration is not numbers based -- more storytelling and strong/subtle inference about geologic models/history & petroleum systems 17:26:10 ... these are very complex inferences that semantic web can help with 17:26:37 ... the way we do this now is by moving people & their knowledge around the world 17:27:24 roger: is there room to collaborate in taking this forward? 17:27:27 richard: Yes. 17:27:42 ... we tend to be partners in lots of ventures anyway 17:28:28 roger: are you suggesting some sort of inquiry into the semantics involved with exploration decision making / knowledge gathering? 17:28:35 ... what would be the first step? 17:28:55 richard: It's about inference in how we are bringing lots of data together from lots of different sources 17:28:59 ... not sure how to take that forward 17:29:12 ... one way is to sit with explorers and learn about how they go about the process now 17:30:27 Onno: from an engineering perspective 17:30:49 ... problem we started with is losing lots of money through lack of interoperability 17:31:08 ... needed to make data model that would last throughout engineering, maintenance, 40-50 years and beyond many changes of software 17:31:59 ... e.g. give a manufacturing item - a piece of pipe - a URI - as well as other pipe, wells, coatings, etc. all get unique IDs that remain the same throughout manufacturing, logistics, construction, operations, maintenance 17:32:36 ... clear advantage for engineering & related vendors. also have operations & maintenance -- benefits accumulate over 40-50 years of operations 17:33:47 rdecarlo73 has joined #ogws 17:33:47 raphaelle: think there is also ROI in G&G 17:34:09 ... as soon as we share interest in a lease, decide to develop together, then there is money to gain from increased collaboration 17:35:18 ... makes sense to share more information so that more people are looking at data to get the most sensible understanding of subsurface 17:35:31 ... == less risk if implementing a well 17:36:13 ... if we don't share information, the operator will ask for more details that will take a lot of time out 17:37:34 ivan: ontologies being shared & reused is a big part of the Semantic Web culture. 17:37:41 ... this wasn't easy for HCLS partners to realize / accept 17:37:54 ... though they had existing examples (e.g. Gene Ontology (GO)) 17:37:59 ... what is the business culture like here? 17:38:29 danny: i see great support for sharing ontologies / methodologies 17:38:35 ... we wouldn't share data or business processes 17:38:38 ... but approaches are fine 17:39:09 Alan: sharing continuum 17:39:25 ... definitely share what an ontology is, how they are built - no hesitation to share there 17:39:39 ... further out to the point of defining ontologies - still great incentive for sharing & learning from each other 17:39:54 ... further out to the way we use ontologies & link with business processes - concern - less sharing 17:40:08 ... at the other end, data - no sharing at all 17:40:27 bertrand: exactly the reverse 17:40:48 ... we share many details of our operations (expl & prod) 17:41:31 ... this would be a case where we're sharing what we're sharing already but would be morepractical for automation 17:42:11 richard: what we don't want to share is the inference of how we connect the dots to create the potential for a new field 17:42:20 ... beyond that, there's a lot that we can share 17:42:58 ... semantic web will help me give geoscientists a bit more information at their fingertips to make their own geologic judgments 17:43:37 roger: very granular access control is a huge problem in our industry 17:43:43 ... this is a problem in semantic web 17:44:01 ... i don't understand why HCLS hasn't encountered this as a huge problem 17:44:30 ivan: HCLS has had this problem - but they also have huge public databases 17:45:04 roger: we have some [public data], but the real core of what we work with is under highly granular access control 17:45:47 ... since we have this problem, we can either collaborate to solve it, or demand that a solution be found 17:46:30 richard: in some case, there is undue importance attached to the bits, rather than to the inference atop the bits 17:46:34 s/case/cases 17:47:13 ... if something is clearly visible in the data, then it's already been done - because an earlier geologist would have inferred it 5 years before 17:48:11 rdecarlo73 has joined #ogws 17:48:11 Jean-Francois: when you want to access data - this access needs to be very precise 17:48:21 ... you can use for this access a SPARQL query 17:48:27 ... and this is where you can put security access 17:48:33 roger: perhaps not that simple 17:49:13 kendall: wihle there is a culture of openness/sharing, there's nothing technical about the Semantic Web technologies that prevent you from doing very fine-grained restrictions 17:50:00 richard: further challenge - in many countries, the company doesn't own anything (and hence doesn't decide what can be shared) 17:50:28 roger: regardless of the dispute, this is an important issue in our industry 17:50:35 ... we can cooperate on understanding & working this issue 17:51:19 May: as an O&G outsider - from defense perspective - as with G&G, analysts spend a ton of time finding/preparing data, rather than doing their job 17:51:24 ... so maybe IT is not doing their job 17:51:36 ... semantic technology can help with this sort of data integration 17:51:40 ... might be a good area for collaboration 17:52:18 For the record, though I'm not an Oracle shill, there's *nothing* about Oracle 11g's OWL inference capabilities that in any way vitiates Oracle's access control technologies. 17:53:41 bertrand: W3C is a government organization-- 17:53:44 ivan: no it is not 17:53:58 bertrand: --this is my perspective 17:54:11 he may mean "governance" 17:54:12 ... actual acting members are academic types 17:54:27 ... in that mindset, you find that sharing data is perfectly fine 17:54:35 17:54:48 roger: in our 8 year experience in W3C, we find that not to be true 17:54:59 ... most active members are companies like MS, Oracle, HP, ... 17:55:12 ... tends to be very industry focused 17:55:32 tech industry focused? 17:55:43 ... Most academic participants are Invited Experts, and there are *some* university members, but a small minority 17:56:03 roger: accessing things outside the firewall is something that's not in our corporate culture 17:56:20 ivan: there is a version of wikipedia (called dbpedia) accessible on the Semantic Web 17:56:27 ... a number of applications today are developed that make use of this data 17:56:37 ... my question is whether this industry would be comfortable with that sort of setup 17:56:42 roger: very uncomfortable 17:56:57 steve: i'm not from SemWeb culture - there's nothing intrinsic about SemWeb that requires openness 17:57:05 ... standards in general require some notion of cooperation 17:57:09 ... and there are benefits to sharing 17:57:26 ... intelligence community is very interested in Semantic Web -- though they of course have similar security concerns 17:57:41 ... but there is an opportunity here to pull in more public data, if you want 17:58:01 ... protecting data sources in the semantic web is just like protecting data sources in the Web 17:58:24 ... if anything, Semantic Web may give you the opportunity to have more modular access control than you have now 17:58:27 ... but that's a research question 17:58:56 it's not a research question, actually... it's an R&D question, i.e., it's further along 17:59:15 (scribe agrees with kendall, esp. since scribe was one source of the topic during dinner last night :-) ) 17:59:41 frank: at chevron we're gaining advantage partnering with academia (e.g. USC) - it's a strategic decision that does well for us 18:00:08 May: MIT has RDF model for security 18:00:22 roger: access control aspects of the Web are totally unsatisfactory for us 18:00:29 bertrand: specific example 18:00:56 ... we need to be able to say that data needs to reside in certai public places and can only be accessed from public places 18:01:09 ... when we talk about requirements to W3C, we can pinpoint to very specific examples 18:01:46 ivan: clear that this [access control] would be an issue that needs to be discussed in anything going forward 18:02:16 David: you do share a lot of data with your suppliers, right? 18:02:53 raphaelle: there are strong feelings about the data being acquired by service providers but owned by operator. if anything goes wrong, the operators face the consequences 18:03:09 ... e.g. corrupted well, lost device... 18:04:04 ... there's a tricky situation right now where it's hard to separate the raw data from the technology used to get that data 18:04:26 roger: yes we share data with suppliers, but we don't have it under control. 18:04:58 danny: draw a distinction between public sharing and sharing with suppliers in the presence of contracts 18:05:12 bertrand: i love the euphemism behind the word 'sharing' 18:06:02 Neil: when we talk sharing, i'm thinking discourse - licenseweb - that's already there 18:06:26 ... i think the picture being painted here is bleaker than reality 18:06:38 ... that makes it tough to put a real value proposition together to start addressing real issues 18:07:12 ... I once asked how Semantic Web handles units of measure - general kerfuffle ensued 18:07:40 ... i wondered how an organization can underpin future data sharing without having solved units of measure 18:07:52 ... now 4 years later I re-asked the question - where is the semantic web's answer to this problem? 18:08:26 ... meanwhile other organizations (e.g. Energistics) have solved it themselves, yet Semantic Web has not incorporated this 18:08:35 frank: IEEE has excellent upper ontology on units of measure 18:08:40 ... we're looking at that in refinery 18:09:03 kendall: but that's one approach to units of measure - there is a completely different approach with different pros and cons - this is a legitimate question and would make a legitimate task force/XG 18:09:15 ... this is a hard but small enough problem that it could be tackled 18:09:23 18:09:54 bertrand: i think it is industry specific and it is worthless with respect to semantic web 18:10:16 ... industry specific because we have practices around the world with concepts not found in other unit/measure systems 18:11:01 ... either semantic web brings new possibilities in our industry or it's not worth going into it 18:11:08 ... we're already at the 5th generation of units systems 18:12:09 raphaelle: 18:12:30 ... once we get to the point where everyone is using the same process, then that can be in common 18:13:11 steve: what do you see as where you can get the biggest ROI out of semantic web technologies? 18:13:19 ... reducing cost of development? of maintenance? of interoperability? 18:13:27 ... how much is spent on converting data & maintaining conversions? 18:13:49 URL for my editorial - http://www.oilit.com/2journal/2article/0403_3.htm Neil McNaughton 18:14:13 ... and what's the potential increase in renvenue by discovering things that you otherwise would not have discovered (or as easily) without 18:14:42 roger: biggest bang that I see is Semantic Web as secret sauce for putting things together from domain specific areas in a way that scales and does not become fragile/non-maintainable 18:14:46 ...investment is lower in scaling 18:15:11 ... our experience is that using SW technologies has made the cost of scaling out into other areas lower 18:15:26 ... and that gives opportunities for spreading to more domains 18:15:37 danny: cost savings are clear - more scalable and more leverageable 18:15:47 for those interested: there are work on units of measures and the semantic web e.g. http://idi.fundacionctic.org/muo/swig-20081021/ 18:16:22 ... concerned about challenge of collecting semantics from those with the expertise 18:16:32 mib_svxv7s has joined #ogws 18:16:53 bertrand: only measure of return is if we help our clients find oil better or produce it more efficiently 18:17:04 ... otherwise we can't justify investment in a technology 18:17:14 richard: big value creation step in O&G is discovery 18:17:30 ... in my mind, huge value opportunity is to enable explorers to make connections that wouldn't have happened otherwise 18:17:45 ... may be improvements on production side: operability, better models, understanding systems 18:18:03 ... but that's an order of magnitude less compared with exploration 18:18:11 raphaelle: depends who you talk to 18:18:19 ... if you talk to IT: time & money savings 18:18:27 ... if you talk to production business: free time to tackle new opportunities 18:19:28 Alan: over time, we've improved formalisms and by doing that improved ability to automate things 18:19:34 ... semantic web is another step in this direction 18:20:02 ... even within a single area (no integration) - the ability to clarify subtle semantics & differences in our businesses using semantic web technologies will open up many opportunities for automation 18:20:10 ... seems to be proven by WITSML experience 18:20:48 Link to a different approach to units & quantities in OWL, using datatype reasoning: http://www.webont.org/owled/2008/papers/owled2008eu_submission_44.pdf 18:20:48 Scribe: on the units of measure thread, there is a recent (as in ongoing) thread on semantic-web@w3.org touching on this. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Dec/0081.html 18:22:06 Amol: there is a lot of power in the relationships - the simple things that can be made more tangible in your datasets 18:22:18 ... can add a lot of power for the user via something that is trivial from an IT perspective 18:22:33 ... lets people see relationships that otherwise would have taken a lot of time or might have been impossible 18:22:56 I would love to see W3C (working with some others) develop "core" ontoloties -- those that cut across just about any field of knowledge: people, geolocation, date/time, units of measure, etc. 18:23:45 ivan: closing remarks? 18:24:01 roger: 3 aspects: expressivity, flexibility, and inference - there is potential value in all 3 18:24:31 And where else can you get all 3 from one family of technologies? :> 18:24:32 I'd add "interoperability" 18:25:03 bertrand: we are a long way from understanding what we need to share 18:25:14 richard: agree with roger's 3 points 18:25:30 ... answers are not often apparent in the data 18:25:40 s/not often/often not 18:25:55 richard: care more about competing with the earth than competing with other companies 18:26:01 ... the earth is hard to understand 18:26:14 ... lots of indirect measurements and huge investments to check gueses/inferences 18:26:47 raphaelle: similar mindsets - what makes us difference is what we do with the information 18:27:00 W3C will need to pull in the machine learning folks to really make O&G exploration inference practical and useful. 18:27:01 ... challenege is to find information that we do not know exists 18:27:13 s/machine learning & statistical inference/ 18:28:08 rrsagent, draft minutes 18:28:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-ogws-minutes.html ivan 18:30:09 Darius has joined #ogws 19:03:39 mib_roupf1 has joined #ogws 19:51:18 ivan has joined #ogws 19:51:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 19:51:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-ogws-minutes.html ivan 19:57:57 neilmcn has joined #ogws 20:00:30 Topic: Two use cases involving Semantic Web Earth Science Ontologies for reservoir modeling and characterization, Jean-Francois Rainaud 20:00:43 -> http://www.w3.org/2008/12/ogws-slides/ifp.pdf slides 20:03:26 mario has joined #ogws 20:05:57 robert has joined #ogws 20:06:53 the slides download link says: file damaged and cannot be loaded 20:07:47 carlo has joined #ogws 20:07:53 Ram has joined #ogws 20:53:32 Frank: what are your experiences with upper ontologies like time? 20:54:07 JF: we reuse completely those ontologies and we correlate it with others using, eg, rules in Corese 20:54:29 ... for using open ontology: we are very pleased to have that 20:54:56 ... we made some mistakes, eg, i made a quick presentation of the ontology structure, at the beginning we did not have that in mind 20:55:21 ... and we took the ontology structure of others 20:55:47 ... in one year with experts in partners: we take one year to be able to talk to one another 20:55:54 ... it was difficult 20:56:21 Frank: what do you use for conceptual maps 20:56:26 JF: it is a free tool 20:56:35 Bertrand: what is corese? 20:56:48 JF: it is a graph oriented resolution system developed by inria 20:56:57 ... it is the tool we use for inferences for the project 20:57:47 Topic: Towards an Ontology Driven EOR Decision Support System, Emilio Nunez et al 20:57:55 -> http://www.w3.org/2008/12/ogws-slides/UT.pdf slides 21:32:45 Frank: do you use estimatic declarations in description logic or is it rule base? 21:32:54 emilio: the rules are all in the axioms 21:33:28 frank: why ontologies for decisions? we do lot of decision analysis and we have templates of spreadsheets for this. Why ontologies? 21:34:04 emilio: i think what I am trying to do is to automate the process as much as possible; try to use the ontologies to capture the knowledge 21:34:20 ... the spreadsheets are not well documented, hard to understand 21:35:01 ... we get lot of new people who are young and that helps to capture the knowledge of older people 21:35:08 frank: are these ontologies public? 21:35:11 emilio: yes 21:35:49 scribenick: david 21:38:53 Panel Discussion: Semantic Web for O&G Interest Group 21:39:41 Moderator: Jim Crompton, Chevron 21:39:55 Panel members: 21:40:10 W3C - Ivan Herman 21:40:21 Chevron: Frank Chum 21:40:35 Energistics: Alan Doniger 21:41:14 Fluor: Onno Paap 21:41:39 Shell: Anil Rode 21:42:31 Bechtel: Robin Benjamins 21:44:23 OnnoPaap has left #ogws 21:52:08 rrsagent, draft minutes 21:52:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-ogws-minutes.html ivan 21:52:47 test 21:54:00 Robin has left #ogws 21:56:52 neilmcn has joined #ogws 21:59:41 frank: try to capture the outcome and next steps 22:01:24 jim: draw a line here to say that we had a successful meeting, then: what's next? 22:01:28 Jim: the meeting has been a success 22:02:16 ... are there real opportuniteis in the oil and gas ind: yes 22:02:30 ... are there opportunities for cooperation: yes 22:02:58 ... is there a demonstrated interest: yes 22:04:22 ..to ivan: other interest groups has been started, what have other industries done, scope, drive? 22:04:56 ivan: in w3c we don't really have industry specs 22:05:09 ... however has been working on XBRL 22:05:42 ...separate group on eGovernment, not only semantic web 22:06:16 ... informally with lawyers 22:06:49 ...HCLS is the only one 22:07:21 ...all groups plan to produce best practice kind of documents, for their industry 22:07:28 ...all also work on outreach 22:08:32 ... and they often come back to the rest of the W3C with technical issues. Getting this feedback is important for W3C 22:09:43 ... HCLS not today asking w3c to store an ontology or so, but may come up 22:10:07 jim: survey of panel on "now so what" 22:11:45 robin: we are relatively new to it, but implementing. We need to colaborate. Next steps: forming broader communication, what is the right entity to work in? 22:13:28 ivan: obvisouly we need the feedback. Traditional members are large companies, for the HCLS-people they got together with the IBMs and the Oracles 22:14:29 ... half of the interesting tools are made by smaller companies 22:14:43 ... we can provide a meeting place 22:16:14 anil: oil industry not trad. been part of w3cx 22:16:43 ... don't expect a large participation from oil industry 22:17:14 ... however useful things we can do with w3c 22:17:52 ... hard to pitch back to shell. What will I have to put in, and what will I get out 22:18:34 ... bandwidth may restrict this to one domain, which one? 22:19:05 ... help to set the expectations right 22:20:46 ... we need the value of going to w3c 22:22:15 alan: value in the education area. Value in archiving reachable targets 22:22:47 robert has joined #ogws 22:23:21 three different target areas: concepts, representations, software 22:24:26 onno: ... oil and gas is a narrow field for us 22:25:23 ... to ivan- > what is the idea of "phase 1" 22:25:54 ivan: we need to see if there is enough energy if there is purpose to set up new workshops 22:27:10 onno: posc caesar has an interop group, we propose an action item for this to join w3c 22:28:44 frank: objectives of HCLS IG is similar to us, see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/ 22:30:25 ... we need to talk to our management to tell them what the benefits are 22:30:52 roger: I was member of HCLS 22:32:13 ivan: when the group started it was narrower , within a year we had a whole range of companies and areas 22:32:32 roger: what did it look like in the beginning 22:33:31 ivan: in practice we need one or two persons 6-7 months to build up the community and to build up a charter 22:34:18 ... first action item is to find a person (fellow) to be sent to us to start work on this 22:35:06 ... without this I think it will not happen, we need a champion 22:35:59 jim: who sponsor this? If community cannot come up with this person. Or we dont see a growth in w3c membership. Is that a message to w3c that we are not enough interessted? 22:36:24 ivan: we cannot afford without interest and finances 22:36:53 ... we are accountable to our members 22:37:07 ... we need that type of champion coming from the industry 22:38:03 jim: value proposition is important. But we have ideas that o&g is too small and too large. 22:38:27 jim: discussion on scope vs. sponsorship 22:39:45 robin: we dont want to get to get in another group that needs to be funded, why not use an existing? but leverage under w3c 22:40:03 ... under the umbrella of w3c 22:40:27 ... there are fiatech, posc caesar, energetics.. 22:41:28 steve: going back to HCLS, there are also here plenty of other org 22:41:43 ... w3c was the neutral part 22:42:20 ... they came to us where vendors was driving the agenda, legal framework etc. 22:43:09 ... if this is not worth $ 60k compared to the the benefits, we should not be doing this 22:43:28 ... membership fee + people 22:44:55 bertrand: beeing chairman of other org. 1 succeded, another succeded well, two failed 22:45:34 ... the ones that "we get the candy" works. 22:46:00 ... here we will not have a common enemy, noone is ahead of anyone... so what will bring us together 22:46:54 anil: how do we found this person? unique skill. Few and hard to give up. 22:48:23 richard: what will drive us? the value proposition might be around technology and knwoldege and there is real value in capturing that and feeding back to the business 22:49:18 ... about scope: who are we going to attract? look at where we are making money. Energy is more glamorous but we make our money in oil and gas. 22:50:14 jim: what will bring us together - the great knowledge exchange and resources are probably scarce. 22:50:57 jim: who drives? Chevron for the industry? A few leading light companies? What is the critical minimum that drives the early stages of such a collaboration? 22:51:43 anil: a majors. a few service providers 22:51:59 rdecarlo73 has left #ogws 22:52:17 ivan: several issues. Issue of the person and the issue of number of real participants 22:52:30 ... the champion has to be seen as a independent person 22:52:45 ... not good if the person comes from chevron 22:53:07 ... two or three of the major major, two or three of the service providors 22:53:30 ... only chevron .... it is crazy. Not seen as serious attempt 22:54:42 alan: it's going to happen in the companies anyway. Organizations as posc caesar, energetics etc. is going to follow this anyway 22:55:06 ... we can expect energetics to join W3C independent of W3C forming a group 22:56:28 ... limited bandwith if w3c don't form a group. If there is a group, then broadband, public and shared. I see all sorts of dynamics 22:56:55 ... i see w3c having an important role in this industry in any case 22:57:58 roger: who drive - I would like to see this driven by w3c. Too much history in the organizations. Too much happening outside the industry 22:58:38 ... the involvement by organizations is very very important, but I would like to see it driven by w3c 22:59:04 robin... I just want to see it driven 22:59:21 jim: last words? 23:00:03 ivan: need to continue to see if we can find a champion, if so, we will try to have this champion to work with us to seed this organization 23:00:21 ... if we do not ahve this champion within 2-3 months 23:00:36 ... contacts by energetics will be more narrow 23:00:51 ... if anyone wants to be a champion, contact me 23:01:01 jim: wrapping up 23:01:11 ... there is a search for a champion 23:01:44 ... while we have not reach closure, we have generated exitement. 23:03:29 ... I think there is momentum building. Thanks everyone 23:04:15 steve: thanks to the programming committee and chevron for hosting 23:04:36 Manoj has left #ogws 23:07:24 rrsagent, draft minutes 23:07:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/10-ogws-minutes.html ivan 23:07:28 Darius has left #ogws