Conmergence

St. Joseph Medical Center (Houston) and MedConcierge to Demonstrate Telemedicine Solutions at FTTH Council Conference

Top Houston Hospital Selects MedConcierge to Offer Telemedicine to Corporations and Master Planned Communities

September 8, 2009 (Sarasota, FL & Houston, TX) - St. Joseph Medical Center, the largest, Level 3 trauma hospital in downtown Houston, has selected MedConcierge to provide its advanced telemedicine solution to leading communities and corporations. Both parties will demonstrate the user experience and benefits of telemedicine during the upcoming 2009 FTTH Conference & Expo taking place at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, September 27th through October 1st.

"We are very excited to demonstrate the MedConcierge at St. Joseph Medical Center service to local community developers and corporate executives at the upcoming Fiber to the Home Conference," states St. Joseph chief executive officer Phillip D. Robinson, "Telemedicine will clearly be at the center of healthcare delivery moving forward and leveraging the technological advantages of the MedConcierge service over fiber-optic communications will help us extend patient services, generate additional revenue and save costs."

"St. Joseph is a leader in the Houston area, and we are thrilled to play a role in helping them deliver health and wellness services to residents of FTTH communities in and around the Houston metropolitan area," says MedConcierge director Rob Scheschareg. "Telemedicine offers competitive and financial benefits in a cost-effective fashion that is critical in today's market environment. We look forward to meeting service providers and developers at the FTTH Conference & Expo who want to take advantage of the billions being spent by consumers and the government in the next 30 months on home-based telemedicine."

Substantial news coverage, increasing consumer interest and adoption, and the allocation of billions of dollars in Federal stimulus funds specifically for broadband and healthcare information technology have placed telemedicine at the forefront of applications that benefit from fiber to the home networks.

"Fiber to the home provides benefits to consumers and employers that truly improve the quality of life. From our own industry research to that of our members and market followers, it is becoming increasingly evident that consumers want the benefits of improved healthcare services and access to doctors that services like MedConcierge and healthcare providers like St. Joseph can provide," states Joe Savage, president of the FTTH Council. "Telemedicine is a prime example of the type of applications that will be on display at our upcoming conference demonstrating the power of fiber".

To showcase the user experience, benefits and implementation of telemedicine services, MedConcierge and St. Joseph Medical Center will be hosting a number of activities at the upcoming 2009 FTTH Conference & Expo.  These include:

Corporate VIP Demonstration & Reception, Tuesday, September 29th.  For more information call the Corporate Health Connection at St. Joseph Medical Center at (713) 756-8600. 

MedConcierge Booth in the Fiber Zone, located on the show floor during exhibit hours. 

Phillip D. Robinson, CEO, St. Joseph Medical Center will be discussing telemedicine over FTTH networks as part of the Closing Keynote presentation Wednesday, September 30th at 2:00 pm.

For information about these events, visit the conference website at http://www.ftthconference.com.

About St. Joseph Medical Center

St. Joseph Medical Center, downtown Houston's only general acute care hospital, partners with Houston physicians to provide comprehensive health care to all.  As Houston's first hospital, St. Joseph Medical Center provides services for outpatients as well as inpatients, with a full continuum of care in surgery, cancer care, emergency care, Women's services, cardiovascular services, wound care, rehab, sports medicine, Corporate Health Connection and more. For more information on St. Joseph Medical Center, please visit http://www.sjmctx.com or call 713.757.1000.

About MedConcierge, LLC

MedConcierge is the leading provider of telemedicine solutions for community developers and operators, broadband service providers, healthcare providers, and municipalities, that deliver personal, concierge healthcare services to consumers at home, at work and while traveling. Utilizing our award-winning, patent-pending technology, MedConcierge provides unparalleled private and secure access to certified doctors, specialists and content. MedConcierge offerings range from real-time, live videoconference consultations, on demand, 24/7 with leading doctors, specialists, psychiatrists and wellness experts, to educational content, health status monitoring and dynamic electronic medical records - all accessible from the comfort, privacy and convenience of homes and facilities. For more information, visit http://www.medconcierge.com.

NFI Research Results RE: Social Networking - Business Leaders Are Not Confident

<ed.note>While legacy newspapers struggle to find a way to monetize their next incarnation (hint: it's aggregating and/or researching data which can be gained nowhere else than from their subscribing readership -- imagine think tank-portal-citizen journalism-distributed computing a la SETI@home crunching results), Chuck Martin has been surveying business leaders finding unique real-time insight. My general impression - how many cutting edge leaders are ready for the global digital enterprise enabled collaborative results-only work environment? - um, not so many. An indicator in specific follows: "Business leaders are not confident that their department or organization has an effective plan or strategy to deal with social networking."</ed.note>

August 24, 2009 -- Social Networking for Business Summary (survey results below):

No matter the title or the size of the company, the majority of business leaders have a low confidence level that their department and/or organization has a plan/strategy on how to effectively use social networking for business.

Sixty-six percent or senior executives and managers said they have a low level of confidence and 12 percent have a high level of confidence. Twenty-three percent were neutral. More managers than top executives have a low confidence level in their business' dealing with a social networking strategy, with 74 percent of managers having a low confidence level compared to 59 percent of executives. 

By company size, more of those in large businesses have a low confidence level (73%) that their organization has a plan on how to effectively use social networking compared to those in small businesses (64%). 

More of those in small businesses (14%) have a high level of confidence in their organization's approach vs. those in large businesses (8%). 

Of the businesspeople who use social networking, 77 percent use LinkedIn, 31 percent use Facebook, 25 percent use Blogs and 18 percent use Twitter. 

An earlier study about social networking conducted by NFI Research showed similar results. Thanks to all who participated in the survey.  

Detailed Results follow: 

When it comes to using social networking for business, what is your confidence level that your department and/or organization has a plan/strategy on how to effectively use it? 

Extremely High	02.8%
Somewhat High	09.0%
Neutral	22.8%
Somewhat Low	32.4%
Extremely Low	33.1%

Of those who use social networking, Which of the following services do you use for BUSINESS purposes? (check all that apply) 

LinkedIn	77.3%
Facebook	30.9%
Blogs	24.5%
Twitter	18.2%
Wiki	18.2%
Plaxo	13.6%
MSN Windows Live Spaces	02.7%
MySpace	00.9%
Other	13.6%

Select responses from NFI Research members: 

- With the exception of LinkedIn, the vast majority of business executives I encounter have little or nothing to do, from a business perspective, with social networking sites.
 
- Social networking is a key strategy for our organization.

 - We currently block and have policies against using social networks for business purposes. 

Thank you for your input! If you have colleagues (other senior executives or managers) who you think would benefit from participating in our surveys, you may invite them to join.

Just have them go to the following link to sign up for free. http://nfiresearch.com/index.php?option=com_artforms&formid=1&Itemid=59 

Follow me on Twitter @chuckmartin1 

Best regards,
Chuck Martin Chairman and CEO
NFI Research
chuck@nfiresearch.com

On Telework Day in VA

<ed.note>Imagine what the Nashville workplace of 2009 would look like if we ACTUALLY VALUED INNOVATION AND COLLABORATION instead of just rhetorized about it at meetings we drive to. Of course, I should point out the Congress still requires its members to be physically present in order to vote vs. using some web-based tool or telephones. This is ironic since the IRS is perfectly happy to take my tax money -- which the Congress will be voting how to spend -- over the internet.</ed.note>

The Hon. James P. Moran of Virginia in the House of Representatives:

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Monday, August 3, as Telework Day in Virginia and applaud Governor Tim Kaine on this initiative.

On this day, thousands of Virginians will perform a full day’s work from their houses rather than their places of work. This practice empowers workers who feel that they can fulfill their obligations to their employer equally well from home as in a brick and mortar office. My colleagues, teleworking provides enormous benefits to employers and employees alike, as well as positive social and economic impacts. Teleworking, a practice which dates to the 1960s and then was dramatically expanded in the ’90s, thanks to a host of networking innovations, can save employers premises costs and office overhead fees.

If all eligible Federal employees teleworked 2 days per week, the Federal Government could realize $3.3 billion in savings in commuting costs annually and eliminate the emission of 2.7 million tons of pollutants each year. Furthermore, it would provide an easy and necessary means of operational continuity should the Nation’s Capital be the target of another horrific terror attack.

Teleworking can also increase productivity, typically 10 percent to 40 percent per person in large programs, by eliminating the often distressing and frustrating commute to and from work. For example, it eliminates commuting costs for employees because they do not have to pay for gas or public transportation. Given that the average round trip commute is 50 miles and commuters spend an average of 264 hours per year commuting (66 minutes per day), Americans would be relieved of the burden of spending so much time on the road that could be better spent with their families. Through this practice, employees are allowed the freedom of working at their optimal times; some might be more productive in the morning while others might be more productive late at night. Telework allows the workers to get into a personal daily rhythm and work when they please, thus maximizing individual liberty and occupational productivity. At this time, States and localities all around the Nation are grappling with ways in which congestion on the roadways can be reduced. We could facilitate greater capacity for mass transportation—but that requires heavy infrastructure investment and the vision to plan long-term. We could also build more roadways— but that would simply invite more cars and more traffic, while doing nothing to improve the quality of life for millions of hardworking Americans.

Those options taken together do indeed form a necessary component of traffic mitigation, but they take both time and money. Teleworking is simple to implement, economical to operate, and reflects the many ways in which technology has allowed the spheres of personal and professional life to blend together. It allows for a young professional to care for her newborn child or a son to care for his ailing mother in the comfort of their own homes, without worrying what would happen should they have to spend a portion of their day in an office, away from those who depend on their presence.

I am proud to say that at the end of 2005, Fairfax County in Virginia was able to meet the region-wide target of having 20 percent of eligible workers engaged in teleworking. I would invite my colleagues to take note of teleworking’s success and stand up for a worker’s ability to set his or her own schedule, with the expectation that it will allow for a more flexible lifestyle without compromising productivity. Rather than relying on the desks, chairs, and file cabinets that defined the average employee’s office a generation ago, telework allows Americans to bring the workplace to them, not the other way around.

5th International Digital Curation Conference "Moving to Multi-Scale Science: Managing Complexity and Diversity" Call for Papers

We invite submission of full papers, posters, workshops and demos and welcome contributions and participation from individuals, organisations and institutions across all disciplines and domains that are engaged in the creation, use and management of digital data, especially those involved in the challenge of curating data for e-science and e-research.

Proposals will be considered for short (up to 6 pages) or long (up to 12 pages) papers and also for demonstrations, workshops and posters. The full text of papers will be peer-reviewed; abstracts for all posters, workshops and demos will be reviewed by the co-chairs. Final copy of accepted contributions will be made available to conference delegates, and papers will be published in our International Journal of Digital Curation. Accordingly, we recommend that you download our template and read the advice on its use.

Papers should be original and innovative, probably analytical in approach, and should present or reference significant evidence (whether experimental, observational or textual) to support their conclusions.

Subject matter could be policy, strategic, operational, experimental, infrastructural, tool-based, and so on, in nature, but the key elements are originality and evidence. Layout and structure should be appropriate for the disciplinary area. Papers should not have been published in their current or a very similar form before, other than as a pre-print in a repository.

We seek papers that respond to the main themes of the conference: multi-scale, multi-discipline, multi-skill and multi-sector, and that relate to the creation, curation, management and re-use of research data. Research data should be interpreted broadly to include the digital subjects of all types of research and scholarship (including Arts and Humanities, and all the Sciences). Papers may cover:

• Curation practice and data management at the extremes of scale (e.g. interactions between small science and big science, or extremes of object size, numbers of objects, rates of deposit and use)
• Challenging content: (e.g. addressing issues of data complexity, diversity and granularity)
• Curation and e-research, including contextual, provenance, authenticity and other metadata for curation (e.g. automated systems for acquiring such metadata)
• Research data infrastructures, including data repositories and services
• Disciplinary and inter-disciplinary curation challenges and data management approaches, standards and norms
• Promoting, enabling, demonstrating and characterizing the re-use of data
• Semantically rich documents (e.g. the “well-supported article”)
• The human infrastructure for curation (e.g. skills, careers, training and organisational support structures, careers, skills, training and curriculum)
• Curation across academia, government, commerce and industry
• Legal and policy issues; Creative Commons, special licences, the public domain and other approaches for re-use, and questions of privacy, consent, and embargo
• Sustainability and economics: understanding business and financial models; balancing costs, benefits and value of digital curation

Important Dates

• Submission of papers for peer-review: 24 July 2009
• Submission of abstracts posters/demos/workshops: 24 July 2009
• Notification of authors of papers: 18 September 2009
• Notification of authors of posters/demos/workshops: 2 October 2009
• Final papers deadline: 13 November 2009
• Final posters deadline: 13 November 2009

Ontolog Forum Series Transcript: Semantic Wikis: The Wiki Way to the Semantic Web Session 6: The Future of Semantic Wiki: Trends, Challenges and Outlook

PeterYim: Welcome to the SemanticWiki mini-series Session-6 - Thu 5-Mar-2009

* Mini-series Title: Semantic Wikis: The Wiki Way to the Semantic Web
* Session-6 Topic: The Future of Semantic Wiki: Trends, Challenges and Outlook
* Session Chair: Prof. Dr. RudiStuder (FZI & Institut AIFB, Universitt Karlsruhe) & Dr. MarkGreaves (Vulcan)
* Panelists:
 o Chairs of previous sessions in this mini-series to summarize the outcome from their sessions, and to make their short statements on today's topic (5 min. each)
 + Dr. SebastianSchaffert, Mr. HaroldSolbrig, Mr. MaxVoelkel, Mr. MarkusKroetzsch, Mr. MikeDean, Mr. PeterYim, Dr. LiDing & Dr. JieBao
 o Speakers from previous sessions of this mini-series to each deliver short statements regarding the future of semantic wikis as they each see it (2 min. each)
 + Mr. ChristophLange, Mr. DanielHansch, Professor DanielSchwabe, Mr. HaroldSolbrig, Mr. JoelNatividad, Professor KeiCheung, Mr. MarkusKroetzsch, Mr. MikeDean, Professor Dr. PeterDolog, Mr. PeterYim, Dr. SebastianSchaffert, Mr. TobiasKuhn & Mr. YaronKoren

PeterYim: See details on the session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2009_03_05

PeterYim: .

anonymous morphed into Daniel Schwabe

anonymous morphed into Daniel Schwabe

Daniel Schwabe: Hi Peter, just checking. I thought the conference would start at 3 (my time), but I just noticed it got pushed back 30m

anonymous morphed into Rudi Studer

Rudi Studer1 morphed into Markus Kroetzsch

anonymous morphed into Son Doan

Rudi Studer: We are having problems dialing in. The German telecon service says that the conference ID is not valid

Peter Dolog: hi all

Markus Kroetzsch: We are now using the UK line to dial in.

anonymous morphed into Yaron Koren

Markus Kroetzsch: Hi Yaron.

Yaron Koren: What's up, Markus.

Markus Kroetzsch: We are still waiting for Peter to dial in ...

Daniel (ontoprise): Hi everybody!

PeterYim: Sorry guys ... I am slightly delayed ... I will be over in a couple of minutes

PeterYim: slides just posted ... please refresh session page

Please change your name from 'anonymous' using the Settings button

anonymous morphed into EdDodds

Lars Ludwig: Hello there

Yaron Koren: Looking through the presentations, it looks like Markus and Max's is an old one.

anonymous morphed into Jesse Wang

Yaron Koren: From the 3rd session.

Sebastian Schaffert: Hi, I dialled in via the German line just fine

Markus Kroetzsch sees two people with their hands up. You can put them down agfain with the hand button at the bottom right, I think.

Markus Kroetzsch: We will try that too, back in a minnute.

Sebastian Schaffert: yes, I could if I had not loggen in again

Sebastian Schaffert: -n+d

Markus Kroetzsch: ok, we are back via the German line

anonymous1 morphed into Christoph Lange

Christoph Lange: hi, sorry for coming a bit late...

Markus Kroetzsch: Hi, we are just starting

anonymous morphed into Tim FInin

anonymous morphed into Mike Lang

Sebastian Schaffert morphed into SebastianSchaffert

SebastianSchaffert morphed into Sebastian Schaffert

anonymous3 morphed into DanielRedmon

Markus Kroetzsch morphed into Markus Krötzsch

Daniel Schwabe: Bullets for those w/o slides should are at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SemanticWiki/Future

anonymous morphed into JieBao

EdDodds: Thanks to the conveners!!!

anonymous1 morphed into John Pacheco

anonymous2 morphed into Bobbin Teegarden

anonymous morphed into Christoph Lange

Sebastian Schaffert: there is also the 4th SemWiki workshop at ESWC2009

Yaron Koren: I submitted a talk for the SemTech conference, but they never responded, which I guess means that they rejected me.

Yaron Koren:

Markus Krötzsch: You should inquire anyway.

Sebastian Schaffert: ero-training is the goal of every software developer, or should be

Yaron Koren: I did, actually, about a month ago - they didn't respond to that either.

Markus Krötzsch thinks they filter "Yaron" in email headers

Yaron Koren: I knew it!

Yaron Koren: ...or "forms".

EdDodds: Is there a knowledge engineer job posting resource, either on Ontolog or else place?

Tim FInin: we'll continue to need knowledge engineers just as we programmers and database specialists

Sebastian Schaffert: but hard to convince companies that they need one, at least that's my experience

Sebastian Schaffert: thanks Rudi

Markus Krötzsch: There will also be another SMW user meeting, maybe Daniel (ontoprise) can say something on that.

Daniel (ontoprise): Peter, would you be so kind and show my updated slide later? (v1.1)

Mark Greaves: Tim: I agree that we will need KEs in many cases; the question is the degree to which semantic wikis can socialize some of the lower-end schema design applications.

Daniel Schwabe: I don't believe there will be a single "user interface" that is universally "good" for all

Markus Krötzsch: Right, see item 2

Daniel Schwabe: therefore, we really need environments that make it easy to create customized interfaces

Lars Ludwig: we need one environment to customize, maybe

Daniel Schwabe: perhaps some communities may reach a consensus on some interface model that suits them

Markus Krötzsch: Wrongs slide!

Markus Krötzsch notes that slide numbers are not equal to topic numbers

Daniel Schwabe: Why access only from other wiki *systems*, and not from any data source?

Markus Krötzsch: Didn't he say this?

Daniel Schwabe: I heard Rudi say "accessing data from other wiki systems"...

Mark Greaves: DanielS: I agree about the multiple UIs; we don't expect a single best interface to a RDBMS, so why should we expect a single best interface to semantic data? Your M-V-C work is quite cool in this regard.

PeterYim: @DanielHansch: I've got your updated slide online

Markus Krötzsch: ok, we can check on the recording, I was more focussed on the slide

Daniel Schwabe: MarkG - ok, but the actual challenge of good UI design remains

Yaron Koren: No, he talked about other data sources before, including desktop-only data.

Daniel Schwabe: ok, my mistake...

Markus Krötzsch: The slides are here: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/SemanticWiki/SWiki-06_Future-of-SemanticWiki_20090305/SemanticWiki-Future--RudiStuder_20090305.pdf

Yaron Koren: That was early on in the talk.

Daniel Schwabe: yes, there is the URL to all the slides earlier in the transcript

Daniel Schwabe: I think this definition is missing collectively produced content. To me this is one of the defining notions of "wiki"

Yaron Koren: Sure.

Sebastian Schaffert: we had a definition of "Wiki Philosophy" in the first session

Sebastian Schaffert: it included "everyone can edit"

EdDodds: Anyone using twitter here? What hash tags do you use for Ontolog Forum related tweets?

Mark Greaves: DanielS: I think there is enough diversity between SMW+, Knoodl, AceWiki, IkeWiki, SWiM, and the other semantic wikis that our community is not well served by drawing bright inclusion lines or debating terminological scope, even around a fundamental property like collaboration. The marketplace is redefining our term anyway. I'd rather see us be inclusive about the term "semantic wiki", leave it hazily defined, and let our various pieces of software speak for themselves.

Sebastian Schaffert:

Sebastian Schaffert: research has to be fun;.)

Markus Krötzsch: +1 to Mark

Yaron Koren: I would think a definition of semantic wikis that doesn't include collaboration is not a definition at all.

Daniel Schwabe: +1 to Yaron - and that's true for Wikis, not just Semantic Wikis...

Mark Greaves: YaronK: I use a semantic wiki in a noncollaborative way for my own personal information management, for example.

Markus Krötzsch: Actually, my hoempage is a semantic wiki, but I am the only editor

Sebastian Schaffert: BTW, first KiWi open source prerelease: http://www.schaffert.eu/2009/02/27/first-kiwi-open-source-release/ (sorry for advertisement, couldn't resist)

Daniel Schwabe: MarkG - I agree with the overall approach to the problem; I also don't believe in very strong categorizations that serve no purpose.

Yaron Koren: Yes, I'm aware of single-user wikis, but the tools are in place for collaboration.

Markus Krötzsch: Sure

Sebastian Schaffert: not necessarily

Daniel Schwabe: The issue is that if you really take away the collaboration infrastructure, the problem becomes much simpler.

Sebastian Schaffert: it always becomes simpler without cocurrency

Daniel Schwabe: exactly

Sebastian Schaffert: but still, wikis are not about collaboration primarily, they are about creating web content quickly

StephenDavies: (what slide are we on now?)

Mark Greaves: "Database" doesn't have a very tight definition, nor does "word processor" or other common classes of software -- they more have a family resemblence and hazy boundaries. No one has an issue with this. So I'd hope this approach is part of our semantic wiki community as well.

Daniel Schwabe: Hmmm, then wysywig HTML editors would be wiki tools!

StephenDavies: (ah, okay)

Sebastian Schaffert: there is tiddlywiki

Sebastian Schaffert: http://www.tiddlywiki.com/

Yaron Koren: Slide 11 - interestingly, it's about "what is a wiki".

Sebastian Schaffert: a kind of wysiwyg editor if you like

Sebastian Schaffert: but a wysiwyg editor does not create a website, it just creates HTML

Lars Ludwig: take a CMS

Daniel Schwabe: Ok, some CMSs or tools do that - create the page, publish right away. One of the really enabling factors in wikis is easy *linking* (not so much formatting, imho)

Tim FInin: FB and youtube don't seem to be wikis to me.

Sebastian Schaffert: yes, linking is crucial

Sebastian Schaffert: and then there is versioning

Yaron Koren: You can't edit other people's contributions in FB, YouTube, etc.; that's the issue.

Sebastian Schaffert: and (you can debate that) everyone can edit

Daniel Schwabe: So that's why some of the social software sites/tools mentioned in slide 11 would not really count as wikis (from the easy linking pov). And, of course, editing other people's contents, sure.

Tim FInin: more like forums, then

Sebastian Schaffert: yes, but there are nowadays many corporate wiki installations where *not* everyone can edit

Sebastian Schaffert: but still they are wikis

Tim FInin: bossWiki

Daniel Schwabe: it's ok if you have some editorial control on who is allowed to publish...

Daniel Schwabe: functionally speaking, it's still collaborative content AND linking

Harold Solbrig: I think the history component is an important aspect as well.

Sebastian Schaffert: I often summarise the wiki characteristics as follows:

Sebastian Schaffert: - On a wiki, anyone can edit

Sebastian Schaffert: - Wikis are easy to use (buzzword!)

Sebastian Schaffert: - Wiki content is linkable

Sebastian Schaffert: - Wikis support versioning

Sebastian Schaffert: - Wikis support all media (that one is an extension of the old idea of web page)

Sebastian Schaffert: http://www.kiwi-project.eu/index.php/kiwi-vision/21-wiki-philosophy

Lars Ludwig: hm, I could think of a virtual wiki integrating personal statements without direct editing

Christoph Lange: I wouldn't call the feature "versioning" -- IIRC it was originally called "easy undo" = it's easier to undo a mistake than to mess up sth. (and versioning is one solution for that)

Sebastian Schaffert: true

Daniel Schwabe: my definition - easy content and linking; collaborative creation. Versioning is really just a way to overcome lack of concurrency control - leave to the users to undo inconsistent updates, simplifies implementation.

Sebastian Schaffert: @Lars: Twitter?

Sebastian Schaffert: Daniel: versioning is much more important

Sebastian Schaffert: it is about taking away fears

Sebastian Schaffert: the fear of breaking things

Lars Ludwig: why not integrating twitter messages into a wiki

Yaron Koren:

Daniel (ontoprise): The "rule knowledge in SMW"-prototype is online: http://ruledemo.ontoprise.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Daniel Schwabe: ok, but I consider that as part of "collaborative content creation" support

Sebastian Schaffert: if I know that I can undo my changes in a Wiki, I feel much more easy to actually contribute

Sebastian Schaffert: @Lars: yes, of course (KiWi)

Yaron Koren: I was smiling at the "breaking things", BTW.

EdDodds: Isolated components will be available to link with electronic medical records and financial reporting increasingly done in extensible business reporting language (xbrl) as well. Anyone looking at the medical banking implications of this yet?

Harold Solbrig: The versioning isn't just being able to undo - it carries the evolution of how the idea was formed. Interestingly, discussions should probably be linear - time flows down the page, but core pages need history.

Markus Krötzsch: The "Ask The Wiki" demo is still found at http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Special:ATWSpecialSearch (URL not on my slides)

anonymous1 morphed into John McClure

Peter Dolog: just some thoghts based on above discussion. I think we probably need some kind of a metaphor for semantic wiki. Looking at what the other wrote: Sebastian - quickly update content -> I think this is historically wiki; Daniel: collaborative editing of content was probably added after when CSCW peaple entered, knowledge evolution goes towards semantics a bit (versioning vs. evolution? probably a discussion point too)

EdDodds: >>Lars Ludwig: why not integrating twitter messages into a wiki - Indeed, saw this a.m. http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/News/Breaking-News/Wikis-get-social-52891.aspx on a product (eTouch announces SamePage Version 4.1) that "functionally" attempts this, although not actually with twitter or identi.ca/laconi.ca

Daniel Schwabe: @PeterD - No, collaboration was there since the beginning in Ward Cunninghams first wiki

Peter Dolog: OK, I am not excluding it. I think we just probably miss some kind of methaphor we could all ground too.

Markus Krötzsch: A core aspect of Ward's Wiki was simplicity -- hardly any markup.

Harold Solbrig: As was the original HTML

Lars Ludwig: EdDodds: next step: integrate 'semantic' messages

Peter Dolog: ok, so what would be an equivalent simplicity to semantic wiki

Markus Krötzsch: As Ward said himself, Wikipedia and others have moved away from this part a lot, but I think he is okay with this

Peter Dolog: simplicity in editing beyond content - knowledge?

Daniel Schwabe: I translated these into "easy content creation and linking"

Daniel Schwabe: So I really don't care what is the underlying representation - if I have a tool that makes it very easy to create content, that's fine.

Markus Krötzsch: Ward's wiki was not just "easy" (to use), its whole data model was extremely simple. There was hardly any structure in the data it contained. Mostly links.

LiDing: the notion of easy is hard to say

Daniel Schwabe: Hence, with wysiwyg HTML enable wiki content to be HTML, so long as people don't have to edit the source...

LiDing: even editing with wiki require training

Harold Solbrig: Interesting now that I think about it. HTML 1.0 was more semantic than syntax. The XML community argues that it "got off track" with the images and formatting information rather than the semantics of the message itself. XML, on the other hand, made it *too* easy for everyone to say whatever they said their own way. RDF & OWL etc. are attempts to agree on semantics, but WIKI, in a way, is a return to the original HTML principles.

Mark Greaves: LiD: very well said, "the notion of easy is hard to say"

LiDing: furthermore, editing in English is not that easy

Daniel Schwabe: Besides content itself with the simple markup, the real winner was the simple linking mechanism - reference by name

Markus Krötzsch: but maybe maintaining a basic data model with as little strucutre as possible is not actually our goal these days ...

Daniel Schwabe: at that time, this was the difficult part to achieve in a simple way

Harold Solbrig: Agreed - especially the link to a yet to be created page.

Markus Krötzsch: indeed

John McClure: Core & definitional to wikis -- which seems not to have received alot of attention -- are '''namespaces'''. I believe that public understanding of wikis needs to evolve, not be a revolution with too many concepts. Thus, I suggest that the concept of namespaces -- as a form of strong typing -- is the next crucial atom of info to be communicated.

Daniel Schwabe: @Markus - sure, I would not focus so much on a "data model"

Daniel Schwabe: @johnM - interesting point...

EdDodds: @Lars Ludwig: next step: integrate 'semantic' messages >> yes, I wonder if the open ontology registry (Ontolog Project) might be utilized to connect with tagging a la delicious, folksonomies, twit hash tags, etc. to help give context to these semantic messages...

Peter Dolog: @DanielS: so our ultimate goal is then, what is now difficult on the content in the wikis which semantics can make it simple

Markus Krötzsch: @Daniel: I mean the basic structural model of the wiki content. In spite of all freedom that users should have, technically there must be some basic "model".

Daniel Schwabe: that's part of it. Then there is the "consuming the information" part. No good to be easy to create if it is hard to consume! which leads us to customizable interfaces

Markus Krötzsch: s /Daniel/DanielS/

John McClure: I suggest that IF ontologies are calibrated with (inter)wiki namespaces, THEN ontology metadata can be reasoned, leading to interoperability

Daniel Schwabe: @MarkusK - sure

Markus Krötzsch: we see it!

Yaron Koren: SMW mostly uses categories and not namespaces.

Markus Krötzsch: Well, it uses both but for very different things.

Harold Solbrig: We had to splice namespaces in...

Lars Ludwig: document annotation is no solution

Harold Solbrig: e.g. RDF_type or WINE_cabernet

Markus Krötzsch: @PeterYim: my lightning slide is not linked online -- did you get it?

John McClure: Yaron, yes I agree, but that doesnt distress me. The essential point is that SMW needs to develop an ontology that describes NSs.

Yaron Koren: Markus - a minority of people use namespaces for data. Like Harold.

Markus Krötzsch: Oh, I would not encourage this, from a technical viewpoint

Yaron Koren: Talk to Harold. And John.

John McClure: because...?

Yaron Koren: John - I don't see why usage of namespaces is that important to you.

John McClure: Because it is a '''container'''. Because it's already in MW. Because it is not new

Yaron Koren: You could say the same for categories.

Harold Solbrig: Two different notions of namespace. One is the Mediawiki ns (Category, Template, Property, and talk analogs) and the second is ontology namespace (URI)

Markus Krötzsch: Ah, that is indeed different

Jesse Wang: Yaron: I believe one reason people use namespaces is to avoid name conflict: say, two pages: NS1:MembersList vs NS2:MembersList.

Daniel Schwabe: I already hit *2 on mine

John McClure: Harold, agreed. What is the difference my friend?

Markus Krötzsch: @Harold: Of course, namespaces in ontologies often have no semantic significance. They are specific to some serializations, but not part of the ontological content.

Sebastian Schaffert: and they don't say anything about the ontology

Sebastian Schaffert: they are about the URIs and not suitable for grouping ontologies

Markus Krötzsch: (opening a file in an ontology editor and saving it again may sometimes change the namespaces that are used)

Markus Krötzsch: The notion of "URI" does not involve namespaces either.

Markus Krötzsch: They only come in in XML and some other file formats.

Daniel Schwabe: I guess what is meant is some facility to help "distributed vocabulary management"

LiDing: isn't wiki a place forcing people to converge?

Markus Krötzsch: @DanielS: Yes, the problem is that semantic technology standards are pretty poor on this task.

Daniel Schwabe: @MarkusK - sure, I was just trying to give my interpretation of the remark on using NSs

Markus Krötzsch: yes, and I think it is a valid remark, just hard to implement properly using standards

Daniel Schwabe: @LiDing - yes, but converge != merge

John McClure: What is meant is a hook to define context, the 'frame' through which a particular wiki, or namespace within a wiki, is constructed. Where else to define such context *in the existing framework*?

LiDing: @daniel, right we do forced-converge or merged by mapping

John McClure: Frankly I am most concerned with making swikis palatable as possible
- Start with existing concepts, like namespaces (aka context) and pages (aka resources)

Daniel Schwabe: @LiDing - I believe merged by mapping is more acceptable, hence the use of NSs to help that

John McClure: we can all agree semantically what the 'talk' ns is for. Why stop there?
Am suggesting some additional ''foundational namespaces'' in addition to the
fourteen (14) standard ns's.

Tim FInin morphed into Tim Finin

Daniel Schwabe: Shameless plug - partial answer to point 2 (interface between dbpedia and semantic wiki) - Explorator: http://www.tecweb.inf.puc-rio.br/explorator. First step, exploring data; second step, create/add/edit content (coming)

Yaron Koren: @KeiCheung - well, some might say that a semantic Wikipedia might replace DBPedia entirely.

John McClure: e.g., put one's formal ontology in a 'term' ns, controlled by KEs
Leave folksonomies in the 'category' ns -- potential terms adoptable by KEs

Daniel Schwabe: @yaronK - sorry, I really don't believe that. They serve entirely different purposes. I could see Semantic Wikipedia being based on top of dbpedia...

Sebastian Schaffert: @Yaron: which would make sense, why are they separate in the first place ...

Sebastian Schaffert: well, at the moment, DBPedia is based on Wikipedia

Daniel Schwabe: @YaronK (perhaps that's what you meant?)

Sebastian Schaffert: adding the DBPedia-way of querying data to Wikipedia would make sense

Yaron Koren: No, I'm talking about adding SMW (for instance  ) to Wikipedia.

Yaron Koren: Wikipedia could then be queried directly.

Sebastian Schaffert: same result, isn't it (or even better)

Sebastian Schaffert: that's what I meant

Daniel Schwabe: @sebastian - one of the advantages of dbpedia is having a sparql endpoint. It enables powerful interfaces such as the Explorator I mentioned above

Markus Krötzsch hears echo

Sebastian Schaffert: yes, but Wikipedia could offer the SPARQL endpoint

Daniel Schwabe: In addition, you could always have the (Semantic) Media Wiki interface, as you said

Sebastian Schaffert: instead of having it separate

Sebastian Schaffert: I disagree with Mike - OWL must prove that it is useful or otherwise we dump it

Sebastian Schaffert: (my challenge ...  )

Christoph Lange: one more thought about namespaces: I think they are needed if links should remain easy to author. LinkByName actually requires one flat namespace, wich is not practical for structuring knowledge, but full URIs are hard to author

Daniel Schwabe: +1 to ChristophL

Sebastian Schaffert: @Christoph: link lookup can be done differently

Harold Solbrig: @Markus (wrt namespaces) - indeed, namespaces have no semantic significance, which is why they work out ok as a part of the name itself. The key, however, is disambiguation - especially when you are referencing outside resources that have not coordinated their names. The classic example is the NCI has a class called "Agent", which includes drugs and other delivery mechanisms. NCI_Agent is needed...

Sebastian Schaffert: I'll maybe discuss with you separately how we now do it in KiWi

Markus Krötzsch: I agree with Sebastian, but I don't think OWL is just useful if it is useful in wikis; actually, we would have very advanced swikis indeed if they are able to leverage a technology as powerful as OWL. Maybe we are not there yet.

KeiCheung: Yaron, my chat room page was blocked by other windows so I didn't see your comment. wikipedia started with free text, so it's not a natural fit to semantic web even dbpedia addresses some of the issues. If we start right using semantic mediawiki (instead of mediawiki), we might be able to create a better dbpedia (neurodbpedia in my case).

Yaron Koren: Well, as far as I know DBPedia just uses Wikipedia's infobox data, which could be relatively straightforwardly semantic-ized.

Sebastian Schaffert: ... or create a flop because people are reluctant to use it

Sebastian Schaffert: if it is too complex

Sebastian Schaffert: difficult act of balancing

Markus Krötzsch: @Harold: yes, I agree; I am not sure how well this is supported by current tools, though

Harold Solbrig: @Markus I disagree. OWL, while it may not appear directly, is an important component when defining the intended meaning of the semantic components. With OWL, RDF, ... we have "Category" and "Property". That said, OWL should be under the covers.

Daniel Schwabe: I think we can build special purpose interfaces to create, edit and navigate data for which we KNOW the (meta) schema.

Sebastian Schaffert: people absolutely don't care about semantics

Sebastian Schaffert: they have to be added in a natural way

Sebastian Schaffert: forms are one way

Markus Krötzsch: in addition, people absolutely don't care about wikis

Sebastian Schaffert: tagging might be one

Sebastian Schaffert: exactly

Yaron Koren:

Yaron Koren: So what are we doing here?

KeiCheung: faviki?

Daniel Schwabe: @MarkusK, unless you are saying this "tongue in cheek", people DO care about wikis...

Harold Solbrig: @Markus: We had to roll our own for the time being. Not only do we have the namespace issue, but, one way or another, we have to know that "Wine" and "Wein" map to the same core resource, so we need a notion of identity.

KeiCheung: owl:sameAs?

Sebastian Schaffert: @Yaron: we care about positioning semantic wikis as a tool that people really like to use without noticing that they are using a wiki or semantics

Harold Solbrig: I want to get to the same page in the end.

Sebastian Schaffert: @Harold: this becomes very difficult

Sebastian Schaffert: think of "Snow"

Markus Krötzsch: @Yaron: That is why I think we should step back and consider the goal we have. We gather valuable experience in supporting structured and unstructured content, for trained and untrained users, in groups or alone -- we can define "CMS" or at least contribute significantly to its future definition.

EdDodds: Folks don't care about "semantics" but they do care about "context" -- they just don't realize they can be the same thing

Sebastian Schaffert: in Bavaria, we have about 5-10 notions of snow, in Iceland they have about 15

Daniel Schwabe: Good user interface are crucial to ANY interactive application...

Sebastian Schaffert: and in Saudi Arabia they probably have only 1

Sebastian Schaffert: +1 to Daniel

Sebastian Schaffert: user centred design

Daniel Schwabe: @SebastianS (Ha, in Brazil we have may .5 notion of snow, none real! :-Q)

Markus Krötzsch: @DanielS: The people from the street care about the label "wiki" as they care about "Web 2.0", but the cateogrization as one or the other type of CMS is not essential to them as long as it works

Daniel Schwabe: @MarkusK - ah, ok

Harold Solbrig: @Sebastian: What we've done is created a 3 part identifier (NS_designation(code)). NS is namespace ID, designation is language specific and possibly changeable name and code is immutable. Note that links don't just come from other wiki pages (!). If we don't find NS_designation(code), we look up NS(Code). If found, we build a redirect page.

EdDodds: A simple case is job matching a la hr-xml. HR still refuses to use "context" to match "job description" with "resume" -- job seekers, however, do wish they would

Markus Krötzsch: @Harold: I think I understand what kind of problems you would encounter there. You want to work on syntax, when all SemWeb standards work on semantics (i.e. letting you identify the entities you model, but not the names that you use for them).

Markus Krötzsch wonders how many parallel side chats one can have while still being an attentive listener ...

EdDodds: Another case is the White House Forum on Health Reform Event on now http://www.whitehouse.gov/live2/ where about of the jawing is about differing definitions and cross talk

EdDodds: alot of

John McClure: Special purpose interfaces (@Daniel) could be bound each to a namespace.
People 'get' that pretty easily, and understand that

Sebastian Schaffert: @Harold: but how does it solve the problem of owl:sameAs redirecting to the same page?

John McClure: place:White House is SURELY different than article:White House and talk:White House

Sebastian Schaffert: concepts are slightly different in different cultures

Daniel Schwabe: @JohnM - sure, that's one of the primitive mechanisms we use in HDEWiki (and more general in HyperDE tool)

John McClure: each requiring a wholly different set of tools to make the goal (completing content) faster, better, cheaper

Daniel Schwabe: @JohnM - there is a builtin notion of "context", and a way to customize the interface depending on the context.

Joel Natividad: Following up on my point about word processors - has anybody looked into using the new document formats - Open XML and ODF in particular as a jumping point

Joel Natividad: for capturing semantically annotated data when creating documents

Joel Natividad: ODF has a metadata Technical Comittee

smishra morphed into Sunil Mishra

Sebastian Schaffert: yes, we even have an open bug tracker issue on this

Sebastian Schaffert: still open

Daniel Schwabe: @YaronK, can you post the URL to the website you mentioned?

Yaron Koren: Sure - http://opencongress.org/wiki

anonymous1: How is the UI problem related to the non-specific spirit of the wiki paradigm? For instance, from my experience working within the biomedical domain I have see that tools such as WIKI-Proteins do not facilitate any specific tool for the kind of information they are meant to support. How could having more specific UIs help solving the UI problem?

Bobbin Teegarden: Has anyone tried to move the wiki ui from words and bullets to an interactive graph (with GIS overlay) more like Gelernter's Mirror World?

Sebastian Schaffert: because specific is always better for the user than generic

Markus Krötzsch: anonymous1, you can use "Settings" at the top panel to get a name.

Daniel Schwabe: @anonymous1 - that's precisely the point I was making in my earlier interventions!

Lars Ludwig: name space? -- I call it mind space

Harold Solbrig: @Sebastian: Even with owl:sameAs, we still have to get folks from whatever historical or language specific hyperlink they've got to the SMW page that defines the category or property. The advantage of the identifier approach is we don't have to carry a history of all names that have been used.

Markus Krötzsch: oops, I misinterpreted the text field next to the hand button

Sebastian Schaffert: response:

Sebastian Schaffert: namespaces are not for semantics

Daniel Schwabe: @YaronK - is there some sort of schema underlying the "structured" portion of this website? Is there a way to access the "raw" underlying data?

Sebastian Schaffert: @Harold: that's fine - my concern is only that it is not so easy to use the same concept in multiple languages

Sebastian Schaffert: we had this in IkeWiki

Yaron Koren: @DanielS - not really, no.

Sebastian Schaffert: but didn't to it in KiWi after a long discussion

Sebastian Schaffert: did the conference break? I was kicked out

Sebastian Schaffert: and cannot log in again

Markus Krötzsch: we are still on

anonymous1: I suppose that also has to do with being able to define atomic components of a wiki page, the page is the atomic unit of the wiki.

PeterYim: @Sebastian ... was that for voice or for the chat room?

Harold Solbrig: @Sebastion: agreed that it isn't. There are attempts and claims to be able to do this, however, in Medical "ontologies" such as Gene Ontology and SNOMED-CT. Also, what of Dublin Core and good ol' RDF?

Sebastian Schaffert: @peter: voice, but back again

PeterYim: glad you are able to get back in .. sorry for the mishap

Sebastian Schaffert: @anonymous1: not necessarily, we also discussed heavily in the community how to annotate parts of pages

Sebastian Schaffert: take the Wikipedia page about the computer mouse

Sebastian Schaffert: it would be useful to annotate each section differently, because it is about many historical mice

Joel Natividad: @Tim: Great stuff! Would love to see what your team put together.

Joel Natividad: @Tim: Great stuff! Would love to check out the work that your team did

anonymous1: can u track changes over anything else but pages?

Sebastian Schaffert: @anonymous1: yes, in KiWi we implemented versioning and transactions for metadata

Sebastian Schaffert: not 100% solved, but mostly

Joel Natividad: Actually, I'm currently working on embedding semantic metadata in the SVG XML files that SRF-Ploticus produces.

anonymous1: is there any literature on that?

John McClure: Markus' concern is that an ns organization conflicts with
one's ability to 'categorize' things in multiple ways.
There are several responses to this. First, don't overlook the
impace of REDIRECTS. Second, consider closely whether the structure
of the ontology is ill-fitting wrt the implemented namespaces.

Christoph Lange: @anonymous1: the page can remain the atomic unit, but then we need good refactoring workflows in case a page grows more complex (and subconcepts emerge within a page)

Sebastian Schaffert: on the versioning? we are working on an article

Sebastian Schaffert: should be finished next week

Yaron Koren: Sorry, what was the question? I couldn't hear it.

Markus Krötzsch: @John: My point is: categories already do that, are well known, and have suppor by advnaced UIs even for searching. So why try to use MW namespaces?

Sebastian Schaffert: @John: never forget the user

Sebastian Schaffert: who would find this useful? I would find it awkward

Markus Krötzsch: @John: I agree that it could be conceived, even though it would not play well with the technical use of namespaces now (e.g. namespaces cannot be added from the wiki but only server-side)

Daniel Schwabe: @anonymous1 - there is a whole series of work on model-based interface specification. If you want to get a flavor of what's possible, some is exemplified in our HDEWiki demo: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/SemanticWiki/SWiki-02_Technology-1_20081120/HDEWiki--DanielSchwabe_20081120.html

John McClure: I don't believe there is any ontology for defining a category.
(Unless you wanna raise Topic Maps v Ontology debate)

Sebastian Schaffert: SKOS

Markus Krötzsch: well, I think we are talking of different things here

Joel Natividad: In my ideal world, users will work on their documents using familiar interfaces and then the knowledge is published on Semantic Wiki

Sebastian Schaffert: +1 to Joel

Sebastian Schaffert: intuitiveness means known patterns of use

John McClure: yep, skos.
Further, mw searching does understand ns's and categories.
Certainly I acknowledge that there's a break with categories in some sense.
But this is called 'emerging ke' right

anonymous1: Hi Christoph, how could the re-factoring be done?

Joel Natividad: and other users can further annotate on Wiki, and if it can be done, the annotations are round-tripped down to the document

Daniel Schwabe: +1 to Joel too

Joel Natividad:

Guoqian Jiang: @Markus, We are using RDF output from SMW for processing proposals generated from LexWiki

Peter Dolog: @Joel: And this is exactly also a big challenge for us as researchers

Peter Dolog: i.e. how to make it simpler to make

Jesse Wang: We are doing something at Vulcan.

Peter Dolog: because program we can always

Jesse Wang: Mark is talking on that.

Peter Dolog: but how everybody can do that?

Christoph Lange: @anonymous1: in Wikipedia it is done manually. Whenever a subsection (e.g. history of Italy) grows too large, somebody first puts a warning there (this should be rolled out to an article of its own), then somebody else does that, and replaces the former section by a short summary, and fixes links on other pages pointing to the subtopic

Markus Krötzsch: we are also working on solutions for inter-wiki data exchange and integration -- I would like to collect input on what people need

Christoph Lange: @anonymous1: Now assume semantic structures on pages (e.g. saying this paragraph is a subconcept of type T), then a semantic wiki could assist with that

Tim Finin: gotta go. Thanks for all the fish

John McClure: @Sebastian - Users find it useful that [[place:White House]] involves its own set of tools

Markus Krötzsch: we plan to release software for exchanging data between wikis (instead of copying it from one wiki to the other by duplicating pages); use cases could affect our desing choices

Guoqian Jiang: @Markus, we are really interested in the future plan for RDF/OWL backend of SMW

Markus Krötzsch: well, feel free to write an email

Markus Krötzsch: (I think the session stops rather soon)

Guoqian Jiang: @Markus, yes, talk to you later by email

Sebastian Schaffert: @John: how about the page about the place which is called "White House" involving their own tools instead of placing it on the link?

Markus Krötzsch: ok, just bear with me being slow processing mails; quite some of them these days ...

Guoqian Jiang: OK, I see.

Daniel Schwabe: @MarkusK - why not use LOD as the underlying basis to share content between wikis?

anonymous1: @ Joel: having a semantic structure supporting the generation of documents could make it possible to produce scientific papers, for instance, fully annotated. This could deliver an OLD environment over the paper. I think that when supporting the generation of documents the annotation should happen naturally and without any effort, the document being generated should be immerse in the web by means of relationships over those data types contained in the paper.

Markus Krötzsch thanks Mark and Rudi for chairing this session, and Peter for setting this up

Joel Natividad: plaudits to the all the conveners, Peter in particular!

Sebastian Schaffert: @Daniel: done by KiWi and planned for extension

John McClure: Users find it useful that [[place:*]] is in effect, a geo database
That [[:White House]] is an article ABOUT something (like the [[place:White House]]
that [[place_talk:White House]] is an article ABOUT [[place:White House]], etc etc
Of course, you can see metastatements abound

anonymous1: Thanks everybody

Sebastian Schaffert: yes, thanks!

Guoqian Jiang: Thanks all

Peter Dolog: thanks everybody

Daniel Schwabe: @SebastianS - great, will take a closer look!

Daniel Schwabe: Thanks all!

Christoph Lange thanks the organizers and all participants

Joel Natividad: any news about 2nd User Group Meeting of SMW?

Daniel Schwabe: Bye all, thanks for the interesting exchange!

Markus Krötzsch: bye

Peter Dolog: bye to all

Sebastian Schaffert: @Daniel: essentially, if you access the KiWi system with a client that sends "Accepts: application/rdf" it redirects to http://showcase.kiwi-project.eu/KiWi/linkeddata.seam?http://showcase.kiwi-project.eu/KiWi/content/FrontPage

PeterYim: Great session ... Mark, Rudi and everyone! Thank you all for a most wonderful mini-series!

Sebastian Schaffert: or something similar

Yaron Koren: @Joel - I guess there's no news.

Joel Natividad:

Yaron Koren: The plan was to have one in Germany in May or so...

Sebastian Schaffert: @Daniel: the key is to use URIs that are "local" to the server domain

Sebastian Schaffert: which can be problematic if you want at the same time use ontologies

Yaron Koren: We could have one instead in the U.S., if there's interest.

Joel Natividad: Count me in, perhaps we can time it with SemTech

Yaron Koren: Yeah... although I'm not going to that one.

Yaron Koren: Is anyone from SMW presenting there, do you know?

Sebastian Schaffert: Markus apparently tried to submit a presentation

Yaron Koren: That was me. Unless Markus did too.

Joel Natividad: I also submitted one but the passed on it as well

Yaron Koren: Oh. Maybe it's a trend.

Joel Natividad: like Markus said

Joel Natividad: mail filters

Yaron Koren: So, are you still planning to go?

Joel Natividad: I am. Particularly since Mark said they were planning to host some SMW sessions

Yaron Koren: Hm.

Yaron Koren: Well, I guess that's where the 2nd SMW user meeting will be, then.

Joel Natividad: Great! Maybe we should continue the planning on semediawiki-user mailing list

Yaron Koren: Sure, feel free to send an email. I still don't think I'm going.

Joel Natividad: k. bye all!

PeterYim: bye everyone! a big THANK YOU to all, once again!

anonymous1: bye everyone

Continua Health Alliance Announces the formal release of its Version One Design Guidelines

After two years of work from more than 175 companies around the world, Continua Health Alliance is proud to announce the formal release of its Version One Design Guidelines and the Continua Certification Program. These guidelines encompass connectivity for vital sign devices (pulse oximeter, blood pressure cuff, thermometer, weight scale, glucose meter), cardiovascular fitness equipment and independent living activity monitors.

“I’m proud to welcome the first Continua Certified product to the global marketplace from industry leader and Continua Promoter member Nonin Medical, Inc.,” said David Whitlinger, Continua Health Alliance President. “Nonin Medical’s engineers have worked diligently with other telehealth leaders in the alliance to produce the Continua Version One Guidelines, with the goal of building Continua’s vision for interoperable and personal healthcare.”

In addition to the Continua Version One Design Guidelines, Continua also provides its members with a large library of reference software that represent all of the connectivity interfaces in Version One. The Continua Enabling Source Code Library (CESL) represents an investment of nearly $1 million to accelerate member companies’ product development.

These accomplishments come at a time of high momentum for Continua, as the alliance prepares to welcome hundreds of its members to its upcoming international summits in Tokyo and Barcelona. Held across the world, these summits give Continua members the opportunity to network during face-to-face working group meetings. These events also include keynotes delivered by industry thought leaders, product demos, networking activities, and updates on recent accomplishments and roadmaps.

Ken Rubin on Practical Guide to SOA in Healthcare

From SOA Consortium

The Practical Guide to SOA in Healthcare, an output of the Healthcare Services Specification Project (HSSP), is a collaborative work of the OMG Healthcare Task Force & Health Level 7 (HL7). The goal of HSSP is to develop SOA specifications for health, specifically defining healthcare business services to enable interoperability between organizations across the health domain.

While not a standard, the practical guide provides context and guidance for healthcare IT organizations and professionals considering SOA. Using a fictitious example, the practical guide presents an 8-step process to establish a healthcare SOA, from enterprise architecture through sustainment, and includes valuable lessons learned.

During his talk, Rubin spoke of the current state of global healthcare, and anticipated changes with the new U.S. administration and Health IT programs. Walking through the practical guide, meeting attendees were keenly interested in the healthcare function to service mapping and the reference architecture. Rubin emphasized that the reference architecture is a starting point for people to think about the problem, and extend and amend for their own situations.

1st International Enterprise X.0 Workshop: From Web 2.0 in Enterprises towards a Corporate Web X.0, Poznan, Poland, April 27, 28 or 29, 2009

In conjunction with 12th International Conference on Business Information Systems (BIS 2009)

http://bis.kie.ae.poznan.pl/12th_bis/wscfp.php?ws=entX2009

Deadline for submissions: February 1, 2009

After the first generation Web which started with handwritten HTML pages, the second generation made the step to machine generated and often active HTML pages. Since these first two generations were meant for direct human processing (reading, browsing, form-filling) the third generation Web, the "Semantic Web" and Web 2.0 provide machine processable information and social (horizontal) collaboration, respectively. Furthermore, since over the last decades, the World Wide Web has rapidly evolved into a vast repository containing huge amounts of decentralized information on all matters of interest and is now evolving from the medium intended for human utilization into a medium for collaborative knowledge generation and intelligent knowledge exchange achieving the time-to-market demanded in a competitive environment, we think the time is ripe for the next visionary view and question: What is the next, logical step after the use of the Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and semantic technologies in business settings?

In this context we are organizing a workshop that addresses visionaries (researchers and practitioners) who are working not only on Web-based information systems using Web 2.0 and Semantic Web technologies in the business context but are looking forward to exploiting the next wave of Web developments - Corporate Web X.0. The audience will get an overview how new trends in and after the Web 2.0 and Semantic Web era can influence corporate processes and where benefits for the business world are to be found.

TOPICS OF INTEREST

• Enterprise 2.0 & X.0
• Business Models for Enterprise X.0
• Convergence of Web 2.0 and Semantic Web in the corporate context
• Best practices & guidelines for application of Web 2.0 and Semantic Web technologies in corporate contexts:
• Enterprise Application Integration (EAI)
• Business Process Modeling (BPM)
• Enterprise Information Integration (EII)
• Enterprise Content Management (ECM)
• Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
• Product Lifecycle Management (PLM)
• Human Resources Management (HR)
• SOA and Semantic Web Services in business
• Corporate Semantic Web & Corporate Web X.0

SUBMISSION

Papers must be submitted in PDF format according to Springer LNBIP template available from http://www.springer.com/east/home/computer/lncs?SGWID=5-164-7-487211-0. We invite submissions of papers no longer than 12LNBIP pages (including figures, references and appendices).

Submission system is available at http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?track=11990;conf=enterprisex02009.

Papers approved for presentation at the workshop will be published in BIS 2009 workshop post-proceedings, as a volume in Springer's Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (LNBIP) series.

WORKSHOP FORMAT

All authors of accepted papers as well as other participants will be asked to read accepted papers abstracts before the workshop (papers will be available on-line in advance) to facilitate discussion. Workshop participants will be also invited to take part in the BIS conference and other BIS workshops.

IMPORTANT DATES

February 1, 2009 - submission of papers

March 1, 2009 - notification of acceptance

March 15, 2009 - camera-ready

April 27, 28 or 29, 2009 - Enterprise X.0 Workshop

ORGANIZERS

Malgorzata Mochol, Free University of Berlin, Germany

Lyndon JB Nixon, STI International Wien, Austria

Markus Luczak-Roesch, Free University of Berlin, Germany

PROGRAM COMMITTEE (to be extended)

• Diego Burrueta, CTIC, Spain
• Christoph Bussler, Merced Systems, Inc., USA
• Orri Erling, OpenLink Software, UK
• Agata Filipowska, The Poznan University of Ecomonics, Poland
• David de Francisco, Telefonica, Spain
• Marko Grobelnik, Josef Stefan Institute, Slovenia
• Tudor Groza, DERI Galway, Ireland
• Thomas Hoppe, Ontonym GmbH, Germany
• Ora Lassila, Nokia, USA
• Alain Leger, France Telekom, France
• Dickson Lucose, MIMOS, Malaysia
• Jeff Pan, University Aberdeen, UK
• Tassilo Pellegrini, Semantic Web Company, Austria
• Kai-Uwe Schmidt, SAP, Germany
• Pavel Shvaiko, TasLab, Informatica Trentina, Italy
• Vojtech Svatek, University of Economics Prague, Czech Republic
• Robert Tolksdorf, Free University Berlin, Germany
• Hannes Werthner, Technical University of Vienna, Austria

JustSystems sponsors Dave Raggett as W3C Fellow for work on XBRL and the Semantic Web

here.

booz&co Organization Effectiveness Simulator

Have you ever wondered how your organization rates in terms of getting things done? Execution – consistent, coordinated, controlled execution – is the passport to sustained success in our global competitive environment, but how do you optimize execution? What actions would you take?

Test your theories using our Organization Effectiveness Simulator. First, diagnose your organization’s current state, then chart a path based on selected actions and offered insights toward a higher execution score. Go ahead…see how you rate.