Towards a Common Ontology for Personal Data Interoperability ~ Or just a Pipe Dream?
Towards a Common Ontology for Personal Data Interoperability
Tuesday 4G Convener: Julian Ranger
Notes-taker(s): Julian Ranger
Tags for the session - technology discussed/ideas considered:
Discussion notes, key understandings, outstanding questions, observations, and, if appropriate to this discussion: action items, next steps:
- Agreed that Common Ontology was an ideal to make task easier for all, though was not a necessary requirement in that systems can cope with multiple ontologies if needed.
- Found it amusing that in talking about a single ontology there was no agreement about whether we were talking about an ontology, a schema, a data dictionary or other term!
- Did agree that it was about entity names & syntax whatever we call the aggregation
- Should it be a single ontology, multiple ontologies, separate or overlapping, by community?
- Agreed looking for minimum possible
- Today big companies have leverage forcing all to use their ontologies, which results in many variants needing to be implemented - would like to reduce towards one for personal data exchange/use
- In looking at a common ontology:
- Need to be pragmatic vis perfective
- There will be a fuzzy boundary around a core ontology where items cannot be resolved - need to live with that provided the level of fuzziness is not too high
- A discussion on whether it was possible to create a single ontology concluded that it would be - after all many companies do this internally as they have to
- Agreed should have a further Part 2 session at this IIW to explore what it would take to create a single ontology (or minimum set) - the What & How. Points to note:
- Look at use cases and solve for those first
- Look at other ontology standardization examples and why they failed or succeeded
- Discuss "Data to Value" maps
- In terms of timing agreed it is never too late, but best economic value is to do earlier whilst personal data exchange from/by people is in nascent stage