10:08:01 From Kirstie : @Ken – we need to consider time span in disasters – your example of not being a disaster if out away from humans considered only immediate impact. However in California we had a disaster when a rock slide blocked a major road near Monterey for several months.
10:08:56 From Gary Berg-Cross : Yes, risks and disasters have a relevant period of time and also relevant spatial region.
10:18:41 From galya rogova : What exactly do you mean by consistency here?
10:27:45 From Janelle Mason : Is the “twin” aspect needed for a primary / secondary relationship?
10:29:07 From Ken Baclawski : @Kirstie I agree with Gary. Pandemics have a time span and geographic extent. Mitigating a potential pandemic requires constant vigilance, hence the need for situation awareness.
10:29:59 From Mike Kozak : In terms of individuals/groups reluctant to share data that might be accessible by competition, why limit ourselves to a binary decision? Perhaps the right approach is a means of adding error or “blurring the accuracy” of semi-private data that’s managed by the authorization service. I would compare it to GPS: the earliest iterations capped the public position accuracy so it could be used while remaining competitive.
10:30:34 From Kirstie : My point Ken was about what is considered a disaster should include different time scales that may eventually impact humans a long time from now e.g. environmental disasters with coral reefs
10:30:59 From Kirstie : @Mike YES
10:31:48 From Ken Baclawski : @Kirstie Yes, that is very important. Thanks.
10:31:49 From Mike Kozak : Which, in the spirit of cognitive SA, would mean understanding the necessary level of detail that a user needs at a minimum to make use of it for their personal use case.
10:33:38 From Kirstie : Matthew my experience in integrating data across space systems adds that “data” never comes alone – it is always accompanied by models, services, programs that shape , pre and post processing, updating etc.
10:35:33 From Alicia Ruvinsky : @Mike, this inspires ideas of Maslow’s hierarchy of need. Immediate, person impact being more critical, but as that SA is honed, SA can begin to scale out, maybe to more social or larger geographical points. @Kirstie, a hierarchy like this may also scale to impact over time. (Just thoughts)
10:36:33 From galya rogova : @Kirstie, yes it is important but it is also necessary to consider different phases of disasters since the situation and response can be different
10:37:37 From Mike Kozak : @Alicia I like that framing. Something like “data you need to survive -> data you need to grow -> data you need to thrive -> data you need to be robust to contingencies -> data you would like to have”
10:38:57 From Mike Kozak : or alternatively, temporal: data you need now -> data you need to adapt to now -> data you need to plan for later -> data you need to do counterfactual analysis -> data that lets you project out to many possible futures
10:40:22 From Alicia Ruvinsky : @Mike, yes! I wonder how well that maps to Maslow’s decomp, but from a data perspective of need (or time perspective).
10:42:39 From Janelle Mason : Thank you!
10:48:53 From Mike Kozak : @Alicia the examples above are probably filled with holes. I’m sure with a bit of research any of the talented individuals in this community could refine it to something both formal and more closely analogous.
10:52:46 From Mare Teichmann : @Ailcia. Integrating Maslow to information framework is just a great idea. Anyway, it is good enougth to study ….
10:57:47 From Alicia Ruvinsky : @Mare, thank you for the feedback!
10:58:18 From Alicia Ruvinsky : Can digital twin be distinguished by amount and/or speed of data?
11:03:15 From Matthew West : No, different digital twins might have different “speeds”.
11:05:18 From Mike Kozak : @Matthew, my last question was going to be: given your experience in digital twins going back to the 70s, and in the spirit of CogSIMA as an academic conference, what fundamental challenges remain in addressing creating a national digital twin that research organizations could try to address for the future?
11:25:30 From Matthew West : @Mike: Some research questions are:
1. How should we value information so that we can drive the right behaviours?
2. How do we establish standard data sharing agreements?
3. How do we assure the security of data that is shared?
4. Working up the Core Constructional Ontology, Top Level Ontology, and Ontological Patterns.
5. How do we scale implementation?
11:26:20 From Mike Kozak : @Matthew this is fantastic! Thanks for taking the time to consider these challenges
11:39:01 From galya rogova : From my experience, reasoning with situation logic is difficult or even impossible to scale.
11:45:27 From Mike Kozak : Great, thanks for the clarification! I agree that time/effort is a key bottleneck
11:55:17 From Gary Berg-Cross : People can look at ENVO by going here https://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/ENVO
11:55:40 From Gary Berg-Cross : There are many other ontologies there too https://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/
11:57:27 From Gary Berg-Cross : On this issue of capturing the many meanings of vocabularies, we use a spreadsheet to document our work and show the sources used as well as the final definition and its rationale.
11:59:07 From Mike Kozak : Speaking of DARPA, the DARPA STITCHES project recently tackled the challenge of bridging different data representations to create common understanding.
12:13:31 From melita hadzagic : Ebola in Congo.. in 2020 as well
12:14:28 From Gabriel Jakobson : as well flu 1918
12:16:34 From Gabriel Jakobson : Interesting observation: 6000 year tuberculosis is bacteria caused, while the short lived other pandemics are viruses caused.
12:29:04 From Gary Berg-Cross : A place to read more about George Lakoff and reasoning https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ten_Lectures_on_Cognitive_Linguistics/RoJ1DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=george+lakoff+reasoning+metaphor&pg=PP5&printsec=frontcover.
12:30:38 From Gary Berg-Cross : Modeling constantly going on is what people do.
12:31:12 From Kirstie : I love Lakoff
12:36:30 From Gary Berg-Cross : Ontology Summit 2020: Knowledge Graphs see https://ontologforum.org/index.php/OntologySummit2020
12:43:29 From Gary Berg-Cross : Asiyah Yu Lin (NIH) and I will be running a workshop at ICBO 2022: International Conference on Biomedical Ontology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI in September on “FAIR ontology harmonization and TRUST data interoperability” https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ficbo-conference.github.io%2Ficbo2022%2Fmichigan-week-of-ontology-and-semantic-web%2F&data=05%7C01%7Casiyah.lin%40nih.gov%7Cd2f95ef9073f43b8fe4e08da34f3b364%7C14b77578977342d58507251ca2dc2b06%7C0%7C0%7C637880518560447082%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iLjD50UZuMJu7hR6iZD9Hap26ivFZSa1%2B0NMXqTMRu4%3D&reserved=0
12:48:23 From Gary Berg-Cross : Defeasible reasoning -where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-defeasible/
12:56:54 From Janelle Mason to Ken Baclawski(Direct Message) : Thank you very much! I am interested in attending part 2 – jcmason@aggies.ncat.edu