From Federation of Earth Science Information Partners
- Hook Hua
- Erin Robinson
- Eric Rozell
- Nancy Hoebelheinrich
- Robert Downs
- Ruth Duerr
- Chris Lynnes
- Mark Parsons
- Thomas Huang
- Beth Huffer (NASA Langley Research Center)
- Peter Fox (late)
- Call-in User_1
- Call-in User_3
- Call-in User_5
- Hook - connect with Peter on a good time for SW cluster business meeting
Bioportal @ ORNL
- Indirect status update from Line Pouchard (ORNL)
- "I don't know if we can start populating before the end of the Summer. The portal is being customized on USC Virtual Machine now, which is part 1 of the effort, if I remember correctly. The idea is get the student familiarized with the NCBO software first. Then he will install on the ESIP cloud. However, this will be NCBO's first install on Amazon cloud. So we expect that testing will need to be done before it's released to ESIP."
- Are there some criteria for what a "shareable ontology" might be?
- An entry barrier to getting ontologies in may be too preventative
- Should this focus on micro-ontologies (small, reusable components)?
- What is the distinction between ESIP Commons and ontology portal?
- ESIP Commons may ingest portal
- The ontology portal is a source of advertising for your ontology
- The portal comes with all kinds of tools for visualizing, querying, etc.
- Is there a use case that is supposed to be solved using the ontology portal?
- i.e., should they be targeted at a specific kind of use (can an ontology be too specific?)
- The portal will provide a functional infrastructure for the SW Cluster to review/find ontologies
- We want to foster sharing, and limit the overhead for sharing
- We should get a list of potential ontologies to pass to Line. List of initial ontologies:
- Ruth: 5 sea ice and sea ice data related ontologies
- Beth: initial ontology for data products as ASDC
- Chris: DQSS ontology, MSDA ontology
- Should there be an engineering practices associated with the portal? (e.g., versioning)
- Is it even possible to follow a consistent versioning across all of ESIP?
- As an ESIP cluster should we put together a best practices, including:
- Idea is to collaboratively modify an ontology as well.
- One of the key benefits of the Semantic Web is to connect data across organizational structures
SWEET and GCMD discussion
- Where is SWEET going next?
- Is there a formal governance model for SWEET?
- Many people in EarthCube community interested in the future of SWEET
- ESIP will be the long-term maintainers of SWEET.
- Planning needed for governance of SWEET.
- Do we need a face-to-face meeting at the ESIP Summer 2012 meeting to discuss SWEET governance?
- Note that Thursday (2012-07-19) of the ESIP Summer meeting, there is a full day of EarthCube-related sessions planned.
- Erin suggested holding an extra session after 5:00pm on the same day.
- A light-weight governance has been defined for SWEET Governance
Data Quality ontologies governance by cluster
- Makes sense to separate Data Quality and SWEET ontology governance (as SWEET is an upper level ontology)
- Use DQSS and MDSA ontologies as starting points for data quality ontology governance
- Both DQSS and MDSA are mid-level, use case driven ontologies
- When looking at governance for use case driven ontology, stakeholders need to be involved (not so much for SWEET)
- Should we give up the ToolMatch Talkoot for the summer meeting?
- Can this be put on hold until after the summer meeting?
- We can use the process of putting the MDSA/DQSS ontologies in Bioportal, we can develop the governance along the way
- Chris will be leading this after the summer meeting
Planning for the ToolMatch Talkoot and Summer
- Discussion for governance model at Summer Meeting?
- There are no scheduled sessions for SW cluster business meetings
- Not a lot of conflict on Tuesday morning... (could we get an extra room?)
- 5ish on Thursday will be good (there will be EarthCube people there)
- On Weds., there is a hands-on session regarding the Toolmatch use case
- Discussed Callimachus and Dydra
- Eric was going to put together a framework for this (depends on time
EarthCube Semantic Web community group report from Charrette and status
- Semantics mentioned across the different Community Groups and Concept Grants
- desire for focus on low-changing fruit first.
- Linked Open Data (LOD) has gained a lot of traction.
- desire to leverage semantic to help long-tail science community share their data for discovery/access/sharing.
- NASA ESDSWG's Interoperability Readiness Levels (IRLs) discussed on several occasions.
- higher levels require formal semantics.
- preservation and stewardship lacking in current earth cube efforts.
- "dark data"
- language barrier issue. new group of CS using new vocabularies. geoscience have no idea what they are talking about.
- roadmap direction needs more work.