Difference between revisions of "SWTeleconNotes20070313"

From Federation of Earth Science Information Partners
Line 1: Line 1:
=Tuesday, February 13, 2007=
+
coming
 
 
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Semantic_Web (for call in details).
 
 
 
==Attending==
 
 
 
Rahul Ramachandran, Sunil Movva, Kathy Fontaine, Howard 
 
Burrows, Robert Raskin, Peter Fox
 
 
 
==Outreach activities (to other clusters)==
 
 
 
Cluster activities - ESIP use cases and interactions with TIWG - 
 
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Application_UseCase_Template
 
 
 
We discussed details of the use case template based on a comparison 
 
table developed
 
by Howard which contrasted the Application Use Case template (left 
 
column) from the
 
Technology Use Case template (right column), the latter was developed 
 
for EIE based on
 
a template from Michael Burnett. The Application template was built 
 
on a modified W3
 
format with modifications adopted in the VSTO project.
 
Howard Burrows posted some notes: see
 
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Use_Case_Process_Comments
 
which identified the similarities and differences between the two 
 
formats.
 
We proceeded to work through the table, led by Howard's discussion.
 
 
 
The agreed intent was to determine if the application template 
 
covered the appropriate
 
material, in the correct order, and potentially to merge the 
 
application and technical use
 
case formats.
 
 
 
First item - we do need to change the name of the page from TIWG_
 
We also noted that the application use cases will be domain specific 
 
whereas the technical ones
 
are likely to span domains.
 
 
 
Several examples of completed templates would be required.
 
 
 
Under 1.1 Purpose - general agreement that this was an important part 
 
of the use case (and not
 
present in the technical use case format) there was a suggestion for 
 
the person filling in the
 
Purpose to make links to the FEA diagram (see ) as a reference model 
 
covering  performance
 
and business reference (currently these are covered in the non-
 
functional requirements
 
section). http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Use_Case_Discussion
 
 
 
Actors: A longer description is required to indicate and distinguish 
 
between primary and secondary
 
actors.
 
 
 
Functional and non-functional requirements - a description is needed 
 
to define the terms and the
 
differences and also to relate these to the Purpose (see above).
 
 
 
Technology choices (which are filled in by the technology providers 
 
not the application use case
 
developers): there was not a consensus on whether this section was 
 
appropriate in the document.
 
The two sides were: full specification for a particular version of 
 
the use case, and not linking
 
a specific technical implementation to the application need to 
 
encourage alternate and evolving
 
technical solutions. The decision will will partly depend on whether 
 
the use cases are versioned.
 
 
 
Use of section 1.7?
 
 
 
We agreed that a section to define what defines success for the use 
 
case (beyond successful
 
outcomes) and then elaborate - in essence, the definition of a metric 
 
and a way to quantify it.
 
 
 
Peter will make some updates and volunteered to provide some examples.
 
 
 
We then moved on to other topics.
 
 
 
==Demonstrations for ESIP summer meeting==
 
 
 
- status (see wiki for current  submissions)
 
Rahul - NOESIS
 
 
 
Planning for breakout workshop/ plenary/ demos (what extra time do we 
 
need for cluster activities).
 
 
 
We discussed various needs: business meeting, plenary and 
 
demonstration time, and work
 
group time as well as the need to meet with some of the other cluster 
 
activities, especially
 
outreach to the application clusters.
 
 
 
Peter to prepare a priority list and participate in the meeting 
 
planning telecons.
 
 
 
==Main work items==
 
 
 
Data type ontology - review of existing efforts
 
 
 
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Datatype
 
MMI work on conversion of GCMD datatypes and SWEET current 
 
representation.
 
 
 
Service ontology - review of existing implementations, detail of what 
 
is represented and what is needed
 
Check this link for recent docs: http://www.ai.sri.com/daml/services/
 
owl-s/1.2/
 
 
 
We agreed to write a short outline/white paper to define the terms 
 
(of reference), needs, current
 
work. Rahul, Rob, Peter, Liping (and Luis) agreed to work on this.
 
 
 
==Other items==
 
 
 
We discussed how to broaden participation - groups to invite: MMI, 
 
LDEO/IRI, SCOOP, Penn State, others (please send these names). Howard 
 
suggested Mark Gahegan (Penn State).
 

Revision as of 14:50, March 24, 2007

coming