|
|
| 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).
| |
