Difference between revisions of "SWTeleconNotes20120626"
From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* Ruth Duerr | * Ruth Duerr | ||
* Chris Lynnes | * Chris Lynnes | ||
| + | * Mark Parsons | ||
| + | * Thomas Huang | ||
| + | * | ||
* Call-in User_1 | * Call-in User_1 | ||
* Call-in User_3 | * Call-in User_3 | ||
| Line 14: | Line 17: | ||
=== Bioportal @ ORNL === | === Bioportal @ ORNL === | ||
| + | |||
| + | * We should get a list of potential ontologies to pass to Lin | ||
| + | * 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 | ||
| + | * 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: | ||
| + | ** Versioning | ||
| + | ** Namespaces | ||
| + | ** Modularity | ||
| + | ** etc. | ||
=== SWEET and GCMD discussion === | === SWEET and GCMD discussion === | ||
Revision as of 14:26, June 26, 2012
Attendance
- Hook Hua
- Erin Robinson
- Eric Rozell
- Nancy Hoebelheinrich
- Robert Downs
- Ruth Duerr
- Chris Lynnes
- Mark Parsons
- Thomas Huang
- Call-in User_1
- Call-in User_3
- Call-in User_5
Action Items
Bioportal @ ORNL
- We should get a list of potential ontologies to pass to Lin
- 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
- 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:
- Versioning
- Namespaces
- Modularity
- etc.
