W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-ssn@w3.org > July 2009

RE: SSN-XG Meeting Minutes 15-July-2009

From: <Holger.Neuhaus@csiro.au>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:11:17 +1000
To: <graybeal@mbari.org>, <janowicz@uni-muenster.de>
CC: <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>
Message-ID: <93B651F999304D41AF520188488E101F14E6CF7BAA@exvic-mbx03.nexus.csiro.au>
Hi all,

Great discussion! It's almost weekend, so just a few remarks ;-)

I think that we can start off with using sourceforge or similar as repository for our files that everyone has access to (as a "quick" solution, considering the time we have left). However, to some extend I do share Kerry's concern here... Maybe (until we have that license issue figured out) we should even consider a non-public space (probably close enough to have it at SF and not distribute the link ;-)?

In the meantime, we can look for a repository-based solution.

I very much prefer the URL 'http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/' for the ontology; I have CVS access to that space (that's how W3C handles it; this way, we get at least that ascii-type of versioning for the 'releases'), so that I'd be happy to do the whole release management-stuff Krzysztof was talking about.

Cheers,
Holger

-----Original Message-----
From: public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Graybeal
Sent: Friday, 17 July 2009 6:51 AM
To: Krzysztof Janowicz
Cc: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
Subject: Re: SSN-XG Meeting Minutes 15-July-2009

On Jul 16, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:

> That's fine with me. What should be the next steps to agree on a
> repository?

Uh, decide on the most important features and compare existing
repositories?

For an entirely different community, we created the beginnings of a
comparison at [1].  (It only included a few non-wiki repositories in
its very preliminary state, but adding columns is easy.)  If we want
to add rows and maybe even priorities for this community, we might
create a new copy for now.  Or, anyone is welcome to copy this list to
a new location (I can do that on MMI, or you can copy it elsewhere)
and tailor it for this community.

In a month or two I will be better situated to help drive this
evaluation, but not now; and in any case, might be better to have
someone without a vested interest take lead.  But we're happy to
provide access to whatever materials we can.  And the hard part is
deciding on the most important features.

John

[1] http://marinemetadata.org/semanticframework/biodiversityrepositoryrequirements


On Jul 16, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>> [...]*except* less OK about the 'release of stable versions' via
>> SourceForge.  Release of stable versions should be via an ontology
>> repository [...]
>
> That's fine with me. What should be the next steps to agree on a
> repository?
>
> regards,
> Krzysztof
>
>
> John Graybeal schrieb:
>> I am OK with all of this *except* less OK about the 'release of
>> stable
>> versions' via SourceForge.  Release of stable versions should be via
>> an ontology repository, in my humble opinion. This may reflect my
>> bias
>> toward (a) having only one publication location for the ontology, and
>> (b) leveraging the abilities of the repository to provide URI
>> resolution and related auxiliary services (e.g., metadata about
>> submission, owner, license, etc.; visualizations; and so on).  If we
>> decide to go the other way I won't have a fit.
>>
>> Note that I do not consider MMI's repository a collaborative editing
>> environment, just to be clear. It might provide a useful home for
>> each
>> update of the ontology, because of the automatic URI
>> generation/resolution.  But then that works best at the moment if the
>> domain is actually the repository's domain (mmisw.org/ont); we can
>> serve ontologies with other domains but haven't set up the magic to
>> redirect from those locations to our system and serve those other
>> URIs.  Would be interesting to try this.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Jul 16, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>>> I concur with doing project management at SourceForge, and that
>>>> it is
>>>> not a suitable way to maintain the ontology versions themselves.
>>>
>>> do we agree to handle the ontology project management (feature
>>> request
>>> from external users, forum for discussion, bug tracker, visibility
>>> to
>>> the public, release of stable versions,...) at sourceforge and
>>> look for
>>> a collaborative editing environment (WebProtege, OWLdiff, MMI
>>> repository,...) for the ontology editing and versioning? I can set
>>> up
>>> and configure a project at sourceforge and invite everybody
>>> (however,
>>> IMO Holger should be responsible for the release management and so
>>> forth). I also agree that we should look for a pragmatic solution
>>> for
>>> the licensing, something that allows us all to contribute and is
>>> open to
>>> external users.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>>
>>> John Graybeal schrieb:
>>>> I concur with doing project management at SourceForge, and that
>>>> it is
>>>> not a suitable way to maintain the ontology versions themselves.
>>>> An
>>>> ontology repository should be selected for maintaining versions
>>>> of the
>>>> ontology.
>>>>
>>>> Following is a use case we consider important for MMI's ontology
>>>> repository [1]; I would be especially pleased to use any
>>>> combination
>>>> that supports it.
>>>>
>>>> 1) The first version of the ontology is submitted to the server. A
>>>> service automatically provides dereferencing for the URIs for all
>>>> the
>>>> concepts in the ontology.
>>>> 2) A second version is submitted to the server.  New URIs are
>>>> created
>>>> for all the concepts that have changed. (Philosophically, I'd
>>>> like new
>>>> URIs for all the concepts, but I appreciate that some have visceral
>>>> issues with that approach.)
>>>> 3) Any concept that is changed is automatically pointed back (in
>>>> RDF)
>>>> to its predecessor using an invertible relationship.
>>>>
>>>> With this use case accomplished, versions are automatically
>>>> tracked.
>>>> Equally important, someone who uses a concept (URI) at a particular
>>>> stage of the ontology's development has a method to (a) guarantee
>>>> the
>>>> concept doesn't change from under them, and (b) follow the trail to
>>>> any subsequent versions of that concept, should they need to do so.
>>>>
>>>> The MMI repository has this capability, but does not have
>>>> concept-level differencing capabilities (yet), and does not support
>>>> wiki-like editing of terms, the way WebProtege (for example) is
>>>> intended to. But it is offered to this project for its other
>>>> features,
>>>> should those be useful.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> [1] MMI Ontology Registry and Repository: http://mmisw.org/or
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 16, 2009, at 12:33 AM, Oscar Corcho wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to jump in in this conversation without having attended the
>>>>> last two conference calls, due to travelling. While I agree with
>>>>> all
>>>>> the statements about community based development with
>>>>> Sourceforge, I
>>>>> must say that this approach has been tried unsuccessfully in
>>>>> different sets of activities that I have been participating in the
>>>>> past. The main problem with this is the following: source
>>>>> versioning
>>>>> systems are focused on detecting changes/deltas in source code,
>>>>> but
>>>>> not in ontology code. When a person makes a change in an ontology
>>>>> with an ontology editor, the most important fact is that the
>>>>> serialization of the ontology may be **completely different** to
>>>>> the
>>>>> previous one, in terms of the ordering of the RDF triples that
>>>>> appear
>>>>> in the file, what makes tracking of changes almost impossible for
>>>>> humans.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that Raúl was commenting the possibility of using
>>>>> WebProtégé,
>>>>> which allows discussions over ontology terms, and probably we
>>>>> could
>>>>> go for a mixture of technologies/approaches: WebProtégé for the
>>>>> collaboration part on pure ontology development, and sourceforge
>>>>> for
>>>>> the bug tracking, the community involvement, and the releases of
>>>>> specific versions of the ontologies.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oscar
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Mensaje original-----
>>>>> De: public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org
>>>>> [mailto:public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org] En nombre de Krzysztof
>>>>> Janowicz
>>>>> Enviado el: jueves, 16 de julio de 2009 8:44
>>>>> Para: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
>>>>> Asunto: Re: SSN-XG Meeting Minutes 15-July-2009
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, I like the idea presented in today's meeting regarding
>>>>>> posting
>>>>>> the ontology to a popular forum such as sourceforge.net using
>>>>>> an open
>>>>>> license (e.g. Apache/BSD variant) once a suitable baseline is
>>>>>> available.
>>>>> Thanks, there are basically three reasons why I brought this up
>>>>> yesterday. first, a platform such as sourceforge offers us a very
>>>>> useful
>>>>> architecture. we can develop the sensor (and observation) ontology
>>>>> together using SVN as versioning system and hence document our
>>>>> design
>>>>> decisions (and that is what ontology is about). somebody like
>>>>> holger
>>>>> could act as release manager and make official releases every x
>>>>> weeks.
>>>>> on one side, this would give as some regular schedule (and
>>>>> pressure) to
>>>>> make our recent changes coherent. on the other side, interested
>>>>> people
>>>>> can always browse the SVN at sourceforge directly to see what is
>>>>> happening right now. moreover, sourceforge offers a forum, a bug
>>>>> tracker, and especially also a feature request form. we can use
>>>>> these
>>>>> features to coordinate our work on the ontology but also to get
>>>>> feedback
>>>>> from others. second, if we host the ontology (no matter in which
>>>>> stage)
>>>>> at sourceforge people will start to use it and give us feedback.
>>>>> this is
>>>>> also about transparency - having the ontology only on our wiki
>>>>> makes it
>>>>> difficult for others to find out who is responsible for which
>>>>> parts, who
>>>>> should be contacted, and so on. third, IMO the licensing issue
>>>>> is an
>>>>> important decision. everybody should be free to use the ontology
>>>>> and to
>>>>> modify (fork) it if necessary (especially because our work is also
>>>>> based
>>>>> on other ontologies). finally, having it at a platform like
>>>>> sourceforge
>>>>> makes sure that work on the ontology can also continue (and be
>>>>> supported
>>>>> by others) after the incubator group ran out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kelsey, William D schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm new to the group (today was my second meeting).  I would be
>>>>>> interested to learn if anyone has draft use cases that are
>>>>>> driving
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Sensor/Observation ontology/ontologies.  If so, can they be
>>>>>> shared?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, I like the idea presented in today's meeting regarding
>>>>>> posting
>>>>>> the ontology to a popular forum such as sourceforge.net using
>>>>>> an open
>>>>>> license (e.g. Apache/BSD variant) once a suitable baseline is
>>>>>> available.  Hopefully this approach would promote increased
>>>>>> exposure
>>>>>> for both adoption and refinement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> W. David Kelsey
>>>>>> Boeing Research & Technology
>>>>>> Information Management & Transformation
>>>>>> (206)662-3963
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* Holger.Neuhaus@csiro.au [mailto:Holger.Neuhaus@csiro.au]
>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:05 PM
>>>>>> *To:* public-xg-ssn@w3.org
>>>>>> *Subject:* SSN-XG Meeting Minutes 15-July-2009
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you all for a really productive meeting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The draft minutes are available at:
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/07/15-ssn-minutes.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me invite you to continue the discussion on the
>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  *Summary of Action Items*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **[NEW]** **ACTION:** all discuss the versioning etc. of the
>>>>>> ontology
>>>>>> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/15-ssn-minutes.html#action01
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>> **[NEW]** **ACTION:** Cory to put up logistics page for f2f
>>>>>> [recorded
>>>>>> in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/15-ssn-minutes.html#action03]
>>>>>> **[NEW]** **ACTION:** Krzysztof to organise O&M ontology meeting
>>>>>> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/15-ssn-minutes.html#action02
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The XG's Wiki page is accessible at:
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Main_Page
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me invite you to use this forum for discussions on the
>>>>>> development of the Semantic Markup and the Ontology*//*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Holger
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Dr. Holger Neuhaus*
>>>>>> Post-Doctoral Research Fellow
>>>>>> Tasmanian ICT Centre
>>>>>> CSIRO
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phone: +61 3 6232 5547* | *Fax: +61 3 6232 5000
>>>>>> holger.neuhaus@csiro.au <mailto:holger.neuhaus@csiro.au> *|*
>>>>>> www.csiro.au <http://www.csiro.au> *|*
>>>>>> www.csiro.au/science/TasICTCentre.html
>>>>>> <http://www.csiro.au/science/TasICTCentre.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Address: GPO Box 1538, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia
>>>>>>
>>>>>> //The Tasmanian ICT Centre is jointly funded by the Australian
>>>>>> Government through the Intelligent Island Program and CSIRO. The
>>>>>> Intelligent Island Program is administered by the Tasmanian
>>>>>> Department
>>>>>> of Economic Development and Tourism.//
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *PLEASE NOTE*
>>>>>> The information contained in this email may be confidential or
>>>>>> privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited.
>>>>>> If you
>>>>>> have received this email in error, please delete it immediately
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent
>>>>>> permitted
>>>>>> by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the
>>>>>> communication is free of errors, virus, interception or
>>>>>> interference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Please consider the environment before printing this email.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Krzysztof Janowicz
>>>>> Institut für Geoinformatik
>>>>> Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
>>>>> Weseler Straße 253
>>>>> D-48151 Münster
>>>>> fon: 0049 - 251 - 83 39764
>>>>> fax: 0049 - 251 - 83 39763
>>>>> janowicz@uni-muenster.de
>>>>> http://ifgi.uni-muenster.de/~janowicz
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Die Wahrheit ist das Kind der Zeit, nicht der Autorität'
>>>>> (Bertolt Brecht)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Comprobada por AVG - www.avg.es
>>>>> Versión: 8.5.375 / Base de datos de virus: 270.13.15/2239 -
>>>>> Fecha de
>>>>> la versión: 07/15/09 17:58:00
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> --------------
>>>> John Graybeal   <mailto:graybeal@mbari.org>  -- 831-775-1956
>>>> Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
>>>> Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Krzysztof Janowicz
>>> Institut für Geoinformatik
>>> Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
>>> Weseler Straße 253
>>> D-48151 Münster
>>> fon: 0049 - 251 - 83 39764
>>> fax: 0049 - 251 - 83 39763
>>> janowicz@uni-muenster.de
>>> http://ifgi.uni-muenster.de/~janowicz
>>>
>>> 'Die Wahrheit ist das Kind der Zeit, nicht der Autorität'
>>> (Bertolt Brecht)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>> --------------
>> John Graybeal   <mailto:graybeal@mbari.org>  -- 831-775-1956
>> Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
>> Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Krzysztof Janowicz
> Institut für Geoinformatik
> Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
> Weseler Straße 253
> D-48151 Münster
> fon: 0049 - 251 - 83 39764
> fax: 0049 - 251 - 83 39763
> janowicz@uni-muenster.de
> http://ifgi.uni-muenster.de/~janowicz
>
> 'Die Wahrheit ist das Kind der Zeit, nicht der Autorität'
> (Bertolt Brecht)
>


John

--------------
John Graybeal   <mailto:graybeal@mbari.org>  -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 01:12:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 17 July 2009 01:12:14 GMT