- From: Kelsey, William D <william.d.kelsey@boeing.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 07:45:15 -0700
- To: <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 14:46:08 UTC
I agree that, to be successful (e.g. receive larger adoption/application, there should be at least a minimum set of criteria used for vetting anticipated application (use cases?). Best Regards, W. David Kelsey -----Original Message----- From: John Graybeal [mailto:graybeal@mbari.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:37 AM To: public-xg-ssn@w3.org Subject: purpose/goals for observations ontologies From past minutes and today's telecon, I could not tell if the group had a particular goal for reviewing and including observations ontologies in the discussion. (I can see everyone thought it was a good idea, but not what purpose they thought this would serve.) Can someone clarify how we want to use any observation ontology that might be identified or created? For example, do we know we need an ontology, or will it be enough just to have a list of phenomena? John -------------- John Graybeal <mailto:graybeal@marinemetadata.org>
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 14:46:08 UTC