Re: Minutes Meeting 21 September


On 21 Sep 2010, at 17:35, <> <> wrote:

> Hi,
> The minutes from today's meeting are online:
> In summary: 
> - we had another good discussion on follow-up activities 
> - we (Andriy and I) need your have feedback on his documentation pages (see question below) 
> - And I'm making some rapid progress on the Agriculture Meteorology example (I have posted a "Climate and Forecast" (CF) ontology with lots of properties and a some key features (medium, Surface and Layer) and a Meteorological Sensors types ontology (derived from WMO resources)  
> I will try to refine the options further at the 2nd meeting this week with the participants who were not here today, possibly via a questionnaire to get more munitions to present our conclusions to W3C. 
> Thanks to Alex for his email and remarks during the meeting:  two main ideas
> - it is important to have a member submission because this means our work is ready to be used in follow-up work by group working on standards (example: XSPARQL submission possible reuse im future work on SPARQL) 

I actually mentioned SPARQL/Update (member submission) => SPARQL 1.1 Update (in the WG).

> - there is a manageable risk of confusion because users may opt to the version of the submission rather than later updates

Indeed, a disclaimer may be needed in that case, linking to an evolving version of the ontology.
But I guess that's the same issue for other W3C notes, RECs, etc. Once it's online, the process to change things can be quite complex.
Maybe we should involve some W3C people in the discussion to get some more insight on the pros / cons of each steps ? (and see if they're appropriate or not)



> Some points resulting from the discussion: 
> - broad agreement that the work and commitment so far deserves a W3C outcome, so support for a member submission for the ontology 
> - awareness that the XG charter did not allow us to work as much on Internet of Things topics which corresponds as some XG participants would have wished (e.g. applications which use sensors and actuators). 
> - possible synergies if we do the two in parallel but this may stretch our resources too much.
> Andriy (and me for the figures) have completed his example and two documentation pages about it:
> - (for the module) 
> - (for the Smart product example)
> Doing so, he has partially duplicated some of the content. This is something that we did not plan for. First I created this figure to understand the example: and then Andriy found that it could help to present how to use the ontology in a complementary way. Can I have some feedback on what parts you like or not? 
> I'm asking this because we need to decide if we want to follow the same approach for the other pages and examples. 
> Cheers
> Laurent
> PS: Thanks to Raul for sending the new figure of the ontology and to Andriy for extending his example to cover the Observation ontology (I'll keep you posted).  

Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <> .

Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 17:50:06 UTC