Devices Ontology Working Group Meeting 2007.10.09

Agenda and notes from the 2007.10.09 (1500 GMT) meeting of the Devices Ontology working group. (Minutes follow the agenda.)

A. Logistics and Such

  1. Note Taker.
  2. Comments/corrections of last minutes.
  3. Comments/corrections on Agenda.
  4. Roll Call.

B. Status of Action Items

  1. [John] Grant editing priveleges to the devices ontology folder to all participants who are members of MMI
  2. [John, Luis] Set up TRAC and Subversion for OWL and text documents, and describe a process. Email everyone to review it.
  3. [John] Update the Goal section and circulate it for further comment.
  4. [Luis] Create use case framework.
  5. [John] Get statements of agreement from other organizations.

C. Personal Information

Roy correctly pointed out that a little information on each participant would be helpful. I propose to create a Participants page to capture this information, and ask each participant to update their entry or send info to a person who can update the page. Contents would include name, pointer to a home page, current institution(s), and brief goal for participation. Objections?

D. Review of use cases

Just a few simple use cases have been published to date. We need to improve upon these considerably, making them much more precise and reflective of our goals. Can we form a team to do this?

E. Discussion of Collaborative Protege and Alternatives

On 4 October Dr. Tania Tudorache presented a very tidy summary of the state of the art in collaborative ontology development. I would like to briefly recap key points of her presentation, which is accessible from the Ontolog web site. (Both presentation and audio are available.) I'd like to use this material to kick-start a discussion of possible approaches to our own task. If you have time, I highly recommend a quick look at the presentation, it is very informative.

F. Volunteers Needed

This effort will need to be distributed among the many highly tasked members of the team. Tasks for which we need volunteers include the following:

  1. Use cases
  2. References
  3. Minutes
  4. Participants Page
  5. Site organization

Notes of Meeting

A. Logistics and Such

  1. Note Taker. Thanks Pieter!
  2. Comments/corrections of last minutes.
    Left 2 people off; now fixed.
  3. Comments/corrections on Agenda. none
  4. Roll Call.

B. Status of Action Items

  1. [John] Grant editing priveleges to the devices ontology folder to all participants who are members of MMI
    This is done and working.
  2. [John, Luis] Set up TRAC and Subversion for OWL and text documents, and describe a process. Email everyone to review it.
    Under way. The alternative of Drupal was mentioned, but we should stick with TRAC and Subversion. Which will be ready before next telecon.
  3. [John] Update the Goal section and circulate it for further comment. DONE
  4. [Luis] Create use case framework
    DONE but it should be fleshed out. Lets first start with a page-based approach to store the use cases and move to TRAC later on.
  5. [John] Get statements of agreement from other organizations.
    Not yet done, next telecon (or later).

C. Personal Information

Roy correctly pointed out that a little information on each participant would be helpful. I propose to create a Participants page to capture this information, and ask each participant to update their entry or send info to a person who can update the page. Contents would include name, pointer to a home page, current institution(s), and brief goal for participation. Objections?

Silence was consent.

D. Review of use cases

Just before the meeting, John updated the use case list with use cases reflecting the information in the FAQ. For those use cases we only have the title and a few explanatory lines. On the other hand, providing more detailed information seemed to go beyond what we really needed to drive our requirements.

During the telecon, two use cases were added to the end (physical sampling, and searching by device criteria), and some changes were made to number 6 (post-processing) to include data format and protocol (e.g., netCDF) as driving requirements.

Which ones interest people as compelling, do-able, and useful? Votes for 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (?) were heard. Most of the discussion centered on 4 and 5 (outputting certain parameters, measuring certain real-world parameters).

We will start building a real ontology based on number 4 and 5 (which are related), and later extend the ontology to cover more characteristics.

How do we take the first step, what process should we start with?

We should collect a list of instruments and their measured and output variables, to see what we have to work with.

Everybody will supply some examples. For each instrument at least the following fields should be included:

  • Brand (Manufacturer)
  • Model
  • Input measurement(s)
  • Output variable(s)

[John/Luis] Create a page on the wiki for this material, create a template for people to follow in providing their data and put it on the wiki, and describe the task for everyone.

What vocabularies should we use in filling out the template?

[Roy, Luis] Supply a shortlist with possible candidate vocabularies for the variable names (parameters).

Roy suggests CF, BODC, and METATLAS lists as widely used vocabularies.

E. Discussion of Collaborative Protege and Alternatives

Collaborative Protege would be a bit troublesome to start with. What process to use? What tool to use? Protege would be nice so that everyone is familiar with it, should we need to go to Collaborative Protege later.

Let's just check out/check in the repository version. and use Protoge in a standalone fashion.

Later on we can reevaluate based on the work we're doing. We can also consider the possibilities of the Stanford Collaborative Ontology Development system. John invites everyone to attend the telecon about this tool next Tuesday.

F. Volunteers Needed

This effort will need to be distributed among the many highly tasked members of the team. Tasks for which we need volunteers include the following:

  1. Use cases Roy agreed to clean these up. Thanks!
  2. References
  3. Minutes
  4. Participants Page
  5. Site organization
  6. Example ontologies in standard form

Roy also agreed to set up example instrument/variable lists in a standard way.

No other volunteers at this time.

Closing Logistics

Next meeting will be same time in 2 weeks: 23 October, 1500GMT (no daylight savings yet). As John will be on an airplane, Luis will lead.

Attendees

Others may have been on the line in addition to this list; please contact me with additional names.

  • Alexander da Costa
  • Luis Bermudez
  • Eric Bridger
  • Surya Durbha
  • John Graybeal
  • Pieter Haaring
  • Willem Van Der Hoeven
  • Roy Lowry
  • Bill Moser
  • Oliver Newell
  • Benoit Pirenne
  • Jesper Zedlitz