Strategies for Semantic Framework concept

What do we want to do about the semantic framework concept? What are the next steps?

1. Semantic framework document contains answers to a lot of the questions that were raised here at the meeting.
2. Comments on usefulness of document and/or presentation to the community:
   1. Who needs diagrams?
      1. Diagrams for scientists
      2. Diagrams for tech people
   2. UML can help
      1. for existing documents not critical, but communities we need on board will want this
      2. for credibility, we want UML
      3. proposed to create UML
   3. who is the audience?
      1. ourselves, we want to make sure we understand it
      2. UML won't work for everyone, non-techs for example (case studies will help with that group)
   4. Good model to follow for this project: OGC call for participation
      1. case scenario, diagrams and components are necessary
      2. GEOSS uses UML
      3. Design-oriented diagram can be used for general users
      4. UML diagrams with comment boxes can clarify what's going on for general users
   5. How wide does the circulation for this document need to be? Whom do we need to engage?
      1. Do we try to engage people like Peter Fox with this diagram?
      2. Ontologists?
   6. Outreach
      1. Try to agree on the diagram
         • 1-2 months out, match the diagram with the services and tools
         • Then we can publicize
      2. Do you publicize early before people in the MMI community move forward to creation?
         • The community needs to be able to understand it, so we need to polish
      3. We need to engage Peter Fox early and bring him on board for speaking at November workshop
   7. Sources for Knowledgeable Vocabulary Input: Librarians, Newsrooms
      1. We don't currently have a librarian moving resources or references to the marinemetadata.org site
         1. Check the ESSI mailing list, started at MIT
         2. Data libraries union session at AGU
         3. Anna Gold

Summary

1. Keep working on the system to bring it into some kind of order
2. Create a basic design diagram in UML with comments to add clarity
3. Create concrete association between design concepts and actual tools/services
4. Create/improve use cases for people who are not so technical (possibly add cartoons to them)
5. Publicize the diagram and use cases
6. Call for reviewers and participants
7. Get Peter Fox to help move it forward in ontological context

Strategizing for November Workshop: format, content, participation level, marketing

Participation

• Capped by size of room at 60
• Many from this workshop will be attending

History

• Past Workshop
  • Last workshop had six tracks that were balanced in terms of participation
  • Everyone had roles to fulfill
  • It was homogenous
• This workshop
  • Varying level of experience, knowledge, and needs
  • We'll probably have to make this workshop in stages, for the different levels

Purposes

• Declare victory and compare notes
• Train new people in ontology creation / vocabulary mapping

Content

• Classification science / theory
• Not only classification but ontology design
• People won't be experts, but we need some level of awareness
• Could we get scientists who are willing to leverage the technology to better their discover of data
  • Ontologists need to sit with them to figure out how they need to use this data
  • We have almost all of the pieces ready, if they can express how they want to search and discover then we are that much closer
  • Publishing and newspapers have ontologies already
  • We're trying to fit naming conventions to existing data rather than the other way, which is backwards to an ontologist
• Mapping Languages?
  • European language mapping
  • Language Archiving Technology for EU
  • ISO technical committee on terminology
  • OGC catalog will be released, helps to handle languages

The Plan

1. Show results of different components
2. Overview of major issues and components
3. See where we're going to move next
4. Not only by domains, but by components
5. We'll have groups who want to present (or will we?)
6. We need intermediate milestones
7. To get scientists on board, you really need a compelling reason for them to participate

Other Thoughts

• Training for RAs on how and why they should go through this process
• we need to capture what happened at this workshop in order to communicate it to those not here -- needed immediately
• Call for participation
  • People might be attracted to a call for participation in a specific activity that happens in November rather than an invitation to a workshop
  • Identify users who need access to sets of data, people modeling global phenomena
    • As an example, a scientists who takes satellite imagery to study shipping lanes. He wants to match shipping data with ocean conditions on a global scale.
    • Suggest we are accepting applications to receive funding to come to the workshop, you need 1 scientists and 1 technologist, a use case where you need terms related
    • Are scientists aware of the problem (discovery)?
      • Many scientists are comfortable working in their small community
      • Discoverability, data access, data processing
        • Scientists will be on board when these three problems are solved
      • Interest in the European community?
      • We need to find scientists who are having these problems but don't know it
      • A publication coming out of the workshop
• Scientists will not be working with our tools
• November workshop is a technology workshop
• Soliciting use cases is a good idea
  • Scientists authoring use cases

Application Process

• Is this something you need to apply for or something we want anyone to be able to get in
  • Minimum of participation to get funding is a usecase?
  • We could create an application, which would imply there was a decision to be made about your attendance, and those answers could be used
  • "Here is a roadmap/strategy as we see it, if you would like to look at it and apply it in your context, then please apply here to be an attendee at our November workshop"
    • List products that we will be enabling that will leverage the process
    • We need to paint a vision, then tackle a line like "this could solve your problem", and that actually applies to an individual, then they will come
      • Seamless sharing of data is a problem to solve
      • We need to give the language to the technologist to convince the scientist that the problem can be solved
      • GCOOS and SECORA are already doing seamless sharing of data, can we get them to put together an example

Targets

• All other RAs
• NSF projects dealing with these issues
• Seems to be targeted specifically to IOOS, we should change that

Checkpoints

• Go beyond November so that we can project funding objectives
• Suggested to go out three years

Summary

1. Target the technologists, give them words and tools with which they can convince scientists
2. Make targeted communities clear (e.g., not just IOOS)
3. Ask for a use case from them in case we need to select participants
4. Consider 'call for participation' rather than simply a workshop
5. Identify publication opportunity
6. Start identifying long-term goals

Participants

• Cyndy Chandler
• John Graybeal
• Anthony Isenor
• Eric Delory
• Steven Le
• Steve Browdy
• Manil Maskey
• Paul Alexander
• Carlos Rueda
• Luis Bermudez