[esip-semantictech] Fwd: FW: Add Sweet Ontology to SDWBP 6.2 Expressing Spatial Data

Tue Apr 5 01:25:25 EDT 2016

This may be sideline-cheering at best, but I want to offer my support for anything that can be done to advance SWEET. It has always been a marvelous resource in my book, and I would love to see it (and its founder, by implication) get the respect I think it deserves.

I think especially valuable is the idea of adding issues to an issue tracker, so that the community can see and comment upon them openly.

One of the reasons I didn't push harder to address some of Simon's issues earlier (besides overcommitment, I mean) is that I thought some people had even more fundamental concerns about SWEET., specifically about its modeling At the time I couldn't understand these concerns very well (they were a bit subtle for my simple semantic skills), and I could not evaluate them fairly. 

Perhaps if the issue tracker can get started, community members who had such concerns can volunteer them for entry in the tracker. Even if they are assessed as not valid, it will be helpful to have them documented, IMHO.

Finally, although I think SWEET already has a rehosting solution, I would like to offer whatever MMI's repositories can do to support addressing some of Simon's concerns. I have a notional internet-based scheme in mind that could make the original SWEET URIs resolvable, even as they are hosted in an MMI (or other URI-resolving) repository. If that notion might be a useful contribution, I'd be happy to share it. (Warning: It's not fully vetted. Could use help with that.)

John

---------------------------------------
John Graybeal
jbgraybeal at mindspring.com
650-450-1853
skype: graybealski
linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johngraybeal/

On Apr 4, 2016, at 11:44, Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M) via esip-semanticweb <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:

> Hi Brandon,
> Thanks for forwarding this correspondence, I was going to wait for the
> next Telecon but thank you very much for doing so :)
> Replies inline
> 
> 
> On 4/4/16, 9:00 AM, "esip-semanticweb on behalf of
> esip-semanticweb-request at lists.esipfed.org"
> <esip-semanticweb-bounces at lists.esipfed.org on behalf of
> esip-semanticweb-request at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Today's Topics:
>> 
>>  1. Fwd: FW: Add Sweet Ontology to SDWBP 6.2	Expressing Spatial
>>     Data (brandon whitehead)
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:01:30 +0100
>> From: brandon whitehead <brandonnodnarb at gmail.com>
>> To: esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org
>> Subject: [esip-semantictech] Fwd: FW: Add Sweet Ontology to SDWBP 6.2
>> 	Expressing Spatial Data
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<CAE9pe1pcknJ_eQaLDEOAhmvZv-WTKXwGL7b=GkVg1j4CWjdAsA at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> 
>> ?Hi all,
>> 
>> There's a relevant conversation going on with the W3C SDW-WG (spatial data
>> working group) about (essentially) what terminology should be used.
> 
> I can already see the conversation growing as more individuals who are
> more familiarized with SWEET semantics, pro¹s and limitation chime in.
> This is excellent feedback for, what is considered as one of the primary
> earth science ontological resources.
> 
>> SWEET
>> was brought up as it contains many terms, and potentially relevant
>> structure, fit for re-use within that community.
> 
> I proposed SWEET as an addition to W3C Spatial Data on the Web Best
> Practice 6.2 Expressing Spatial Data [0] as it has a large spatial
> components. The problem with the spatial components are, that like the
> rest of the ontology, they are thinly documented (thin being a very
> generous word to use in this context).
> 
> [0] https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#bp-expressing-spatial
> 
>> The most recent email
>> (below) from Simon Cox illustrates some of the issues with SWEET as it
>> currently sits.
> 
> In all honesty, these need to be dragged in to an issue tracker and acted
> upon. They are pretty obvious if one looks at SWEET v2.3 as it currently
> sits. The immediate roadmap for development of SWEET is pretty clear to
> me. 
> 
>> 
>> There is some really, really, good `stuff' in SWEET; there's also some
>> content that is, in its most positive light, debateable.  I think this is
>> a
>> topic worth re-visiting.  Could SWEET be re-organised?  Would it be better
>> served as a series of Ontology Patterns?   (Yes, it is already broken out
>> by `domain'; I'm thinking of a finer level of separation/granularity -
>> perhaps `levels of assertion' or something along those lines would be
>> appropriate. )
> 
> All of the above questions relate to the entire resource as it currently
> sits and I agree with it taking place for sure.
> I¹m going to make an attempt to make the conversation ongoing over on the
> W3C public mailing list converge around the spatial components of SWEET.
> Right now it is talking generally about the entire SWEET ontology.
> I¹m not sure if these two things ate separable and exclusiveŠ I suppose we
> will soon find out.
> 
>> 
>> I think this particular community is equiped, and positioned, to perhaps
>> make some worth while progress.
> 
> So do I. Well I would hope so. If the ESIP SW committee is not then I
> honestly don¹t know who is!
> 
>> Would anyone else be interested in
>> participating in a Birds-of-a-feather type session at the ESIP Summer
>> Meeting focusing on SWEET, its current status/content, positive aspects,
>> negative aspects, etc.; i.e. a SWEET Working Group?
> 
> Yes. However I think that there could be a BoaF track as you¹ve described,
> with a follow up session the next day which would be a workshop of sorts
> to address some of the short comings, develop documentation, etc.
> 
>> I realise this isn't
>> a new topic; but it may well be worth re-visiting.
>> 
> 
> I feel it is worth revisiting for sure Brandon. I would like to include
> myself in any work going on here.
> Thanks
> Lewis
> 
> _______________________________________________
> esip-semanticweb mailing list
> esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb