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

[Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M)]

Hi John,
Answers inline


On 4/5/16, 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:

>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 22:25:25 -0700
>From: John Graybeal <jbgraybeal at mindspring.com>
>To: "esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org"
>	<esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>
>Subject: Re: [esip-semantictech] Fwd: FW: Add Sweet Ontology to SDWBP
>	6.2	Expressing Spatial Data
>Message-ID: <39C0E4A6-CECF-4032-8408-D4D94D3E5D1F at mindspring.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
>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.

Agreed!

>
>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.

+1

>
>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.

I am over attending ESDSWG meeting at Goddard this week and hope to meet
with Thomas Huang to discuss the concerns and observation that there is an
entire community requirement for SWEET to not stagnate. People do care
about it but it seems that not much work is/can be done due to where it is
hosted and an ill defined contribution model. This needs to be addressed.
Where there¹s smoke there¹s fire.

>
>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.)

That sounds excellent. I also see no reason that this ESIP community could
not essentially host the ontology and the resolve service. It would be
great if there were more long term curators of SWEET. Right now the list
of stewards seems extremely thinŠ due to this many past and present users
seem to be looking elsewhere.
Lewis