[esip-semantictech] Questions regarding the Semantic_Web_Ontology_Portal_Evaluation_Approach

[Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M)]

Hi tom,
Thanks
Some replies below


On 5/5/16, 12:09 PM, "Tom Narock" <tnarock at marymount.edu> wrote:

>
>> Who ate the main stakeholders/audience for this document?
>
>In my opinion, the primary audience is the ESIP community with the
>broader Earth science community and associated groups (e.g. NSF
>EarthCube, and AGU) as a secondary audience. If others feel differently,
>please speak up.

Thanks for interpreting the ŒWho ATE the main stakeholdersŠ¹ correctly :)
I hope no-one would want to eat any stakeholders LOL
Seriously though, I¹m taking the silent consensus as authority to proceed
and have added the above to the working document.

> 
>
>> Are we COMPARING technologies, or identifying the Semantic Technologies
>> community requirements and then evaluating whether these requirements
>>are
>> met by various technology/software stacks?
>
>I¹d say the latter. I think we need to identify/quantify the requirements
>of the community and then see if those requirements are met by existing
>technology/software. Although, if two technologies address the same
>requirement then a comparison may be needed. But, my vote is that we need
>to first make sure we have the requirements properly captured. I think
>the ontology portal is a good example of this. I¹m not sure we have a
>good grasp on how folks find, use, map, and evaluate ontologies in this
>community to know yet which features need/must be available in a portal.

I agree.

Moving this onŠ
The way I see it, one way of ensuring relevant and representative content
makes its way into the document would be for us to split out the workload.
I propose the following activities are tackled by whoever is interested:
 1 Features/Services -
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php?title=Semantic_Web_Ontology_Portal_Evalua
tion_Approach&action=edit#Features.2FServices
 2 Protocols - 
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php?title=Semantic_Web_Ontology_Portal_Evalua
tion_Approach&action=edit#Protocols
 3 Usability - 
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php?title=Semantic_Web_Ontology_Portal_Evalua
tion_Approach&action=edit#Usability
 4 Authentication and Security -
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php?title=Semantic_Web_Ontology_Portal_Evalua
tion_Approach&action=edit#Authentication_and_Security
 5 Support for Teams and Roles -
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php?title=Semantic_Web_Ontology_Portal_Evalua
tion_Approach&action=edit#Support_for_Teams_and_Roles
 6 Cost - 
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php?title=Semantic_Web_Ontology_Portal_Evalua
tion_Approach&action=edit#Cost

I think 6 was basically discussed last week and it would be great if those
comments could be flushed out to the document.
Regarding, 1- 5 I think we need to obtain some consensus on how we are
going to tackle this one as the document is pretty meaty.
Is there a timeline for when this is to be completed in draft format?
Otherwise I am not sure that much progress will be made on it.
Thanks
Lewis