[esip-semantictech] Semantic Technologies Group Community Ontology Repository (COR) Use Cases & Requirements

[Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M)]

Hi John,
Thanks for looking into this, please see my replies inline

From: John Graybeal <jbgraybeal at mindspring.com<mailto:jbgraybeal at mindspring.com>>
Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 10:37 PM
To: Lewis John McGibbney <lewis.j.mcgibbney at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:lewis.j.mcgibbney at jpl.nasa.gov>>, "esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>" <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>>
Subject: Re: [esip-semantictech] Semantic Technologies Group Community Ontology Repository (COR) Use Cases & Requirements

Lewis,

What a great resource! I hope it continues to turn into a full STC document.  ReSpec looks cool too, nice to see that.

Great. Glad you like the look of it.


I had just a few questions/comments, the first is I think for you, and is the most essential in the short term:

1) There are two deployed semantic repository solutions hosted by ESIP; the proper name of one is the ESIP Community Ontology Repository, and the proper name of the second is the ESIP Semantic Portal. (The first based on MMI’s ORR, the second on Stanford’s BioPortal.)  Others may be forthcoming. Your document uses the term Community Ontology Repository throughout; sometimes it is clearly referring to *any* repository solution, sometimes it seems like it refers to the ESIP COR instance, and a lot of times it could be referring to that.  Can we please change the wording to make the generic references different in some way (lower case, at a minimum; but “ESIP semantic repository implementation” for example would be entirely unambiguous, capitalized or not).

Yes, I’ve logged a Github issue for this and will act upon it when I get the free time. You can comment on the issue below
https://github.com/ESIPFed/stc/issues/1


2) To the STC community. I have of course worked with a number of specifications of ontology repository requirements and use cases. I wasn’t sure how these relate to this initiative — do we want to capture all requirements and use cases from any source, or just ones that fit known requirements of ESIP (and presumably EarthCube) community members, or something in between? How will we prioritize?

Right now anything is better than nothing. If you have use cases, please see the Use Case Template which can be found at
https://github.com/ESIPFed/stc/blob/gh-pages/UseCases/STCUseCasesAndRequirements.html#L227-L238


3) I notice there’s a 4D space-time requirement, I think this is just a place-holder — can you confirm?


Yes this is merely a placeholder. It will be removed and replaced with our own requirements in due course once and if we agree that the STC can develop this effort moving forward.
Thanks
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/esip-semanticweb/attachments/20160727/a3d86879/attachment.html>