[esip-semanticweb] Semantic Web cluster telecon notes - Tue Feb 13, 2007

[Peter Fox]

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 1100PT/1200MT/1300CT/1400ET/1900UT

http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Semantic_Web (for call in details).

Attending: Rahul Ramachandran, Sunil Movva, Kathy Fontaine, Howard  
Burrows, Robert Raskin,
Peter Fox

Outreach activities (to other clusters):
Cluster activities - ESIP use cases and interactions with TIWG -  
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Application_UseCase_Template

We discussed details of the use case template based on a comparison  
table developed
by Howard which contrasted the Application Use Case template (left  
column) from the
Technology Use Case template (right column), the latter was developed  
for EIE based on
a template from Michael Burnett. The Application template was built  
on a modified W3
format with modifications adopted in the VSTO project.
Howard Burrows posted some notes: see
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Use_Case_Process_Comments
which identified the similarities and differences between the two  
formats.
We proceeded to work through the table, led by Howard's discussion.

The agreed intent was to determine if the application template  
covered the appropriate
material, in the correct order, and potentially to merge the  
application and technical use
case formats.

First item - we do need to change the name of the page from TIWG_
We also noted that the application use cases will be domain specific  
whereas the technical ones
are likely to span domains.

Several examples of completed templates would be required.

Under 1.1 Purpose - general agreement that this was an important part  
of the use case (and not
present in the technical use case format) there was a suggestion for  
the person filling in the
Purpose to make links to the FEA diagram (see ) as a reference model  
covering  performance
and business reference (currently these are covered in the non- 
functional requirements
section). http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Use_Case_Discussion

Actors: A longer description is required to indicate and distinguish  
between primary and secondary
actors.

Functional and non-functional requirements - a description is needed  
to define the terms and the
differences and also to relate these to the Purpose (see above).

Technology choices (which are filled in by the technology providers  
not the application use case
developers): there was not a consensus on whether this section was  
appropriate in the document.
The two sides were: full specification for a particular version of  
the use case, and not linking
a specific technical implementation to the application need to  
encourage alternate and evolving
technical solutions. The decision will will partly depend on whether  
the use cases are versioned.

Use of section 1.7?

We agreed that a section to define what defines success for the use  
case (beyond successful
outcomes) and then elaborate - in essence, the definition of a metric  
and a way to quantify it.

Peter will make some updates and volunteered to provide some examples.

We then moved on to other topics.

Demonstrations for ESIP summer meeting - status (see wiki for current  
submissions)
Rahul - NOESIS

Planning for breakout workshop/ plenary/ demos (what extra time do we  
need for cluster activities).
We discussed various needs: business meeting, plenary and  
demonstration time, and work
group time as well as the need to meet with some of the other cluster  
activities, especially
outreach to the application clusters.
Peter to prepare a priority list and participate in the meeting  
planning telecons.

Main work items:

Data type ontology - review of existing efforts

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Datatype
MMI work on conversion of GCMD datatypes and SWEET current  
representation.

Service ontology - review of existing implementations, detail of what  
is represented and what is needed
Check this link for recent docs: http://www.ai.sri.com/daml/services/ 
owl-s/1.2/

We agreed to write a short outline/white paper to define the terms  
(of reference), needs, current
work. Rahul, Rob, Peter, Liping (and Luis) agreed to work on this.

Other items if time permits.

We discussed how to broaden participation - groups to invite: MMI,  
LDEO/IRI, SCOOP, Penn State, others (please send these names). Howard  
suggested Mark Gahegan (Penn State).