[esip-semanticweb] [Esip-earthcollaboratory] ontological concepts for science

[Fox, Peter]

https://scm.escience.rpi.edu/svn/public/ontologies/
and
http://escience.rpi.edu/ontology/ esp. see - http://escience.rpi.edu/ontology/BCO-DMO/1/0/

________________________________
From: esip-earthcollaboratory-bounces at lists.esipfed.org [esip-earthcollaboratory-bounces at lists.esipfed.org] on behalf of Jeff McWhirter [jeff.mcwhirter at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 14:25
To: Lynnes, Christopher S. (GSFC-6102)
Cc: esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org; esip-earthcollaboratory at lists.esipfed.org
Subject: Re: [Esip-earthcollaboratory] ontological concepts for science


Thanks for all of the responses. My responses below.

If anyone is interested here are a couple of RAMADDA sites that show some of these constructs:
Here is an example repository I am putting together highlighting some of the data management capabilities in RAMADDA:
http://community.ramadda.org/repository/repos/data
Type specific search: http://community.ramadda.org/repository/repos/data/search/type

Here is the Antarctica program at Unavco's TLS (LiDAR) archive:
http://tls.unavco.org/repository/alias/antarctica

This has projects, sites, site visits, etc.


Chris Lynnes wrote:

This looks somewhat similar to the BCO-DMO ontology that the RPI+WHOI folks have been working on.  Maybe that ontology should be mined (or reused wholesale?) for more constructs.

It looks like this ontology fits very well with what I am developing. I think Campaign and Deployment are synonym-ish. I like that they have People and Instrument. Maybe their Affiliation could be generalized to be Organization.


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Hua, Hook (398C) <hook.hua at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:hook.hua at jpl.nasa.gov>> wrote:
The PROV-ES working group is currently working on some of these concepts and their relationships in the context of provenance. This spreadsheet [1] has a list of concepts that were created based on a set of Earth science use cases and from extending the W3C PROV starting point ontology terms [2] and extended ontology terms [3]. Many of the concepts were extracted from the PCCS [4]. From the initial concepts, we started creating a taxonomy [4] and are just beginning to generate the relationships in a COE concept map to form an initial content model. We also plan to provide an encoding scheme (RDF possibly?) for the content model later on.


This might be too general. I'm not trying to create a full blown ontology - just identify some science process specific constructs.

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Ramapriyan, Hampapuram K. (GSFC-4230) <hampapuram.k.ramapriyan at nasa.gov<mailto:hampapuram.k.ramapriyan at nasa.gov>> wrote:
Jeff,

We have a long list of "concepts" that are part of a matrix being developed by NASA ESDSWG's PROV-ES WG. That might be another source of terms to consider. Also, how about SWEET ontology that Rob Raskin developed?

I think the SWEET ontology is too detailed and broad for what I am looking for.

-Jeff

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-semanticweb/attachments/20130626/a8edf3be/attachment.html>