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

[Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M)]

Hi Brandon,
Thanks for forwarding this correspondence, I was going to wait for the
next Telecon but thank you very much for doing so :)
Replies inline


On 4/4/16, 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:

>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Fwd: FW: Add Sweet Ontology to SDWBP 6.2	Expressing Spatial
>      Data (brandon whitehead)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:01:30 +0100
>From: brandon whitehead <brandonnodnarb at gmail.com>
>To: esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org
>Subject: [esip-semantictech] Fwd: FW: Add Sweet Ontology to SDWBP 6.2
>	Expressing Spatial Data
>Message-ID:
>	<CAE9pe1pcknJ_eQaLDEOAhmvZv-WTKXwGL7b=GkVg1j4CWjdAsA at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>?Hi all,
>
>There's a relevant conversation going on with the W3C SDW-WG (spatial data
>working group) about (essentially) what terminology should be used.

I can already see the conversation growing as more individuals who are
more familiarized with SWEET semantics, pro¹s and limitation chime in.
This is excellent feedback for, what is considered as one of the primary
earth science ontological resources.

>SWEET
>was brought up as it contains many terms, and potentially relevant
>structure, fit for re-use within that community.

I proposed SWEET as an addition to W3C Spatial Data on the Web Best
Practice 6.2 Expressing Spatial Data [0] as it has a large spatial
components. The problem with the spatial components are, that like the
rest of the ontology, they are thinly documented (thin being a very
generous word to use in this context).

[0] https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/#bp-expressing-spatial

>The most recent email
>(below) from Simon Cox illustrates some of the issues with SWEET as it
>currently sits.

In all honesty, these need to be dragged in to an issue tracker and acted
upon. They are pretty obvious if one looks at SWEET v2.3 as it currently
sits. The immediate roadmap for development of SWEET is pretty clear to
me. 

>
>There is some really, really, good `stuff' in SWEET; there's also some
>content that is, in its most positive light, debateable.  I think this is
>a
>topic worth re-visiting.  Could SWEET be re-organised?  Would it be better
>served as a series of Ontology Patterns?   (Yes, it is already broken out
>by `domain'; I'm thinking of a finer level of separation/granularity -
>perhaps `levels of assertion' or something along those lines would be
>appropriate. )

All of the above questions relate to the entire resource as it currently
sits and I agree with it taking place for sure.
I¹m going to make an attempt to make the conversation ongoing over on the
W3C public mailing list converge around the spatial components of SWEET.
Right now it is talking generally about the entire SWEET ontology.
I¹m not sure if these two things ate separable and exclusiveŠ I suppose we
will soon find out.

>
>I think this particular community is equiped, and positioned, to perhaps
>make some worth while progress.

So do I. Well I would hope so. If the ESIP SW committee is not then I
honestly don¹t know who is!

> Would anyone else be interested in
>participating in a Birds-of-a-feather type session at the ESIP Summer
>Meeting focusing on SWEET, its current status/content, positive aspects,
>negative aspects, etc.; i.e. a SWEET Working Group?

Yes. However I think that there could be a BoaF track as you¹ve described,
with a follow up session the next day which would be a workshop of sorts
to address some of the short comings, develop documentation, etc.

>  I realise this isn't
>a new topic; but it may well be worth re-visiting.
>

I feel it is worth revisiting for sure Brandon. I would like to include
myself in any work going on here.
Thanks
Lewis