[esip-semantictech] Semantic Technologies Roadmap

[Ramachandran, Bhaskar (GSFC-619.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC]]

Hello John,

I am looking at the EarthCube’s Roadmap that Stace Beaulieu/WHOI was kind enough to point me to.  I had looked at at it when it was released in 2012 or 2013.  Thank you for the terminology clarification regarding COR.  I will ensure that we use generic language unless referring to specifics.

I will tweak my outline to address all the feedback thus far & get it out on Google-Docs by next week … Thank you!


bhaskar~
..............................................................
Bhaskar Ramachandran
Terrestrial Information Systems Lab.
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Code 619, Bldg. 32, S036L
Science Systems and Applications, Inc.
Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 USA

+1.301.614.5460 [Phone]
+1.301.614.5269 [Fax]
bhaskar.ramachandran at nasa.gov<mailto:bhaskar.ramachandran at nasa.gov>









On Sep 28, 2016, at 5:52 AM, John Graybeal <jbgraybeal at mindspring.com<mailto:jbgraybeal at mindspring.com>> wrote:

Hi Bhaskar,

Nice to have this started!

Did you have a chance to look at the EarthCube Roadmap, by any chance? I am thinking that some sections should not be repeated, as the Earthcube document will have pretty extensive text already. Unless it doesn't apply, for some reason.

Also, a small but important terminology issue in the outline: the term Community Ontology Repository is not a generic term, but names one of the particular solutions. For clarity, please use a more general term if you aren't referring to MMI's COR.

John G

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 26, 2016, at 13:50, Ramachandran, Bhaskar (GSFC-619.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC] <bhaskar.ramachandran at nasa.gov<mailto:bhaskar.ramachandran at nasa.gov>> wrote:

Attached is a skeletal framework for a semantic technologies roadmap.  With some additional discussion and inputs, I am sure it can evolve to serve a basis for a publishable paper.  Appreciate your thoughts/critiques, etc.




bhaskar~
..............................................................
Bhaskar Ramachandran
Terrestrial Information Systems Lab.
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Code 619, Bldg. 32, S036L
Science Systems and Applications, Inc.
Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 USA

+1.301.614.5460 [Phone]
+1.301.614.5269 [Fax]
bhaskar.ramachandran at nasa.gov<mailto:bhaskar.ramachandran at nasa.gov>









On Sep 10, 2016, at 3:31 PM, John Graybeal <jbgraybeal at mindspring.com<mailto:jbgraybeal at mindspring.com>> wrote:


On Sep 6, 2016, at 07:59, Ramachandran, Bhaskar (GSFC-619.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC] wrote:

But I would like to preface such implementation-level details with an articulation of how exactly such technologies could benefit Earth science.  In the industry, these technologies are constantly being adopted, and are providing the desired benefits.  But, somehow, we are still stymied by gaps in understanding, adoption, implementation, etc.

I didn’t have time to reply to this keen question earlier. Briefly, a hypothesis: What many of the adopting organizations have, whether biomedical or corporate; that EarthCube and ESIP and earth science have lacked, is a well-funded and lengthy initiative to develop an infrastructure. (And perhaps second, specific high-value target application(s) for that infrastructure.) Given that, those gaps you listed tend to be overcome.

To the extent existing applications like BioPortal and COR exist as available solutions in this space, they exist because a community of interest provided funds for a period of time to develop a repository. While there are many semantic adopters in earth science who have achieved understanding and implementation in their own domains — note particularly the many, many contributors to the EarthCube semantic road map — the narrowing of the repository implementation funding stream seems to be at the point of sustained investment. To contrast this earth science failure with a non-semantic example in the same domain, note that netCDF and its companion technologies have had a long run of successful adoption, to the great benefit of syntactic interoperability and exchange of earth science data, but clearly with extensive support from government agencies over many years.

I guess the question could be, Is continued funding the result of greater need, more appropriate and useful technology solutions, better political support, or simply the judgment of the funding organizations?

John


<ST_Roadmap_ES_Outline.docx>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/esip-semanticweb/attachments/20160928/b5ad7557/attachment-0001.html>