[esip-semantictech] US Semantic Technologies Symposium WAS Re: esip-semanticweb Digest, Vol 108, Issue

[Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M)]

Hi Ken,
This context is excellent. It not only provides expectations for what to possibly discover as US2TS next time around, but maybe more importantly, raises some fundamental questions about what the ESIP SemTech Roadmap should be. This, as you may know, has been a sticking point for us for some time. 
In our last committee meeting, we did discuss having the Roadmap item formalized by the time the AAG 2018 Meeting takes place on April 10-14th. 
In terms of the NSF CSSI proposal, I truly feel that explicitly engaging the 'overlap' is where a competitive proposal needs to be. I am going to start another thread specifically on this topic with the aim of getting something off the ground.
I would really also look forward to hearing Ruth/John's impressions of US2TS as well.
Lewis

On 3/5/18, 10:01 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:
    Message: 1
    Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:00:14 -0700
    From: "Bagstad, Kenneth" <kjbagstad at usgs.gov>
    To: <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>
    Subject: Re: [esip-semantictech] esip-semanticweb Digest, Vol 108,
    	Issue 1
    Message-ID:
    	<CABRisSAXhbYkV1nU6zpyVqEAmbHjCVN8iLBV1JxkzzL4_8_+2A at mail.gmail.com>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
    
    Hi folks -
    
    Wanted to offer some brief thoughts after the US Semantic Technologies
    Symposium held in Dayton last week that Ruth, John, and I attended (
    http://us2ts.org/). I found it to be thought provoking and with some great
    ideas, but with a much bigger emphasis on ontology construction than
    application, and relatively minimal geosemantics discussion included in the
    plenary track. There was an almost constant call for "more tools" but
    notably absent was an inventory of what tools are already available, their
    strengths/weaknesses, and how they might be built upon rather than
    restarting at square one. Some of that may stem from being a dispersed
    field where technology is constantly advancing and tools that don't gain a
    foothold within the 2-5 year development window of their grant funding
    disappear into the ether. Still, a lack of vision of where we want to go
    combined with ignorance of the "tools landscape"  seems like an environment
    ripe for wheel reinvention.
    
    I mention this given the NSF call that Lewis had circulated. Are we clear
    on our big-picture goals (beyond those in the ESIP bylaws), the tools that
    we already have and bring to the table (thinking beyond SWEET and COR to
    John's work on BioPortal and CEDAR, to our work on k.LAB/Integrated
    Modelling, which sounds like it has some overlap with what Lewis is
    proposing, and others), and how we might most clearly reach those goals?
    
    Ruth and John, would be interested in your perspectives as well - my
    perspective is as a cross-domain specialist still relatively new to ESIP
    who collaborates on semantic web applications, but not as a computer
    scientist, so those with a longer history in the semantic web field might
    be able to allay some of those concerns.
    
    Cheers,
    Ken
    
    
    ===============
    Ken Bagstad, PhD
    Research Economist
    Geosciences & Environmental Change Science Center
    U.S. Geological Survey
    P.O. Box 25046, DFC, MS 980
    Denver, CO 80225
    (303) 236-1330