[tdwg-tag] RDF/OWL Good Practices Task Group

[joel sachs]

Hi Hilmar,

I added you as an owner, and will add other core members as owners or 
commiters, so that everyone can edit. Non-group members can leave 
comments, which can be incorporated into the page as appropriate.

I share your concern about nothing happening after the meeting, and agree 
that a publishing goal would be a good incentive. Also, if we create the 
"sandbox" that we talked about at iEVoBio (and which Rod Page is 
essentially challenging us to build), we may be able to support several 
small workshop publications, as group members experiment with a variety of 
approaches.

By all means, let's look at modeling, and possibly building on the 
existing biomedical manuscript.

Joel.




On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Hilmar Lapp wrote:

> Hi Joel,
>
> how can I edit the charter? I don't seem to be able to. Also, to provide an 
> incentive to prevent what typically happens after such meetings (namely 
> nothing further), one idea could be our goal to produce a manuscript for 
> publication, e.g. in Biodiversity Informatics, that articulates motivations 
> and conclusions for whatever recommendations emerge as consensus, as well as 
> those for which controversy remains.
>
> FYI, there is currently a manuscript in pre-publication status that looks at 
> best practices for publishing RDF on the scope of life science data, but with 
> a focus on biomedical and drug data. We may be able to look at this as a 
> basis, and one possibility would be to build on it and cast its findings, 
> plus our own, in terms of the needs of biodiversity data publishers and 
> consumers.
>
> 	-hilmar
>
> On Sep 19, 2011, at 3:46 PM, joel sachs wrote:
>
>> Greetings everyone,
>> 
>> After some back and forth amongst Steve Baskauf, myself, Greg Whitbread,
>> and the executive, we've decided to move forward with an RDF/OWL task
>> group, convened under the TAG. Our task will be to deliver a document
>> comprising
>> i. use cases and competency questions;
>> ii. well documented examples of addressing those use cases via rdf and
>> sparql; and
>> iii. discussion of advantages and disadvantages of the approaches
>> illustrated by the examples.
>> 
>> Our draft charter is at
>> http://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/CharterOfTG
>> and we welcome comments, suggestions, and better ideas. One area where
>> we're still open is the question of whether or not our deliverable should
>> be an official Best Current Practice document [1]. The charter reflects
>> our current feeling that it should not. After we deliver our "book of use
>> cases and examples", options would include being re-chartered by the TAG
>> to produce a best practices document, spinning off as a "Semantic Web
>> Interest Group", or disbanding (either in triumph or despair).
>> 
>> When we were planning to convene as an Interest Group, several of you
>> accepted our invitation to serve as core members, and we hope that
>> convening as a Task Group does not change your willingness to do so. If
>> you would like to be a core member of the group, and we haven't yet
>> contacted you, there's a good chance that we will. But don't wait! Feel
>> free to volunteer for core membership. (And recall that you don't have to
>> be a "core member to" contribute.)
>> 
>> In regards timeline, I'd like to incorporate any feedback we receive, and
>> submit the charter to the executive at the end of this week, in hopes of
>> being chartered by New Orleans.
>> 
>> Many thanks!
>> Joel.
>> 
>> 1. http://www.tdwg.org/standards/status-and-categories/
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> tdwg-tag mailing list
>> tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
>
> -- 
> ===========================================================
> : Hilmar Lapp  -:- Durham, NC -:- informatics.nescent.org :
> ===========================================================
>
>