Page Comparison

...

1. In our review of action items from the prior meetings, the relevant discussion points are as follows:

   1. Concerning Ontology Source & Artifact Management on GitHub, eventually the plan is to automate much of the validation that is needed when ontology files are committed back to GitHub (automation we plan to achieve with Jenkins). For now, we’ll do this manually. Elisa will compile provide us a subset of SPARQL validation queries from the set FIBO uses, that she feels would be the high priority ones the IOF should consider using in IOF’s initial releases.

   2. As far as establishing an IOF account on GitHub: one choice is for the IOF to utilize OAGi’s existing account on GitHub

      Jira Legacy
      showSummary false server System JIRA serverId e40ab0a4-b576-382d-85fc-495e1da7d966 key DRMP-8

      , and another, our preferred choice, would be to establish our own account. Will noted that the latter option involves a monthly fee starting around $25, and is likely not a tactical option until we charge IOF membership fees or get grant funding. Serm will reach out to Jim to explore the first option. Will also mentioned that with the first option, we have the undesirable effect of intermingling repository information across both IOF and OAGi.

   3. As far as GitHub usage requirements, we discussed the need for both private and public repositories, with the private facing one used for pre-release work, and the public for released versions ontologies. William Sobel will prepare a baseline workflow for the use of GitHub in the next 3 weeks – both the private repositories by the working groups and the public-facing one for released versions. It would appear that many of the working groups have managed GitHub accounts and would be or have already established private repositories (e.g., Maintenance WG). Chris will send out an email to the other chairs to see who has this capability. We would obviously utilize this in lieu of sharing an account with OAGi.

2. We reviewed the provisional Candidate Term Definition Review Procedure that was recently introduced at one of the IOF Core meetings. Feedback included:

   1. Farhad asked whether who will create the structure in Jira to enable the raising and tracking of issues raised against a term. I indicated this would be done in a just-in-time manner as issues are raised for a term. Chris to take on the action item of detailing this and placing it on the page describing the procedure

      Jira Legacy
      showSummary false server System JIRA serverId e40ab0a4-b576-382d-85fc-495e1da7d966 key DRMP-9

      .

   2. We discussed how notifications would be handled – as in do we notify all IOF Members or only the selected “Core Reviewers.” I suggested that an invitation to participate in the review process would be sent to all IOF members, but that the details of managing the formalization of and issues raised against a term, would involve the “Core Reviewers” and any other IOF members that subscribe to updates from the Jira project where we manage the IOF Core term issues. Chris to detail this on the procedure’s Confluence page.

   3. On the topic of notification, Dusan took a way an action item to ask Jim and the TOB how we should deal with group notifications by email under the new OAGi arrangement. For now, we will continue to use Google Groups.

3. On agenda topic #3, Chris took on the action item to establish a suitable location for IOF tooling and tool guidelines in Confluence, and post guidelines and links for using the “RDF Serializer.”

...