...
Chris first reported on his experiences of posting the IOF Core refresh on the new GitHub site William Sobel has created for IOF use. The process ran smoothly although he did run into an issue with automating the RDF Serializer in his GitHub desktop client, and ended up having to run the tool in manual mode. Chris will reach out to Elisa in case he cannot resolve his issues. Chris also indicated that he only serialized the IOF Core in RDF/XML format, and that until the review cycle gets further underway and the demand for other formats surfaces, we will only serialize in RDF/XML format.
We then discussed briefly whether we should be validating that an ontology is utilizing only the OWL DL 2 syntax and version of OWL. Evan and I thought this was decided in the affirmative a long time ago, and will check with Todd. Either way, we did not discuss how such a check would be done or whether it is even necessary, as Elisa had not joined the call yet and attendance in the meeting was otherwise too sparse. We may revisit this topic in a future meeting.
The discussion moved on to one of the validation queries from FIBO, namely the one that checks that appropriate copyright and licensing statements appear in the ontology file. The IOF has agreed to CC BY 4.0 and MIT Open Source licensing, but we need to agree on the specific language and which statements (copyright and/or MIT and/or both) that need to appear in an IOF ontology file. Action items are as follows:
Chris to check with a couple of the IOF corporate members to see what sort of verbiage and text they might expect to see in IOF content.
As we are not part of OAGi, the IOF is operating under their intellectual property policy. Jim took on the action item to check with OAGi’s governance person to better understand what statements need to appear in IOF artifacts and ontology files. Jim will then present this to the TOB for review and decide on the next steps (as in what textual statements are to appear in the ontology files).
In the last part of the meeting, we reviewed other release criteria, namely as follows:
On the requirement of “composability,” and the procedure we would follow for verifying this, Elisa mentioned this will likely be done manually for the first release of an IOF ontology. The action item here is for all of us to review and get a better understanding on the requirement, and then we can discuss what sort of hygiene test(s) we might need to author to satisfy our needs.
As far as a tool for generating a glossary of an ontology, we will likely want to shy away from using fee-based tools (like CCM). Open action item is to research the FIBO viewer tool and content generation tool, and perhaps other open source tools that others have used.
As far as whether we require a tutorial or reference manual upon release of an ontology, currently this is not a requirement. FIBO has and offers training courses for which they charge. We might discuss this further in an upcoming meeting.
Meeting Minutes
Participants
Chris Will Dusan Sormaz Elisa Kendall
...