Skip to content

gist Development Team Meeting 2022.05.26

Jump to bottom
Rebecca Younes edited this page Jun 9, 2022 · 5 revisions

Attending

Agenda and Notes

  • Review action items from previous meetings
    None.

  • Discussion topics

    • Next gist releases:
      • 11.1.0 targeting July
      • 12.0.0 - to include units and measures (possibly other intermediate releases, depending on how long this takes). Michael Uschold and Phil Blackwood will take the lead on this topic a and present a proposal to encompass all issues labeled topic:units and measures.
      • gist domain ontologies
        • We already have sub-gists for accounting, professional services, and HR (currently in private repositories).
        • Consider adding:
          • Versioning (some combination of the Michael/Boris Pelakh, Borislav, and DCA versions).
          • Operators - developed by Michael and Boris Pelakh, also used at other clients.
        • Should the new units and magnitudes model be in gist core or a sub-gist? (This should also include what's in the gistExtendedUnitsAndMagnitudes ontology developed by Michael and Boris Pelakh.
          • Probably can't decide until we've seen the new model.
        • Should they have different namespaces?
          • Dan: In favor of different namespace for larger domains. May be governed separately, released on a different schedule, different stakeholders, user community.
          • Rebecca: Some of these are usable independently (though they all import gist). Governance depends on whether the repos are public or private - if private, the governing body is Semantic Arts.
          • Michael: only works one way: a different governing body is necessary but not sufficient for a different namespace.
          • Rebecca: it's the opposite. If, e.g., we gave the accounting ontology to Cheryl and a group of accountants for governance, we don't want them to make changes in the gist namespace.
          • Dave: Are the communities overlapping or independent?
          • Michael: if it's something that in principle is completely generic and could be used in any industry, then started using gist namespace - e.g., versions ontology. Generic things that just show up in the course of doing a client ontology go into the client namespace.
          • Dave: clients want to own what you've done under their project. Put generics in gist namespace - this could go in a future version of gist core.
          • Michael: if generic across many different industries, put in gist namespace.
          • Rebecca: is it the opposite? If generic, can use different namespace.
          • Dave: put everything under one namespace for branding. Still different repositories.
          • Rebecca: Branding exists in the domain. And for ontology name, can include gist - e.g., gistAcct.
          • Michael: Would we have same local names in more than one? In that case we'd need different namespaces. E.g., Circuit.
          • Dave: Historically, we split out units and measures into modules. Now it would be hard to use without gist.
          • Rebecca: difference between separate modules and different ontologies. The former are likely versioned together, the latter separately.
          • Dave: if we split out an ontology from gist, we might want to declare an axiom, e.g., disjointness, from a class in gist.
          • Rebecca: the sub-ontology can specify disjointness with a gist class, but only by agreement of the two governing bodies. Example: foaf:Person and schema:Person are equivalent classes.
          • Michael: when we go into a new industry, historically we have built an ontology in the client namespace. Instead, we might want to pull the generic concepts out and put in the gist namespace.
          • Dave: Now doing the reverse: creating a generic professional services ontology for a particular client that includes everything not specific to that client.
          • Summary of decision criteria:
            • Governance - different governing bodies require different namespaces.
              • How much coordination, overlap, separation dictates separate governance?
            • Versioning - if versioned separately, different repos but not necessarily different namespaces
            • License
            • Modularity - allows the possibility of namespaces, but doesn't require it
            • Convenience (not decisive):
              • Moving terms from one ontology to another
              • Not having to remember which namespace a term is in

  • Review issues

    • No issues or PRs reviewed today - discussion focused on the issue of gist namespaces and domain ontologies (see above).

Issues Reviewed

None.

Pull Requests Reviewed

None.

New Action Items

Try to finalize the namespace issue for the next meeting.

Next Meeting

Thursday, June 23, 2022 9:00am MT

Semantic Arts, Inc.

Clone this wiki locally