Skip to content

gist Development Team Meeting 2022.05.26

Jump to bottom
Rebecca Younes edited this page May 26, 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
            • 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

None.

Next Meeting

Thursday, June 23, 2022 9:00am MT

Semantic Arts, Inc.

Clone this wiki locally