Title: Transportation Ontology Coordination Committee
<scribe> scribenick: ted
<scribe> Scribe: Ted
Mark: let me give a summary of
where I think we are
... Ken has been leading us on governance, think we made it
through on all the major points
Ken: two major pieces, we started
going through information view point. other was actual
govenance on process for submitting and approving
information
... both of those are starting to take good shape. more
recently working on content aspect, concerns we want to
address
... once we have agreement on that will look at stakeholder
concerns and determine how we want to address
... we agreed nominally we will use UML, however as there are
many ways to do so need to be consistent and have in mind the
ontology language we want to use
Mark: any other comments
Ted: there were some things a few of us felt important and wanted to bring into scope but agree we should keep it small and can have prioritized wishlist for later
Clemens: also the content of
information we agree with. we started with transportation and
to some extent it has moved to a city data model
... should we somewhere define scope for the content we are
looking at as well
Mark: true, my view is both
SmartCity and related transportation. we should write a scope
of content statement
... initial focus should be shared data related to
transportation
... reasonable middle ground?
Clemens: that's fine, I'm having
a hard time explaining the scope of our work
... we have no clear boundary
... it is reasonable to say the scope is city data model but
with initial transportation focus, routing as the initial
one
Mark: I will do a first draft on scope statement
Clemens: thank you
Mark: second area has been in
development of the collaboratory. my impression is it cannot be
completed until we finish the governance piece
... we need a step of starting concepts, properties, diagrams,
etc. more than we currently have and provide a deeper
understanding of what we are looking for for others to be
involved
... expand the transportation concepts that are there
... then we need to start using it and test it out. I added use
cases earlier and now having a hard time finding them
... we need to put a little more help information into the
system to ensure information doesn't get lost
... that is my perspective?
Clemens: that a call to start identifying issues in collaboratory?
Mark: yes. if we don't go through this review phase, we will have confused users to contend with later
Megan: I agree but think there
may still be some open questions such as governance you
mentioned
... I partially redid the structure based on previous
conversations. classes in conceptual model, separate from
specification references
... I have some specific questions that came up while I was
trying to implement that
... hope we can look at that more
Ken: I think its good to take time to make sure it is right
Mark: those were the two main
areas we have been focusing on. let me suggest a third area,
that is develop a consensus on the main concepts and properties
we think as a group that should be added at the outset
... having a comprehensive and cohesive set of concepts would
be helpful for others
Megan: you mean at the conceptual, city data level that they would be modeling to?
Mark: those goes back to the
scope statement again
... our goal is not to duplicate myriad of standards but
identify subset of concepts that arise out of the
transportation domain
... distinction WG11 makes is there are some that are read only
by certain entities and others read/write by other services
across the city
... we are trying to identify the minimum viable concepts
... there is another category with no need to be visible to
other services
Clemens: do you have list in mind so we're not starting from a blank sheet?
Mark: absolutely but want to hear those from transportation side
Ken: I think you are asking for list of entities we want to describe? vehicle, traveller...
Mark: exactly
Ken: I can start a list
Clemens: that should be a relatively small list, between 10-20?
Mark: yes
Ted: in some ways we came up with those a year ago at the workshop, route being one toward the top
Mark: actions: I will work on
scoping document with various details discussed
... suggest Megan does a collaboratory review and lead us
through another add. Ken will create a start list of entities
and even minimal set of related properties for discussion
... another for Ken is complete governance
... for rest of today we can continue discussion of governance,
walk through collaboratory or set schedule for them?
... for next meeting I will have draft of scope document.
people ok with having call next week?
... Ken, can you have entities ready for next week?
Ken: yes
Mark: I can do noon or before 9
Ken: I can do noon
(for 8 October)
Ted: possible regrets for me on the 8th
Mark: Megan with collaboratory on
8th
... I will send out the invites