View source for Meeting minutes 05062015

=== Attendees ===
* Pieter Pauwels
* Kris McGlinn
* Matthias Weise
* Jakob Beetz

=== Date and time===
* 05/06/2015
* 11:00 CET 

=== Agenda ===
INFORMAL CATCH UP SESSION

=== Action items ===
* <Think about tagging use cases>, <ALL>, <STATUS: ONGOING>
* <Digest questionnaire results obtained from BuildingSMART event in Wiki>, <Kris>, <STATUS: ONGOING> 
* <Circulate doodle poll for LDAC event>, <Jakob>, <STATUS: NEW> 
* <Develop sensor/energy model scenario>, <Kris>, <STATUS: ONGOING>
* <Develop indoor navigation scenario>, <Matthias>, <STATUS: ONGOING>
* <Think about an efficient way of building a map to available datasets and ontologies>, <all>, <STATUS: ONGOING>

=== Minutes ===
*Pieter: No agenda today, plan is to touch base since last meeting.
*Kris: I would like to discuss the status of the online questionnaires.
*Pieter: The inputs are available on the shared google drive.
*Kris: I will put together the present inputs for Questionnaire for Friday 12th June.
*Matthias: Status of LDAC event?
*Pieter: Discusses the LDAC event, who is presenting, who are doing handson sessions, etc. Shares a document so that participants can be added.
*Kris: We are still inviting EeB projects. We have had some interest and some speakers available. I will add these to the doc.
*Pieter: Matthias, just to update you on the previous BuildingSmart call last week. We have been looking at the requirements for owlIFC. We have decided that there is the need for a layered approach, three levels of owlIFC -  simple, some semantic structure (allows some reasoning) and a full version.
*Matthias: Would be good to have use cases for each of these. For example, do you add rules/reasoning?
*Pieter:  Define your own rules yourself in an open manner. So, e.g. the government sets requirements on energy performance, they can describe in a rule set. This can then be automatically checked, instead of having to read the pdf document.
*Matthias: What does Seppo use? 
*Pieter: His own approach. We must merge these. That is why we need a ‘layered approach’ or mapping ontology. The problem is, not everyone wants to have all the constraints that are imposed by IFC. Therefore, some may require a simpler ontology to meet their requirements.
*Matthias: These need to be compared with the requirements discussed at the meeting in Espoo. 
*Matthias: Discusses MVD and mvdXML (Model View Definitions). We are looking at a use case to map the schema to RDF. MVD allows these different 'views' so that developers can focus on the data that is important to them. 
*Kris: Discusses LDAC handson session around CSVW. 
*Jakob: We are creating a doodle poll also for participation at the LDAC event. I will circulate.

=== Notes ===

==== Action Items of Previous Meeting ====
* <Think about tagging use cases>, <ALL>, <STATUS: ONGOING>
* <Digest questionnaire results obtained from BuildingSMART event in Wiki>, <Kris>, <STATUS: ONGOING> 
* <Develop sensor/energy model scenario>, <Kris>, <STATUS: ONGOING>
* <Develop indoor navigation scenario>, <Matthias>, <STATUS: ONGOING>
* <Think about an efficient way of building a map to available datasets and ontologies>, <all>, <STATUS: ONGOING>

==== Next Meeting ====
[[meeting_minutes_19062015|Next Meeting Minutes]]

==== Previous Meeting ====
[[meeting_minutes_22052015|Previous Meeting Minutes]]