Thanks, Tim. This makes sense. So we'll proceed Tuesday at 10 EST / 3 PM GMT by looking at ORB and DRO.
Regarding the phone number--Do we have access to a W3C phone bridge at that time? Otherwise, Anita, do you have a conference call line? -Jodi On 24 Nov 2010, at 21:06, Tim Clark wrote: > Hi Jodi, > > Thanks very much for this material, great job of sorting these issues. Sorry > I couldn't join you on the call. > > I want to chime in with my views on the *order of alignment*, which I think > is important. > > I believe we want to align the most firmly-grounded (in both use cases and > inter-group discussions) and simplest ontologies first, because they are more > foundational and straightforward. You want to create a base, and then align > step by step to that. > > On that principle I would proceed as follows: > > 1 - ORB + DRO first. (ORB + DRO = DRO' ). I think this is important to do > first because it is so simple. ORB has also had the most discussion, very > well-grounded in use cases. And there is another reason to do ORB + DRO > first... > > 2 DRO' + Data-Experiment (DEXI) next. (DRO' + DEXI = DRO''). Why? Because > (a) DEXI has already been under construction for a year, and includes a lot > of grounding and cross group discussion, so it is quite well-grounded; and > (b) DRO and DEXI have a definite and strong overlap, that can impact on > details further on, when you bring along DOCO. > > 3 DRO'' + DOCO. > > Best > > Tim > > On Nov 24, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Jodi Schneider wrote: > >> Here's what we discussed in our call yesterday. Overall we're looking to >> discuss and align DoCO, ORB, DRO, and the Middle-grained document structure, >> in the context of life sciences research papers. >> >> We plan to talk again on Tuesday 7th Dec at 10 EST / 3 PM GMT (phone number >> TBA). If you're interested, could you please let me know (off-list, >> jodi.schnei...@deri.org)? We may be able to adjust the time in the future. >> >> -Jodi >> >> ======== >> Yesterday Anita, Alex Garcia and I discussed the possibilities for alignment >> between DoCO [1] and Medium-grained document structure [2]. DoCO is >> currently being developed as part of SPAR [3]. >> >> Our general conclusion was that David Shotton's proposal (PDF attached) was >> on target. However, we want to: >> (1) use existing ontologies for references (BIBO? ...?) >> (2) use existing ontologies for the header (PRISM? DC?...?) >> (3) check the use of fabio: (e.g. for Experimental Protocol) >> (4) check the use dro: >> (5) check the use of sro: >> >> A few questions regarding DoCO came up. The combination of document >> components, rhetorical components, rhetorical blocks, and structural >> patterns confused us. We expected these to be several smaller ontologies. >> Another question (David, perhaps you can answer this) is why you prefer >> imports into a larger ontology, as opposed to building an application >> profile? Rhetorical components, for instance, may already be handled >> adequately by SALT, SWAN, and ScholOnto. >> >> We also discussed whether we wanted to get beyond ontologies to also address >> authoring and/or textmining (with a schema or DTDs drawing from ontologies). >> Anita pointed out that in our 3 use cases, 1 involves authoring. Further, >> for authoring we're limited to continguous sections (as opposed to post-hoc >> rhetorical component detection). >> >> [1] http://purl.org/spar/doco/ >> [2] >> http://esw.w3.org/HCLSIG/SWANSIOC/Actions/RhetoricalStructure/models/medium >> [3] >> http://opencitations.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/introducing-the-semantic-publishing-and-referencing-spar-ontologies/ >> >> >> >> <Shotton discussion paper on DRO.pdf> >> <doco architecture.png> >
