Meetings Notes :

     

  • Wed 7th April 2004
  • Check here
  • Mon, Jan 19th 2004:

- D6 (Grounding Techs Evaluation):
* report on progress by Michal
* next versions shall be aligned to the SemanticWeb.org case study
- everything else delayed to next meeting

  • WED, Dec 17:
  1. Jos has agreed to provide the second draft of user requirements analysis before Feb 1, and he presents it on the "February" portal group meeting.
  2. Holger has agreed to create a small ontology (of around 2 classes - probably, Person and Event) and explain why the SW portal needs the proposed classes. Report on the "January" portal group meeting.
  3. Michael S. has agreed to suggest how to improve the structure of the semanticweb.org. Report on the "January" portal group meeting.
  4. Technical board (in alphabetic order): Stefan, Holger, Dumitru, Michal, Anna The technical board is supposed to have its own mailing list - please from now just mail all the technical issues to the persons above, but not to deri-swportal.
  • WED, Dec 4:

-- Logo: David sends around 2 proposals and then the better is chosen via voting
-- Titi presented the paper by Dieter - the result of communication is evolving ontologies?..
-- Ying presented the survey on ontology library systems by Ying and Dieter - Perspectives: management, adaptation, standartization
-- Holger presented the state of the art survey on Semantic Web portals - evaluation scheme: three basic layers of architecture - are boxes, e.g. "user interface", components or activities or features? - they are ways to evaluate a portal! !!Collaboration and collaborative groups!! We should look at this, especially that this has been overlooked and ignored in current portals. - OntoWeb site discussion: after introducing SW technologies, the info became hard to find and the site became difficult to access (i.e. offline) - Real time collaboration and integration of components should be just as everything else, such as metadata structure and ease exchange and reuse in ontologies
-- Organization: we should not wait 15 minutes and watch software fixing to start a meeting - responsible persons take care. - The slides should be distributed before the meeting and printed out for everybody - ontology in Protege exists, a paper about it should be written and distributed - Holger takes care - possible collaboration with Monteca - at Dec 31 we get a paper on existing community portal comparison -- by Stefan and Ina - at Dec 31 commercial portal provider comparison - technologies offered - Han - evaluation of groupware - collect 2-3 papers - Holger, 18 Dec -- Michael presented semanticweb.org content analysis - the paper on it is located on BSCW - now ontology in for the portal, not really for the community -- or is it now a crazy mixture... e.g., person is subclass of user - how would you treat this? OntoWeb is said to be a community portal, but it has the same structure. But it is a horrible way of modeling!! Application or domain ontologies? Maybe build two ontologies??