i-adopt / requirements

Repository used for Task 3 of the I-ADOPT workplan to define terminology requirements for given use cases
0 stars 1 forks source link

US20 - Researcher wants to find aerosol optical property data via semantic search across multiple vocabularies #3

Open gwemon opened 4 years ago

gwemon commented 4 years ago

Issue ticket created to follow up on discussion regarding requirements definition for user story #20 started during remote meeting held on 30/04/2020.

My first question would be: Instead of "terminology requirement" should we be using "Semantic interoperability requirements" in this title and in other places? Is this not what we are trying to pin down?

kitchenprinzessin3880 commented 4 years ago

@gwemon i think both titles are fine as long as we provide a short sentence about their meaning..

gwemon commented 4 years ago

@kitchenprinzessin3880 For me "terminology requirements" implies that we intend to be specific about the kind of terminology this specific user story needs while in fact what we really want (and need) to focus on are the requirements related to enabling interoperability between the terminologies mentioned in the user story.

kitchenprinzessin3880 commented 4 years ago

@gwemon in this case, can you also include the short sentence (' requirements related to enabling interoperability between the terminologies mentioned in the user story') following the title "Semantic interoperability requirements" ? the reason is that we can have technical and non-technical members in our WG, or with both (like me ;))

graybeal commented 4 years ago

Just so everyone appreciates, the reason terminology appears so prominently may be that while forming the group, we worked hard to focus on the terminological approach (i.e., terminology modeling) that we needed for semantic interoperability. 'Semantic interoperability' itself is a very large topic, involving file formats, logical inferencing, tooling, interfaces, and many of the things that we consciously pulled away from during the call.

I don't think the title matters nearly as much as the description and our mutual understanding, so whatever title works for the participants. Just wanted to make sure we all understood that perspective.

gwemon commented 4 years ago

Thank you @graybeal . Yes, that's fine although I still think it would be good to have the term "interoperability" associated with the requirements I think as in "Terminology interoperability requirements". But happy to leave it as is for the time being if nobody else feels it's needed.

SirkoS commented 4 years ago

My assessment from the requirements meeting in late April, copied here for reference.


importance

(+) optional (++) likely essential, but not mentioned as such (+++) essential

requirements

contains entities for ...

contains labels for ...

contains a structure for ...

contains mapping for ...

mabablue commented 4 years ago

contains entities and labels for ...

see http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/P07/current/3TUNI9CM/

mariutzica commented 4 years ago