| Line 20 was replaced by line 20 |
| - *** Taxon (Kennedy (TCS), Peet (ConceptMapper), Stewart (TOS)) |
| + *** Taxon (Kennedy) |
| Line 51 was replaced by lines 51-54 |
| - ** Taxon Breakout (Beach) |
| + ** Taxon Breakout (Beach) [Taxon Breakout| AllHandsMeeting2005TaxonAgendaAndNotes] |
| + *** Laura Downey, Going Forward Presentation from Estes Park |
| + *** Xianhua Liu, Concept Mapping and authoring tool: review of prototype |
| + *** Martin Graham, Collections visualization tool: review of prototype |
| Removed lines 53-57 |
| - *** Downey, Going Forward slides from Estes Park DONE |
| - *** 3:00 Break |
| - *** Xianhua, Concept Mapping and authoring tool: review of prototype, next steps. |
| - *** Martin, Collections visualization tool: review of prototype, next steps |
| - |
| Lines 59-60 were replaced by line 57 |
| - |
| - |
| + * 7:00pm __Group Dinner__, Location: Rock Bottom |
| Removed lines 62-63 |
| - * 7:00pm __Group Dinner__, Location TBD |
| - |
| Removed line 68 |
| - |
| Lines 70-97 were replaced by lines 64-67 |
| - |
| - ** 9:30 [Taxon Breakout| AllHandsMeeting2005TaxonAgenda] |
| - |
| - *** Kepler-Taxon work flow discussion including Higgins, Pennington, integration of DiGIR and Kepler in use case work flow, responsibilities, where is the user interaction? TOS Actor-how would it be used in workflows? What are the usage scenarios for TOS within Kepler? How else might the TOS be embedded in Kepler? |
| - |
| - **** High-level Taxon-Kepler Interaction Design and Engineering Issues with Dan Higgins |
| - |
| - ***** The 'selection problem' How do users *find* and then *select* the focal concept for searching, parameterizing an actor, with the concept one wants to work with. 1st generation, little interactivity, fill in a Kepler parameter file. |
| - |
| - Wrap Robs current work flow into a custom actor, interactivity would come later, and maybe then passing parameter files to the actor from an application outside of GARP. |
| - |
| - |
| - ***** Problem with names being mapped to more than once concept for GARP work flow |
| - |
| - ***** Merging data sets with concepts that overlap, how do we integrate them once they come back |
| - |
| - ***** Looping issue in GARP usecase workflow: going through list of concepts to find synonyms to identify overlaps (names with 2 or more concepts), Gales & Jones, Action: make a custom TOS actor instead of modifying web services actor (which came from GEON) |
| - |
| - ***** SEEK-Taxon would like to see more possibility for an interactive UI within Kepler for TOS query and selection tasks. Alternative is to stop, restart and repeat short workflows as the 'interactivity' |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - *** SEEK Use Case #2 need a taxon concept merging tool. SMS is working on merging other types of parameters across site data sets. (Get a list of species from LTER data sets, assume they are in EML, input to TOS [GetBestConcept], output unique list of merged names, |
| - |
| - **** Must mark up taxon names as concepts with GUIDs in the EML data sets first, GUIDs would be the concept IDs. Need a tool to do that, Morpho is the likely app. If no GUID in the data set, a call to TOS could match on data set taxon name and a taxon reference. |
| - |
| - **** Kepler work flow scenario: Kepler has Actors that can actually merge the data, need some user interaction with TOS to decide which level of lumping the user wants, include synonyms, concept overlaps, go up a level, etc. |
| + ** 9:30 [Taxon Breakout| AllHandsMeeting2005TaxonAgendaAndNotes] |
| + *** Taxon-Kepler Interaction Design and Engineering Discussion with Dan Higgins |
| + **** Use case 1: GARP |
| + **** Use case 2: Biodiversity |
| Removed lines 99-122 |
| - |
| - |
| - ***** if the GUIDs match between data sets, we merge |
| - ***** if the names from two data sets match (derived from GUIDs in the date set) in TOS, we combine them |
| - ***** if concepts match in TOS (other TOS operations) |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - and how to identify concepts that match user's query concept 'expectation', (e.g. query TOS, return concepts to Kepler, do a EcoGrid query). How to build a UI that is meaningful to users for such tasks. |
| - |
| - **** |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| Line 124 was replaced by line 70 |
| - ** SEEK-Taxon lunch, Franz, Stewart, Gales with CIPRES Miller, Jin, Lucie): Database common ground |
| + ** SEEK-Taxon/CIPRES Project Lunch, Franz, Stewart, Gales with Miller, Jin, Lucie): Common ground |
| Lines 128-133 were replaced by lines 74-78 |
| - |
| - ** Taxon Breakout |
| - |
| - *** Extracting concepts from online and monographic sources, just mammals?, (Susan, Aravind) |
| - **** Currently: 1600 PDF documents obtained, 100 are bat taxonomy papers, extracting data next |
| - **** Desired: extract parent-child hierarchies, descriptions, synonyms, |
| + ** [Taxon Breakout| AllHandsMeeting2005TaxonAgendaAndNotes] |
| + *** Extracting taxonomic concepts from online taxonomic literature update (Susan Gauch, Aravind) |
| + *** TOS Concept Data batch acquisition: roadblocks and options (All) |
| + *** Status and review of Usability process:(Laura Downey powerpoint presentation) |
| + *** Proposed May 2006 EOT Hands-On Workshop, Discussion, Deanna Pennington, Jim Beach |
| Removed lines 135-189 |
| - *** TOS Data acquisition roadblocks, process, role of software tools, getting data into TOS with an import tool for usability testers. |
| - |
| - **** Currently: ITIS ("relational" concepts), Bats from MSW 2005 (MSW concepts from original pubs and synonyms without bib references), MSW 1993, FNA in TCS, German Mosses (concepts with concept maps), |
| - |
| - **** Requirements: TOS Actor could be tested with plant data, |
| - |
| - **** Possible: Use Bob Peet's plant concept data (44,000 with relationships?)with PLANTS county level distribution data as a supplement to bat use case scenario, Ranunculus data set, 8 classifications, NA & Mexico. |
| - |
| - **** Action: Stinger Guala to identify in 2 weeks the number of versions of PLANTS, send to KU to DiGIRize, Bob will send rich treatement of plant concepts the US Southeast. Available now: Ranunculus data, it needs to be upgraded to latest TCS, Xianhua will do that in 1 week. Jan or Feb: All USDA Plants in version 4, mapped against all plants in FNA, and also all of the Alan Weekly collaboration, his version mapped against 8 different classifications of plants. |
| - |
| - *** Broader TDWG and community issues for TCS and TOS. What are their expectations? Our responsibilities? Can SEEK demonstrate the utility of TCS and TOS within the next year? What tools do we need to complete and harden for the community to buy into TCS and TOS? What can we expect from the GBIF community? Short term versus ultimate objectives |
| - |
| - **** S-T TOS/TCS External Roles/Personas |
| - ***** S-T might be a concept provider for other people to test their concept applications, |
| - ***** S-T might be a concept repository for projects looking for a place to store them, might need a batch import process if requested. |
| - ***** S-T *must* use GUIDs because there will be multiple concept object servers |
| - ***** S-T if TOS is a global reference implementation, then we need to implement the whole TCS schema in TOS, we could not implement just some TCS fields, we would need to input and output 100% standard TCS documents. |
| - ***** Schema changes over time, do we need to maintain records in each version forever? |
| - |
| - |
| - **** S-T TOS/TCS Internal Roles/Personas |
| - ***** See SEEK use cases 1 & 2 and other related logic |
| - |
| - Discussion of the data independence problem with DiGIR queries that have the same name for 2 or more concepts. Solutions: Give user option to allow duplicates, eliminate duplicates, combine overlaps or go interactive and give user alert that name used for multiple concepts, ot just log errors in a sideband pipeline. |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - *** Usability thread: which users assigned to which evaluations, next steps, roadmap (Laura w/ slides) |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - *** Uber-discussion: next two year vision, deliverables, roadmap, engineering dependencies, end-user tasks to be supported, data acquisition for the prototypes, decomposing Kepler engineering steps to accomplish usage scenarios. How do all the SEEK-Taxon components fit together now? |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - *** 4:00 May Tutorial Workshop Planning, Pennington for Romanello-Katz, Beach |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| Lines 226-229 were replaced by line 116 |
| - |
| - |
| - ** Taxon Breakout |
| - |
| + ** Taxon Breakout [Taxon Breakout| AllHandsMeeting2005TaxonAgendaAndNotes] |
| Lines 231-233 were replaced by line 118 |
| - *** Future Plans: events, objectives, deliverables |
| - |
| - |
| + *** Uber-discussion: 2006-2007 Vision, objectives, deliverables, roadmap, events |
| Lines 259-260 were replaced by line 144 |
| - ** Taxon Breakout |
| - *** Bob Peet leaves; Less critical items |
| + ** Taxon Breakout [Taxon Breakout| AllHandsMeeting2005TaxonAgendaAndNotes] |
