| Line 20 was replaced by line 20 |
| - *** Taxon (Kennedy (TCS), Peet (ConceptMapper), Stewart (TOS)) |
| + *** Taxon (Kennedy) |
| Line 51 was replaced by line 51 |
| - ** Taxon Breakout [Taxon Breakout| AllHandsMeeting2005TaxonAgendaAndNotes] |
| + ** Taxon Breakout (Beach) [Taxon Breakout| AllHandsMeeting2005TaxonAgendaAndNotes] |
| Removed line 63 |
| - |
| Removed line 65 |
| - |
| At line 67 added 2 lines. |
| + **** Use case 1: GARP |
| + **** Use case 2: Biodiversity |
| Line 70 was replaced by line 70 |
| - ** SEEK-Taxon lunch, Franz, Stewart, Gales with CIPRES Miller, Jin, Lucie): Common ground |
| + ** SEEK-Taxon/CIPRES Project Lunch, Franz, Stewart, Gales with Miller, Jin, Lucie): Common ground |
| Lines 74-115 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, |
| - |
| - *** 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) |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| + ** [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 117-135 |
| - |
| - *** 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 172-175 were replaced by line 116 |
| - |
| - |
| - ** Taxon Breakout |
| - |
| + ** Taxon Breakout [Taxon Breakout| AllHandsMeeting2005TaxonAgendaAndNotes] |
| Line 177 was replaced by line 118 |
| - *** Future Plans: events, objectives, deliverables |
| + *** Uber-discussion: 2006-2007 Vision, objectives, deliverables, roadmap, events |
| Removed lines 179-180 |
| - |
| - |
| Lines 205-206 were replaced by line 144 |
| - ** Taxon Breakout |
| - *** Bob Peet leaves; Less critical items |
| + ** Taxon Breakout [Taxon Breakout| AllHandsMeeting2005TaxonAgendaAndNotes] |
