ONTOLOG Community & Project Planning Worskhop 2005     (1)

• Session Date: Thu 2005.03.03     (1A)
• Facilitator: Kurt Conrad     (1B)
• First session page: ConferenceCall_2005_03_03     (1C)

Resources     (1D)

• Last Year's Planning Workshop Results - see: OntologPlanning_2004     (1D1)

Participant Input     (1E)

• review / update Community Charter (--PeterYim / 2005.02.28)     (1E1)
  • Ref: proposed updated charter - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2005-02/msg00020.html     (1E1A)

• adopt a definition for Formal & Informal Ontologies     (1E2)
  • Ref: thread initiated by Duane Nickull, and responses from Peter P. Yim & Leo Obrst - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum//ontolog-forum/2005-03/msg00005.html     (1E2A)

Session Agenda & Proceeding     (1F)

• Work Session 2005.04.14 - Kurt Conrad, Bob Smith & Peter P. Yim     (1F1)
  • Kurt: our problem is that community members engage at levels they choose, planning has nothing to do with traction     (1F1A)
  • Peter: we've got CoP activities (casual) and Project Activities (disciplined); if the latter is funded, then we can better reinforce the discipline     (1F1B)
  • Kurt-Bob-Peter: 6 buckets     (1F1C)
    • CoP activities     (1F1C1)
    • experimental/evangelistic projects     (1F1C2)
    • discplined projects     (1F1C3)
    • project infrastructure     (1F1C4)
    • CoP infrastructure     (1F1C5)
    • Other     (1F1C6)
  • Kurt's table: Issue or Activities - Source - Buckets(6) - Priority - Dependencies - Resources - Level of Interest     (1F1D)
    • Priority & Level of Interest: 1 ~ 5, 5 being high     (1F1D1)
    • Resources: in terms of getting enough resources to pull the activity off     (1F1D2)
  • Action Items     (1F1E)
    • Have an ontology of project planning. Who we are, opportunities, constraints        (1F1E1)
    • Sustainability of CoP, as a whole        (1F1E2)
    • Continue technology transfer, help people "sell" ontology approach        (1F1E3)
    • extend SUMO (from Adam's: Do real work that gets used by somebody, especially UBL focus, concrete results   )     (1F1E4)
      • continue from here - more 'real work' going on yet     (1F1E4A)
    • develop a robust semantic policy decision making framework     (1F1E5)
    • validating planning team's ranking through a survey     (1F1E6)
  • Next work Session 2005.05.05 right after the regular call - Kurt Conrad, Bob Smith, Peter P. Yim & Leo Obrst     (1F1F)

• Work Session 2005.06.09 - Kurt Conrad, Bob Smith & Peter P. Yim     (1F2)
  • Current Priorities     (1F2A)
    • Meeting time     (1F2A1)
      • NIST: Monday, Wednesday, Friday     (1F2A1A)
      • Conflicts w/ W3C Semantic Web Best Practices meeting     (1F2A1B)
      • What are the competing organizations and their meeting times?     (1F2A1C)
      • Drives importance of an updated membership survey. Who would join us if we changed our time? Who would drop out if we change the time? Iterate 3-4x.     (1F2A1D)
      • Not an actionable issue, at this time.     (1F2A1E)
    • Metrics (how many show depending on agenda)     (1F2A2)
    • Governance     (1F2A3)
      • Annual budget target for sustained operations (financial and non-financial resources)     (1F2A3A)
      • Assigned roles and responsibilities     (1F2A3B)
      • Structures to support "commercial" activities and committments     (1F2A3C)
    • Team Roster     (1F2A4)
      • Current XML-based roster is too labor intensive to continue     (1F2A4A)
      • Need alternative approach     (1F2A4B)
  • Resourcing considerations     (1F2B)
    • Colab engages individuals as part of job duties (Federal or contractor)     (1F2B1)
    • Ontolog primarily resourced by non-funded labor (tend to see participation drop off as commercial activities increase)     (1F2B2)
  • Meeting schedule     (1F2C)
    • Alternative weeks vs non-event days: Try every two weeks until a better option presents itself     (1F2C1)