Technical Team/Minutes/2014-06-24

June 24, 2014

Attendees

• Bill Schineller
• Gary O'Neall
• Scott Sterling

Agenda

• Follow-up on relationship and usage types
• GSoC Update
• RDF Terms Documentation
• Model validation

Relationship and Usage type documentation

• Bill and Gary updated online spreadsheet
• Requesting input from Jack on the usageType_ReferenceImplementation
• Scott will review as well
• Should we document what terms are replaced by a relationship (e.g. "hasFile")
  • Yes - Bill adding a column to the spreadsheet

GSoC Update

• Mid-terms eval due this week - pls. provide feedback either privately to the mentors or to the dist. list

RDF Terms Documentation

• First a bit of status - As I was working on updating the RDF documentation (you can find the 1.2 version at spdx.org/rdf/terms), I found that the Ruby based tools that generate the HTML pages do not seem to work on a new laptop I recently migrated to. I suspect this is due to a change in some of the dependent libraries, but I have not had a chance to debug.
• Should we change how we manage and document the RDF/XML terms?
• Alternatives
  • A: Continue maintaining the documentation as a master HTML file which generates the web pages, the text used in the specification appendix + generates OWL schemas for the web sites. This would require fixing the Ruby issues. It would be really really helpful if someone with more Ruby expertise than myself (which turns out to be a pretty large population) could help.
  • B: Just maintain a straight HTML page of the terms and drop the Ruby tools generation. We would lose the schema files.
  • C: Move to Protégé as the master for storing and maintaining the terms. The web version (http://webprotege.stanford.edu/) has some collaboration features and the desktop version can be used to output various formats. Bill has already done some good work investigating this approach. To output documentation there are a few alternatives:
    • C1: Use the existing owldoc plugin to generate the documentation for the web and just put a link in the specification documentation to the website. Attached is an example using a different project I just pulled down from Protégé.
    • C2: Write a custom plugin to Protégé to output the documentation for the website and specification.
    • C3: Use Protégé to maintain the terms, but manually create the HTML and documentation pages (option B above)
• No one has Ruby expertise to help with option A
• Is option C1 OK?
  • The web would be OK if the audience is the RDF familiar
  • Likely only RDF folks are visiting the website
  • Would lose the documentation appendix
  • Would the links line up with the new documentation? (e.g. spdx.org/rdf/terms#SpdxDocument would link to the class definition)
• Leaning towards option C1, but would like broader review and feedback
• Gary will investigate the links questions
• Follow-up with Kate on the specification - if we need the terms defined inline or if a reference to a web page is OK.

Model validation

• Concern that we may not have the details thought out for external references and relationship
• Validate relationship model with a real model
• Create an actual SPDX document with an external reference and relationship - Gary and Bill will write up an example