Minutes

1. Participants

1. Rebekah Ingram, Paul Thompson, Chantelle Verhey, Bill Manley, Øystein Godøy, Pier Luigi Buttigieg, Mark Schildhauer

2. Adoption of the agenda

1. Adopted

3. Review of the minutes of the previous meeting

1. 2021-06-15 (The meeting in August was cancelled)

1. Accepted, to be published.

4.  Review of open action items

1. Action: Pier Luigi will put the open letter on Zenodo once signed.

1. Pending on finalisation of the letter.

2. Action: SiriJodha is missing from signatories, Øystein to poke him.

1. SiriJodha has signed.

3. Action: Øystein will close the open letter for new signatures 2021-06-30.

1. Øystein closing this now.

4. Action: Chantelle and Bill will give an update on the merged documents with semantic resources in the next meeting.

1. Scheduled for presentation in this meeting.

5. Action: Peter to demonstrate the online site containing the matrix of metadata harvesting relationships in the next meeting.

1. Scheduled for presentation in this meeting.

1. Peter not present, but Rebekah reported.

5. Update from the Polar Data Forum IV (Rebekah/Chantelle)

1. Rebekah updated that the letter was discussed in the hackathon. It has been announced that it will be published on Zenodo.
2. The PDF4 semantics agenda

1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YEUib7k44HdK5xa-KUzepjWbz0ThBK20vw0o4J-GujQ/edit

3. A lot of discussions on not reinventing the wheel, i.e. utilising existing activities and processes.
4. Bill found the hackathon and generation of the overview of semantic resources useful. People need guidance on how to approach this issue.
5. During the hackathon there was a gap analysis initiated.

6. Brief status on distribution of the open letter with signatures

1. Spreadsheet for tracking distribution

1. Usage pending publication of the letter.

2. Øystein to close the open letter and leave the document to Pier Luigi for publishing in Zenodo.

1. This allows for future updates using meta DOI.

3. Details of the metadata to attach will be discussed using Slack and email.
4. Pier Luigi will initiate a discussion using Slack on which metadata to use.
5. Decided to complete the process around the letter using Slack and email. No need to wait until next meeting. Øystein to follow up and push to Pier Luigi.

7. Status on merging documents with semantic resources (Chantelle and Bill)

1. Chantelle has merged resources from Bill into her document.
2. This was further discussed during the PDF IV hackathon and some updates were done there.
3. The merged document is available at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mTvCH2995l73uqJa2Lt3KaIqsGxdy8CdraF7wPQc1D4/edit#gid=753078636
4. Chantelle has continued to update the document following the hackathon.
5. The document contains several tabs representing different updates (including the original document) and includes linkages to I-ADOPT activities.
6. Ontologies that are not actively maintained should be identified/tagged in the document.
7. Pier Luigi suggested adding the list to the Semantic Resources for Earth and Environment (SeREEn) branch to get ESIP involved. This could be a polar branch of the SeREEn activity.

1. It's just an idea now (with a repo) that will emulate the OBO registry, but for Earth science

1. it's in YAML, so easy to edit
2. https://github.com/ESIPFed/SeREEn

8. Marking expressivity level could be a good way to enrich the list Chantelle has created. Maintenance using Git will make downstream use easier.
9. Mark commented

1. Many of the listed “vocabularies” are not necessarily specialized for polar-specific terms, and many aspects of polar will be represented in more general vocabs. E.g. I don’t see schema.org on our list, yet that is a vocab that will be useful for broad scale data interoperability despite having no arctic-specific terms.

10. How to continue and actively progress in this field should be further discussed in the next meeting.

1. Action: Øystein to add this to the agenda.

11. If moving to Git, discussions on how to work and not lose part of the community is needed.A procedure could involve using Google forms, issues and PR. To be further discussed.
12. Some relevant links

1. The OBO registry http://www.obofoundry.org/ which is auto-generated by the YAML in their repo.
2. this is the YAML

1. https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/blob/master/registry/ontologies.yml

8. Demonstration of the online representation of the matrix of harvesting relationships (Rebekah)

1. Both the actual metadata harvesting and the presentation of the matrix of harvesting relationships are In prototyping, probably able to show something during 1-2 months.
2. Rebekah is actively working on crosswalks between metadata standards and also translation of vocabualries using SKOS/OWL.
3. Mark gave an update on how DataOne is doing crosswalks. He also referred to Science on schema.org.
4. This topic is to be addressed in future meetings.

1. Øystein to add to agenda.

9. Following the discussion on AI during the last meeting, Pier Luigi suggested that this group should engage in https://en.unesco.org/artificial-intelligence.

1. See e.g. https://en.unesco.org/artificial-intelligence/ethics for ethics aspects.
2. AI is questioned in some contexts but is also something we need to relate to.  Pier Luigi mentioned that the ethical perspectives have to be strengthened and representativeness sought. This group is open to participation. Pier Luigi mentioned that the Arctic community could give valuable input to this activity as most communities are concerned with machine learning and not knowledge representation. This group could bring the indigenous perspective into the discussion. SiriJodha indicated some interest in the previous meeting.
3. Discussion continued from the last meeting...
4. This was not covered in the meeting, keeping it for the next meeting.

10. Awareness updates (roundtable)

1. No time.

11. On hold, to be addressed if time

1. Polar Semantics Planning Matrix updates - Peter and Ruth

1. The matrix is available at Matrix of metadata harvesting relationships 
2. The matrix and other materials from this family of meetings are being documented in two papers:

1. PDPS White Paper Draft - Harvesting Portion (Peter)
2. Matrix with additional fields as discussed during a WG meeting in 2020 for consideration on the new triple store to support this activity.

1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m_xBrpW6EqqZ4oRzc5kZkpt4c8h6qqGmJIVcd9BJCpc/edit#gid=1643486333
2. Update on status

3. PDPS White Paper Draft - Recommendations Portion (Rut)

1. Update on status

2. Discussion of the concepts data, information and knowledge and whether existing definitions we are working with applies in a broad sense, including local and traditional/indigenous knowledge. - Rebekah

1. Discussion of issues raised in the 2020-12-15 meeting.
2. Concepts being discussed now are:

1. Data

1. A set of values, symbols, or signs (recorded on any type of medium) that represent one or more properties of an entity. For example, the numbers generated by a sensor, values derived from a model or analysis, text entered into a survey, or the raw text of a document

2. Information

1. Products derived from data that lead to a greater understanding of an entity. For example, (i) the interpretation of a range of data from an array of conductivity sensors across the Arctic Ocean that informs us about that ocean’s salinity range or (ii) the narrative text of a report on harmful algal blooms that informs the reader on the timing of these blooms.

3. Knowledge

1. An abstract representation (i.e. a mental model) of an entity which: (i) is constructed from a substantial collection of information, (ii) grants its bearer reliable familiarity with that entity, and (iii) can be used to reason and take action about that entity. For example, an expert with knowledge about the salinity range of the Arctic Ocean (constructed from large amounts of information on the topic) would be able to reason that a salinity value of 43% is a likely error, rather than a real measurement.

4. It was in the previous meeting we agreed that a living process that can be adapted as we continue engagement is required. How do we address this?
5. It was in the previous meeting suggested that a joint statement towards e.g. Arctic Council outlining activities, goals, objectives, requests etc. is developed together with other relevant groups. How do we address this?

3. Following discussions on the 2020-08-18 meeting, discuss definitions of data and datasets that could be used in the Arctic Community - Rebekah/Pier Luigi

1. Background material

1. The UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development Implementation Plan v2.0. (See glossary for definitions of data, information, knowledge, and digital knowledge ; note we had to tone down the technical aspects as this document goes to the GA) : https://www.oceandecade.org/assets/uploads/documents/Ocean-Decade-Implementation-Plan-Version-2-0-min_1596634145.pdf 
2. IWG-SODIS https://iode.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=598:inter-sessional-working-group-to-propose-a-strategy-on-ocean-data-and-information-stewardship-for-the-un-ocean-decade-iwg-sodis&catid=65&Itemid=89 
3. A dedicated channel in the Slack space has been set up to capture discussions between meetings.

4. A paper/report on the Polar Vocabularies Questionnaire - Pier Luigi

1. Pier Luigi is exploring this with support from Ruth, Mark and Øystein.

1. Link to responses: Polar Vocabularies (Responses)
2. See previous minutes for details.
3. Update on status

5. Regular interoperability workshops debriefs and plans - Rebekah/Øystein

1. Lessons learned in the September 2nd workshop that should be further discussed

1. https://github.com/POLDER-Crew 
2. Polar practices recommendations for implementing schema.org is the short term goal

12. Next meeting

1. Agreed to do the third Tuesday of the month, at 19:00 UTC (21:00 CEST, 15:00 EST, 13:00 MST).

1. Next meeting will be Tuesday 19th October.
2. Øystein will create a calendar invite.

2. Since not everyone is using Slack, emails should be circulated for each meeting.