Action: Rebekah and Peter will check if text of the draft open letter can be modified to reduce pitfalls around digital (re)colonisation.
Action: Rebekah will invite interested people to a side meeting to continue discussing the aspect of digital (re)colonisation in the draft open letter.
Rebekah, Peter and SiriJodha will attend. Pier Luigi will observe.
Action: Everybody to review the draft open letter.
Action: Øystein to send email checking whether we should move the meeting time as daylight savings start.
Action: Rebekah to rephrase the third last paragraph.
Continued review of the draft of open letter to various large scale frameworks or organisations on how to use semantics and address user needs.
Rebekah voiced some concern on the use of AI in the letter as this has negative connotations in some communities. Following a thorough discussion several parts of the letter were modified (clarification of terminology, e.g. what is semantics in this context, putting AI more into context and clarification of ethical considerations).
Version 1.2 is released. It doesn’t yet provide recommendations for how to use “variableMeasured” property. Input on what to use instead of “variableMeasured” are asked for. Discussions are ongoing for another month or two. This would be finalised in June.
This should be a priority in the next group meeting.
Polar Semantics Planning Matrix updates - Peter and Ruth
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
Discussion of issues raised in the 2020-12-15 meeting.
Concepts being discussed now are:
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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