Date

20 Feb 2018

Attendees

Agenda

1) Use Case reminder

2) Where we are on our road map.

3) Open Action Items

4) JIRA Issues Review - https://jira.edmcouncil.org/projects/FCP/issues/FCP-4?filter=allopenissues

5) Todays content discussion.

SMIF OWL-UML

SKOS

RDF/S

6) For next week.

Proceedings:

DN has go ahead to present WF graphs to CFTC. JN This is a sales job. The elephant in the room is that some will say we can do this now. Focus on what ontologies can do that can't be done with spreadsheets and Relational data bases. Faster, cheaper.

DN say that WF had the same issues as CFTC and went to FIBO because it is much more efficient. CFTC now uses brute force. Does not link data, does not map to an ontology. Does import and is not efficient and can't do version control, etc. DN should say why WF went the way of FIBO and Graphs.

DN can't say this is a done deal and rolling out across the company. Must be truthful and can say that what he is showing is directionally correct and why CFTC should be doing FIBO because it does work.

CFTC build internal prototypes and benefits will be self evident. JN There are tools that make promises, but the promises have not been true. Mapping to an ontology and bringing in data from other sources based on a standard is most sensible way forward.

JN please feel free to edit or delete anything that he sent us in his deck. It is the message that is important.

DN shows a slide that he adapted from my slide on inconvenient truth DoD.

DN shows Data Asset Inventory Knowledge Graph WF presentation of what cannot be done with relational data bases. Needs to be confident that this works.

WF team denormalizing FIBO so that it is more efficient for his purpose. Making operational FIBO easier. Also showing FIBO connected to a data lake. Could be in real time or preloaded. Can also talk about this.

Decisions:

Action items

Browser not supported