...

1. Sprint 1 topics
   1. vcard
   2. vivo.owl
   3. spin-off jiras?
2. Modules and the concept of scholarship level detail and other levels of detail.

Notes

About modules, Mike Conlon wrote in Slack:

Regarding the idea of “modules.”  And just sharing some thoughts that might be better discussed in an ontology meeting.  For me, I’d like to see vivo.owl be a coherent collection of axioms used to represent scholarship.  This will include fundamental/core things like events and concepts, and papaers, and orgs, and people.  Using whatever terms from whatever ontologies are best for the job of representing scholarship.  Modules are “extra” things that do not need to be included with a VIVO application, and are not fundamental to vivo.owl.  They are self-contained and optional.  In this way of thinking, vcard is not a module, its fundamental, we need to represent the contact information of the things of scholarship.  SKOS is not a module, its fundamental.  OCRe ontologies are modules because VIVO does not need to represent clinical research in detail.  The “in detail” idea is interesting to me.  vivo.owl may have simple representations of things that can be described much further using a specialized ontology (such as OCRe).  We could imagine having a “labs” module with detail from eagle-i, a “humanities” module to go in to detail about the arts (while several things in the humanities are likely fundamental and need to be included in vivo.owl) And then there are things that I think we should not have at all, such as VIVO scientific-research — we are not experts and there are many good ontologies for such things.  And in all cases we should be using ontologies that are established and supported, rather than creating our own.

...