Date/Time: Thursday, April 14, 2011; 12-1 PM ET
Stuart Turner, Stuart Bell, Sherri De Coronado, Larry Wright, Grace Stafford, Hua Min, Riki Ohira
- Sherri made some edits to the white paper
- Show changes made and discuss things that should be added into the white paper and talk about what parts should be edited/removed
- Stuart wrote an introduction for the Discussion section, which discusses the use of BioPortal and OMV
- provides reasons for using OMV: has a large breadth and it is being used
- a model that at the very minimum NCBO, NCRI and NCI could use
- we need a name for this group's model
- We are planning to publish the current agreed upon metadata model based on OMV/BioPortal
- What is still missing is the discussion of what we ended up having as the core set of metadata
- In the discussion we need to talk about the decision points developed around the core set of metadata these three groups agreed on
- Want to take the terminologies that are caBIG(R) approved and apply them to the Vocabulary Knowledge Center (implement them)
- The paper goes on to discuss ISO standard and CTS2 relationship with this ontology metadata model. We don't want to duplicate CTS2 efforts.
- Q: What are we recommending around Dublin Core? A: That if it works for you, go ahead and use it.
- If the discussion and requirements of the metadata model get too deep, it may be more difficult to make people do it. We can discuss these and describe the details, but maybe it comes to the "optionality" of the field to ensure the use of the model is not too burdensome.
- There was some discussion about "Modification of existing optionality constraints to support non-ontologies" and what the use of interoperability means.
- Discussion on "endorsing" was noted to be critical and perhaps we will need an extension to clarify in a "cookbook" format
- There are two types, Likert and Binary (Yes/No)
- We want more comments than just a ranking. We should recommend having a rating, but always link it to some "comment" field
- Primary concern of community is that it may not be large enough to reach critical mass of feedback, so we might want to implement it in such a way to gather information on the back-end that could be displayed as user information on the front.
- We should have a single community for the critical mass which would require that NCBO make some changes
- We should put links to reviews, etc. on our sites. There should be an emphasis on communication and promotion "Syndication"
- Systematic Review and Certification
- Peer-review is important but hard to maintain
- We want to commit to a model quickly and provide actionable recommendations
- Want to get consensus on some of the critical things like the model first and have agreement to implement the "core" with the intent of having feedback on it. Iterative and incremental.
- Completing the table to be included in the white paper and used as a basis for the first implementation
- Stuart and Sherri to meet next week to go over the table and ask for feedback to be reviewed and addressed at the April 28th ORWG meeting
- Next Thursday, April 21st will be giving a presentation on this work to the VCDE Workspace on this group's work
- Due to this presentation we will cancel next week's (4/21) ;ORWG meeting
- The Group - Think of a name of the model that was developed by this group for the ontology metadata
- Stuart and Sherri - To work on going through the table (Profile Metadata page)
- The Group - Review and provide feedback to Stuart on the draft presentation of this work for the VCDE Workspace Tcon (4/21)
- Riki - Send cancellation of April 21st ORWG workgroup meeting