Skip Navigation
NIH | National Cancer Institute | NCI Wiki   New Account Help Tips
Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
Contents of this Page

Date/Time: Thursday, April 28, 2011; 12-1 PM ET

Attendees

Stuart Turner, Sherri De Coronado, Larry Wright, Hua Min, Trish Whetzel, Grace Stafford, Riki Ohira

Notes

  • Stuart went through the table of metadata content that both him and Sherri did a first review on and discussed edits/changes they are recommending
  • Phase II is to complete the table/model and have "final" cut on the decisions of what should be included, etc.
  • Q: Cardinality is referring to how many instances you can have of something, correct? A: Yes. Cardinality is more expressive than "Optional/Required" binary, informing if there is 1 to many relationships or 0 to 1, etc.
  • We realize that properties and classes are the same and decided to make certain changes to be more explicit and accurate when referring to the field names. For example: name changed to "full name" and acronym changed to "short name" since not all short names are acronyms (example given was RadLex).
  • It was decided that "Endorsed by" was insufficient in describing all the information about use for the ontology/terminology and added: mandated by, used by,
  • Ontology Language recommendation is to use ISO codes if possible
  • Removed "has prior version" and decided to not focus on "is it backwards compatible" and "Is compatible with"
  • There are some terminologies where one version is very different than another and that might be what was intended to capture for these things, like CTCAE versions; 3 vs. 4 is very different. We can mention that these two are different.
  • "Ontology Engineering Methodology" class: Unsure where it fits. Haven't seen how precoordination structure is done. This could be a place for identifying how this is being used and if it is being used.
    • Trish: We do not have any instances that is currently using this; so we don't have an example.
    • Perhaps we can also ignore this at the moment, or redefine it for things like post-coordination
  • Several things not changed:
    • Engineering Tool
    • Syntax
  • Notion of Party is referenced as "People" in the model and points to Dublin Core and FOAF (which is a normative standard)
  • Extensions include: Change and Evaluation, which will be included in the discussion section of the white paper. This makes it easier to put closure on this and say we've stretched OMV beyond what is feasible.
  • White paper is still in progress and need feedback; if anyone gets a chance to take a look at it. Goal is to have something actionable to take the content in LexEVS and apply this core model. There is only a small amount that is required for implementation, so it hasn't changed that much. Identified some name changes and added/edited descriptions of the fields, which will be published in the white paper. Have people look at the discussion section.
  • Stuart Turner, Stuart Bell, and Sherri De Coronado will be attending the NCRI/NCI meeting in the UK in June to present the white paper and continue to move forward on this effort
  • Some of the terminologies/ontologies are also in BioPortal; so hopefully we would be publishing the same information about the same terminologies and for the Community portion we are recommending that BioPortal be the place to send people to provide input/feedback on terminologies. We also need to continue and really build up a Community around terminologies/ontologies.
  • There was a recommendation/changes in BioPortal UI to have an overall projects "field" that would show which projects that are using those ontologies/terminologies
  • Reviews are being moved up to the main page where projects are going to be featured
  • The projects field will be helpful in having more input from the community but may not be sufficient to build an active community around terminology/ontology users

Action Items

  1. Sherri De Coronado - Provide list of people who should review the white paper, specifically the Discussion section
  2. Riki Ohira - Send individual emails to those people that should review the white paper
  3. The Group - Review white paper and provide feedback (can leave as comments or send to Riki Ohira)
  • No labels