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

Date/Time: Thursday, April 7, 2011; 12-1 PM ET

Attendees

Stuart Turner, Grace Stafford, Hua Min, Sherri DeCoronado, Riki Ohira

Notes

  • There is a lot of material that needs to be evaluated and a decision needs to be made what to include and what to cut in the next couple months until June's NCRI/NCI meeting in the UK where we plan to have a solid v2.0 relase
  • Modified key data elements around work that Grace had done on the OIDs
  • The Discussion section of the ORWG White Paper
    • There is a section on BioPortal as the presumptive model since OMV is not being maintained, it would be difficult to use and provide input into if changes are identified
    • Discusses other ontologies that were evaluated and
    • Q: is the statement about bioportal being presumptive model (refernce/base model) connected to the table and work we initially included in the OMV? A: Perhaps need to clarify that BioPortal is the base or reference model that this group has used as a starting point for the model that they have been working on and getting consensus between the three groups (NCI, NCBO and NCRI).
    • The most important goal is to get something that the three organizations can use.
    • Q: What should we call it if it's not really OMV anymore and it's not BioPortal? A: Shared ontology representation metadata.
    • Challenges of populating an OMV template. To fill out this information it was determined that we needed developer/creator-input
    • Comment: Should rename "Occurrence constraint" like optionality
    • Need to better clarify "Endorse by" and possibly add other options like "Regulated by", "Supported by", etc. Adding new metadata would be as helpful as it does not burden the user; we can use it if we simplify it (and add definitions or guidance on how to fill this field).
    •  Enhanced development of "known usage" is important but difficult to measure. Perhaps to make it more useful, would be to break it out by projects, functional domains, etc.
    • Q: The body of the paper discusses public opinion on ontologies, is there something in the discussion about that or is there something in the model that will include this? A: It is definitely included in the Discussion section and the Community parts (ratings, rankings, discourse, etc) did not go into a lot of detail here and not fully fleshed out, but is something we could continue to look into and work on.
  • Next Steps:
    • Work on recommendations and flesh them out
    • Need to clean up outlines (outline whole paper and better organization)
    • Filling in gaps
  • Refine in the wiki and publish it in a more appropriate publication format can use Readability Tool to PDF; if time permits would publish in LaTex
  • We need to discuss if we plan to submit this as a paper or several papers (articles) to peer reviewed journals or conferences, like AMIA
  • HIGHEST PRIORITY BE RECOMMENDATION SECTION AS THE DRIVER FOR COMPLETING THIS PAPER AND NEED TO HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE ACTIONABLE (FOR FUTURE WORK)
  • Possible journals:
    • AMIA
    • Journal of Applied Ontology
    • JBI (Journal of Biomedical Informatics)

Action Items

  1. Stuart Turner - Edit the BioPortal as Presumptive model section to rename the model developed from this group as a shared ontology representation metadata
  2. Stuart Turner - Change "occurrence constraint" to optionality or something (and define it in the text)
  3. Stuart Turner and Sherri DeCoronado - Discuss on whether to meet to review content and "clean up" and plan a date/time
  4. Group - Think about list of potential journal articles that this white paper could be developed and submitted to later
  • No labels