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, December 1, 2011; 10-11 AM ET

Attendees

Brian Davis, Sherri De Coronado, Sharron Lewis, Stuart Turner, Denise Warzel, Grace Stafford, Larry Wright

Agenda

Notes

Overview and Recap and next steps of meeting with Peter Yim and Colleagues

  • Brian mentioned that he started going to the OOR meetings. (He showed their website and commented it was very technical.) They are of interest to the ORW group, for example, the had ray Fergusen (form NCBO BioPortal) talk about development plans for next few quarters. He will continue to attend the meetings to become more engaged in their efforts. Sherri Noted that Gilberto is going to those OOR meetings, also.Brian has already sent the mapping that Harold and Sherri had done (amongst CTS2 specs, OMV and NCBO Bioportal): see here: https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/x/ugUpAw
  • Q. Were there major differences with efforts Ray Ferguson was interested in doing and OOR was interested in doing? - so we could focus on what we (ORWG) could do in the future?
  • A. They seem to want to collaborate with us on the metadata section
  • The Answer to OOR question 1. (Does OOR implement the metadata model in their repository?) – We can say yes
  • Q. Do we have access to their sandbox?
  • A. No- but we can if we ask for it
  • A. We don’t know how much has been changed
  • Their (OOR) scope is larger than ours- our scope fits comfortably into one of their subsets- It makes it easier to work with them because we can go indepth with focused problems.
  • We can start and continue down the path with OMV, CTS2 implementation and get feedback from Community.
  • OOR were quite eager to meet with Harold and Sherri to leverage what they completed.
  • It’s very hard to get things done when things are volunteer – they all have their day job!
  • Keeping in contact is the key way to stay in touch and how we can also build our community.

*AI – Sherri will ask to get access to SANDBOX and CC Gilberto and if anything of interest - she bring back to the group.
(see https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/x/SLJiAw ):
NCBO-OOR Development (@ bioontology.org)
1. The current implementation of OOR is at: http://sandbox.oor.net/ Exit Disclaimer logo
2. the "devbox" is at: http://dev.oor.net Exit Disclaimer logo

Review of Plan for Demo (Roadshow)

  • AI – Sherri plans to mention the Roadshow at the TBPT Meeting
    • Suggestion. What does the “Roadshow” mean- that is NCBO BioPortal relative to EVS? Maybe in Item #3 add some background – how they work together or is it an alternative.
  • AI – Brian include explanation up front in Demo (section 4) to forestall questions/explain why NCBO instead of LexEVS or VKC or NCRI.
    • Suggestion. We can highlight different roles – and the concerns of each of the roles
  • AI – Brian will use the List Trish provides as for possible use cases from Scientific end users. (section 1b)
  • Q. Does the OOR group plan to make their things (Ontolgies) deployed be other domains –
  • A. Thinking the answer is yes- they also want to setup a service (registry)
    • We ideally want to focus on the scientific endusers - we need more clinical community feedback and to make it clear to serve each group differently- .
    • Will revamp number 1 – to be in terms of roles.
  • Q. Does anyone have a list of roles?
  • A. Brianhas the list from the roadmap – like 7 different roles. We could start with those and get more details. We can list the role with a couple of use cases.
  • AI-- Brian to borrow existing roles and concerns form Roadmap and use them in section 1.
  • Q. Included in this group would it be someone like a data manager – someone trying to create a dictionary?
  • A. Think it’s pretty wide open- put in a comment that it might not be focused on the clinical person and provide background -Narrow the scope without ignoring them.
  • Brian reviewed the “Roadshow” script
  • Something that might be missing not just the terms are important, but whether the structure of the ontology is important, too. And how the structure is maintained. What do you need: just terms or terms AND hierarchy? The ontology recommender is good but only gives a list.
  • We need to retrieve return list and explanation on how to determine what’s important to them
  • Action – Brian will send Denise the Wiki link or doc so she can possibly update the usecase.
  • Suggestion. Should flesh out more details and highlight different features that the OMV will provide users
  • Q. Stuart T makes the point that we could make use of social media to help people when they are looking to choose an ontology. Instead of automation should possibly focus on Social Media type?
  • A. YES, possible.
  • Q. Do you think Disease is something we should stick with?
  • A. Disease may not be the best one- because of complexity or good for granularity.
  • Grace following up on Anatomy – folks thinks that Anatomy is not a good choice.
  • However, group see me dot think that
    1) any choice of an exemplar ontology would have complexities
    And
    2) Complexity is not a bad thing to show the audience.
  • A. Write a use case for each audience type (for example, Researcher, for example, deployment lead) to see the positive and negatives. No good answer for that
  • Q. Do you have a list of questions “how to determine the ontology you want to use (basically requirements)? – Denise, Sherri?
  • A. Dianne Reeves could have an answer- she may have a set of questions for Curation.
  • AI – Denise will check with Diane to see if she has a list of questions for the Curators to make the decision of which terminology i to use.

Action Items:

Assigned To

Description

Due Date

Sherri de Coronado

Contact Peter Yim to request SANDBOX access of OOR

12/08/2011

Brian Davis

Will use the List Trish provides as for possible use cases from Scientific end users. (section 1b)

12/08/2011

Sherri de Coronado

Mention the Plan Demo (Roadshow) during the TBPT Face-to-Face

12/07/2011

Brian Davis

contact Trish Whetzel for a list of BioPortal endusers

12/08/2011

Brian Davis

Include explanation up front in Demo (section 4) to forestall questions/explain why NCBO instead of LexEVS or VKC or NCRI.

12/08/2011

Brian Davis

Send Densie Warzel the wiki link or doc so she can possibly update the Roadshow Usecase.

12/08/2011

Denise Warzel

Contact Diane Reeves to see if she has a list of questions for the Curators to make the decision of which terminology to use.

12/08/2011

  • No labels