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, February 10, 2011; 12-1 PM ET

Attendees

Stuart Turner, Sherri DeCoronado,Stuart Bell, Larry Wright, Grace Stafford, Mike Riben, Alan Barcroft, Rick Kiefer, Trish Whetzel, Riki Ohira

Notes

  • Provenance Presentation
    • Sherri and Stuart Turner looked provenance and other existing models like Dublin Core and decided to use OMV Core.
    • OPMV (Open Provenance Model Vocabulary) and OM
    • Q: Is there anything seen on other efforts that aren't but should be included in the Core that we are working on? A: I was expecting that there might be some, but it seems unlikely that we will need to include these. They are mostly different perspective on the same thing. If we are looking at OMV, BioPortal, and CTS2 are aligned with these other efforts.
    • The provenance section overlaps heavily with what is already included in CTS2 so it didn't need to be included.
    • Creator and contributor is clear in Dublin Core, where some other things not so clear in OMV
    • Creation Date for Ontology is not as meaningful, which we changed to version date (CTS2 has Release Date, which is probably better)
    • Our Core does not have Version ID, which CTS2 does and would be helpful
    • This is also part of discussion with Hua on ISO 17963-3, where modifications is considered a new version
    • Q: Should we move towards CTS2? A: OMV is not really a standard except for Dublin Core (not really a standard), CTS2 is a candidate for standard.
    • Is there anything we need to recommend to be added to CTS2 and anything that CTS2 is doing better that we should include in this effort?
    • Identified what we thought should be Core and looked across other efforts to see what might need to be incorporated and to provide other recommendations to Harold and the CTS2 Team
    • It was difficult distinguishing the scope of Provenance since it touched on so many different things. So perhaps Provenance may not be its own section or may be threaded throughout each section
  • Stuart presented on BioPortal NCBO
    • Looking at Community Input process for BioPortal
    • The group had agreed to look to BioPortal for this aspect
    • Sherri and Stuart Turner couldn't find many reviews, so there might want to have a separate section summarizing the reviews
    • It's hard to see the information through the hierarchy, recommendation to have summaries on top pages
    • Forum and Registry (just to have information through discovery), Community of Practice is one of the most important aspects (how to use terminology, what issues do I need to be aware of, etc)
    • Community-based Evaluations:
      • We have done this formally through the VCDE Workspace
      • Amazon-style of rating terminologies
      • Issues around building community is more difficult to address
      • Ideally we would like to have summaries of many reviews, which will require
      • Having one locus is important (which we are recommending be NCBO)
      • There are those that are workers and satisfied
      • Using implicit filtering, like number of views, downloads, etc which will be helpful
      • Better Classification task is needed
      • Need to think about what are the things we can focus on for improvements and modifications (low hanging fruit)
      • Six ratings for terminology might be difficult to assess
        • Some of them require knowledge of external things related to terminology but outside of the knowledge of using that particular terminology, like Correctness
        • Sherri started submitting reviews for NCIt
        • To start building critical mass in there, have NCBO ask people who submit terminologies also submit reviews (sending email on you just used this, could send a request to submit review to users)
      • Trish commented that NCBO has been discussing changing the UI, so this is great information to bring back to their team
      • In Vivo network is a platform for networking scientists to collaborate, and Expertise Ontology with focus on community-run content
        • Good communities thrive because of good content but also needs to know who's working on it and desire to collaborate with others
        • For ontologies that provide provenance at the term level, we have that available, but also provide who has participated on what terms (if you're interested in finding an individual to collaborate). It would be interesting to tie this to things within In Vivo
      • Another issue is trust fabric; authority of source and reviewers/participants
  • Next Friday, Stuart and Sherri will be writing the white paper

Action Items

  1. Sherri DeCoronado - Ask Harold about the purpose and value of ReleaseFormat
  2. Stuart Turner - Pull out UML models and documentation for CTS2 and look at them directly on the wiki
  3. Everyone - Add at least 1 recommendation or feedback on the recommendations listed
  4. Everyone - Those who have researched or drafted anything to put content into the document
    1. Hua to provide a summary of ISO 17963-3
    2. Others to think about what they had planned to research and provide text by Monday, February 28, 2011
  5. Stuart will compile and send out compiled version to the group (after February 28, 2011)
  • No labels