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, January 12, 2012; 10-11 AM ET

Attendees

Brian Davis, Sherri de Coronado, Sharron Lewis, Larry Wright, Trish Whetzel, Hau Min, Grace Stafford

Agenda

  • OOR Update - Brian Davis (5 min)
  • Reviews on NCBO site (Background: In earlier discussions, we agreed NCBO should be the host repository for reviews, as well as the need to get a small critical mass of reviews populated in NCBO)-
    Sherri De Coronado/Trish Whetzel (10 mins)
  • Review feedback (script) from the Domain Workspace Faciliators (ICR, CTMS, Tissue Banks & Pathology Tools and In Vivo Imaging) on Roadshow - Brian Davis (15 mins)
  • Discuss Domain Workspace Next Steps (Roadshow) – Brian Davis (10 mins)
  • Other Discussion -(15 mins)
    • Should and how we can encourage users we know to submit reviews (provide users with a list of questions they might choose to answer- with respect to the terminology comments block?)
    • Given we select the previous option, what's our recommendation for next steps in finding out whether the reviews are helpful. (maybe as simple as adding and tallying 'was this review helpful to you', like they now do on almost every site.)
  • Action Item Review

Assigned To

Description

Due Date

Trish Whetzel

Ask peers to review the website and provide feedback.

1/12/2012

Sherri de Coronado

Why there might be problems with federation- talk to Harold

1/12/2012

Brian Davis

Provide a script from the Workspace feedback on the Roadshow

1/12/2012

ORWG Participants

Start thinking and planning and writing for registry terminology and repository terminology -Then we can see if can satisfy some individuals needs with the registry

Ongoing

Brian Davis/Sherri de Coronado

Send an email to the group: Providing a Summary of the Reviews on the NCBO site and request a list of people who could provide feedback

1/12/2012

Notes

Review Action Items

  • Remove the AI to meet with Harold - she needs to discuss other topics with Harold and do not have a time line when the conversation will occur.
  • Trish AI is more similar to Sherri AI with Harold - regarding Federation.

OOR Update

  • Brian has not attended a meetings since the Holidays, but there is a meeting for planning Ontology Summit Today 1230-230 PM ET
  • You are cordially invited to participate at the upcoming Ontology Summit 2012.

Headlines

Please join us this Thursday and most of the Thursdays in the next 3 months. We will be featuring virtual panel sessions as part of the Ontology Summit 2012 program:

  • Between now and 5-Apr-2012, we are planning to run virtual panel session every Thursday at the same time window, ~ 2 Hrs, starting 9:30am PST / 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm CET / 17:30 UTC ... please mark your calendars.
  • Register your attendance* by emailing <peter.yim@cim3.com> off-line or register yourself directly to the wiki session page. Please specify the date of name of the session(s) you are registering for. ... RSVP
  • Trish - Not sure if a real location has been set for the Summit- except the April date.

Reviews on NCBO site

  • No one has been providing feedback - Sherri decided to use Ulli Wagner as an experiment. Ulli uses Zebra fish - Sherri's goal
    was to identify the type of questions that should be asked - so she tested out on Ulli
  • Ulli Wagner's Feedback:
    • Ease of Use - People are not eager to provide comments unless they either get paid to do it or have something to complain about
    • Not really a Guassian Curve - If the use can be measured without requiring feedback, would consider every download or use a positive feedback
    • Familiarity - Most people are used to the 5-star rating system that is used on many web pages.
    • Comments - providing a comments fields is common practice - this will allow the users to give detailed input.
      *If she were asked to fill out the information for the Zebrafish anatomy vocabulary, she would have a hard time to respond to the questions.
      ZFIN is considered the authority on everything (we assume they are doing a good job; the vocabulary is available; and we do not
      know of another zebrafish anatomy vocabulary.
      *Conclusion: She would not be able to give adequate input on how well this vocabulary covers the domain, if the vocabulary is correct
      or the quality of the content.
      *Sherri - I think Ulli is definitely a representation of the rest of the users.
  • Q Sherri- is not sure how useful this questionnaire is - maybe NCBO should not do anymore.
  • A Larry - I agree this is a awkward type of user questions. I think a lot of people would have the same issues - Ulli knows the
    terminology use more than most - Might be good to focus on strengths and weaknesses
  • Q Sherri - Should we continue to pursue this?
  • A Brian - I would love to hear from the rest of the group - in line- I think we need to have diverse feedback on how they would use the ratings - think some
    people want a simple rating system and some advance . Like Ulli would provide 3 sentences with a star ratings - but other people
    in OOR would want to put more info in the questionnaire but its a different users. Because of the wide audience we have users and contributors
  • A Trish- Ease of use would alert people that there are problems and if its not covering what they need then there would be a big need.
  • A Hua Min- think maybe we can use the 5 star rating systems- we can provide some that is more data- but if you want them to comment on all
    of them it would not be easy because it would take a lot of time
  • Brian - I think people have time to tweet or fb but this would time consuming
  • Sherri - People do not realize they don't have to answer every question - I am afraid the main issue is that we have people
    having to login before answering- so that may sway people from doing the questionnaire.
  • Q Trish - When you see the form it's not clear that you can answer 1 or more than 1 and the text comments are sort of
    secondary to the rating system. Have you ever encountered that issue- pop up window for the reviews?
  • A Sherri - I don't know anyone that has used it except me. It wouldn't bother me that much and it would be clear to me that it
    you don't have too answer every questions. I was hoping once people start entering the information it would encourage others to do the same
    but that has not been the case.
  • Q Brian - Have you heard of Amazon of Mechanical Turk where you would pay a penny to $10 but- its like crowd sourcing
  • A Sherri - I think that would be an idea for development QA
  • Brian - To get people to to pay - for example we have a large group of people in 200 (his old co-workers) I could point them to
    to the link
  • A Sherri - Interesting thought - keep in mind for future tasks
  • AI Brian will ask Jim Cimino to review the questionnaire and ask the same questions Sherri provided to Ulli.
  • AI THE ORWG will ask their qualified peers at their institutions to review the questionnaire and answer the templated questions - (use the questions Brian will send out) to go through the rest of the
  • AI* Brian will create a template - generalized question list from Sherri the one used for Ulli and email it to the group.

Roadmap Feedback

  • Brian reviewed the feedback script from the Domain WS facilitators (https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/x/dIIFB)
  • The were 2 main Goals: Test script on Domain WS Facilitators and Can we talk to their community.
  • conclusion- each WS has different needs- we may need to tailor a script-
  • Original plans has changed on how to go forward and they all said it would not be appropriate to go through the entire WS.
  • The answers to the questions are summarized in the table (wiki)
  • Sherri - but there is a contradiction to use just Redlex.
  • You talked about value sets and creation - Elliot knew what I was talking about
  • TBPT - we need some easy things - I don't want you to tell me there are these options
    just tell me what to use.
  • Sherri - I have talked to them about that before and the EVS folks may need to help them - we have to look what they want more closely.
  • We probably should write down there use cases and see how we could help them - Maybe people can look over the notes and create some action items
  • AI- Everyone review the Roadmap feedback notes (https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/x/dIIFB) - then next week we can brain storm and create Action Items
    from the feedback.

Action Items

Assigned To

Description

Due Date

Brian Davis

create a template - generalized question list (Sherri used for Ulli)

1/12/2012

Brian Davis

Brian will send Jim Cimino and others a Generalized Question document on the NCBO Portal Questionaire

1/19/2012

ORWG Participants

Review the Roadmap feedback notes ( https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/x/dIIFB ) -next week we can create Action Items to move forward with the Domain WS

1/19/2012

Trish Whetzel, Hua Min and Other ORWG Participants

Send their qualified peers the Generalized Questionaire Document  and provide their feedback

1/19/2012

  • No labels