Date/Time: Thursday, January 6, 2011; 12-1 PM ET
Stuart Turner, Hua Min, Bob Freimuth, Stuart Bell, Rick Kiefer, Natasha Sefcovic
- Stuart went through the "mind map" to lay out all the topics for discussion and their hierarchies
- The mind map is focused on things related to ontologies. Broken into two sections, metadata (metamodels) and collaborations
- Uses Free Mind to develop the mind map, an open source tool
- It's easier than a concept map because you don't have to deal with relationships, but only hierarchies, which the group can discuss
- Allows for hyper links with the actual resources
- Green highlights importance
- Ontologies are grouped into biomedical ontologies and general ontologies
- Sherri and Stuart are working on Provenance
- We need to look at licensing IC
- Red arrows next to text indicate that there is a link
- Linkage arrows can be drawn to show relationships between items in the mind map
- The mind map is clickable so that you can see the forest as a whole or you can focus in on the trees
- We likely need to prune, but we need to get get our arms around the big picture
- From our previous work this summer, we need to finish going through the OMV comments and the table that we were working on, review we did, and summarize what we need to do.
- We need to:
- Finalize our recommendations about OMV fit.
- Reach consensus on versioning. BioPortal has a method to mitigate versioning, using an ontology view construct. We'll also look at CTS2.
- We have 2 months left to complete the paper
- Harold, Rick, and Stuart will get together in 2 weeks to discuss CTS2.
- Grace is working on identifiers and OIDs.
- Stuart T. is working on licensing (IP, content, source, etc.)
- We are not sure how important workflow is to us or how to incorporate workflow modeling. We should all think about this.
- We are behind on evaluation methods.
- Do we want to do Amazon style ratings?
- Stuart has some papers on this.
- This ratings need to be within a context (for example, realm, domain, jurisdictional, regulatory, etc.). For example: Clinical Sciences or Life Sciences.
- We would also need to consider how do you trust particular reviewers. Trust fabric issues are dependent on provenance and authoritative related metadata, etc.
- Can these ratings be federated?
- If we allow users to write ratings, will be have a critical mass of explicit, user written reviews?
- So, implicit ratings might be better for us.
- We need to think about scope for evaluation since it is a large area
- Stuart Turner, Harold Solbrig, and Rick Kiefer - Will meet the week of Jan. 17th to discuss CTS2.
- Stuart Turner - Will send out a doodle poll to aid in scheduling the meeting mentioned in #1.
- Stuart - Will reach out to the Ontolog Group. Maybe Peter Yim or someone from that group could give a 20 minute overview during one of our calls.
- Stuart - Will reach out to Trish regarding community discourse and metrics for this discourse.
- Stuart - Will work on the draft.
- Stuart - Will review what the group has done on the review of the overall OMV Core Model and BioPortal Extensions.
- The core authors - Will meet for 2 hours before next Thursday to review what the group has done on the review of the overall OMV Core Model and BioPortal Extensions. This will be presented to the overall group next week.
- Stuart - Will send out a doodle poll for the meeting in #7.