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

Special meeting to discuss OMV
Date/Time: Friday, October 21, 2011; 1-2 PM ET
Lead: Sherri De Coronado

Attendees

Stuart Turner, Sherri De Coronado, Brian Davis, Grace Stafford, Rick Kiefer, Larry Wright, Harold Solbrig, Asun Gomez Perez, Raul Palma, Riki Ohira

Notes

Questions:

  • What is your intention with OMV as a standard (e.g. take to ISO to make an ISO Standard)?
    • If you intend to maintain it or take to ISO, who is/will be working on that?
      • They are maintaining OMV extensions and changes in extensions but not in core (stable for 2 years) and continue development
      • They have had discussions with OMG and presentation on OMV; started to do additional work with extensions. Plan to take core and get community feedback and see what can be put through a standardization process; although specific standard organization has not been identified yet.
      • Q: Regarding extensions; do you have a good understanding of what extensions are out there and who will/is maintaining them? A: Extensions are in the context of the Neon project for mapping, linguistic resources (information available in soureforge: http://omv2.sourceforge.net/)
      • Q: Are you including the NCBO extension used for BioPortal as an OMV extension? A: Raul was not aware of the NCBO extension until recently. More clarity around process for proposing extensions to OMV is needed.
      • It was Raul's understanding that BioPortal was using a customized version of the core and not a true extension. May help to understand what the long term goal is for BioPortal to understand intent of extension and use of OMV to harmonize with NCBO's efforts.
    • If yes, the SC 32 Data Management and Interchange, WG2 Metadata Standards is probably the right place, extending the 19763-3 Metamodel for registration of ontologies is probably the right standard to extend
    • Perhaps CBIIT and caBIG could contribute to providing more details if planning to extend as a standard
    • We could submit a proposal for consideration either at the interim meeting next week or the Plenary in 2012 if OMV is interested?
      • ISO 19763 may be too narrow for inclusion of OMV and CTS 2 may satisfy the needs of an OMV standard (for harmonization, etc.). Would be good to do a comparison of these as well as “views" models
      • For the BioPortal customization, it would be good to see what those customizations encompass and see if we can come up with a reuse of the content already developed. Natasha who is involved in OMV and BioPortal would be good point of contact to ensure collaboration of work.
  • What is the extent of OMV adoption? Is it widely used?
    • They are now in process to collect information produced by OMV and published in journals to see what systems are using it (Literature Search and investigation of use of OMV). BioPortal and Watson are the primary users. The other users are small systems like Omega and other projects from Neon, but not sure how many people are actually using (at the individual level).
    • Neon plug-ins are being used for a lot of different activities; some are using it only for mapping, identify ontologies, etc. It is important to note that there are many users and they may have a specific purpose for using OMV.
    • Q: For the known implementations (like BioPortal), which is a single environment (not distributed), did you evaluate OMV for use in distributed open environments? A: Oyster system is maintained and using OMV. Oyster originally was a single system, but with the Neon project moved to distributed environment for Watson, but as mentioned previously, it is difficult to know who is actually using it.
    • Comment: Oyster was conceived as system to provide ontologies repository and not necessarily evaluating and reviewing ontologies, but we realized that there was a need for a federated system to have evaluation and review. Onthology was developed for this evaluation purpose, but we learned there was a bottleneck in evaluation, which resulted in less ontologies being included (2005). Watson in Neon toolkit was the project that moved forward with OMV.
  • What are the compliance criteria for using OMV (e.g. How can we tell if we are adherent to the OMV standard, or whether we are “out of compliance”)?
    • Q: If OMV will move forward for standardization, like ISO or some other organization what does that mean for the CTS2 standard? A: The CTS2 standard touches on issues that are different than OMV scope. CTS2 aligns with mapping, etc. Within the structure itself, the XML tags are specific to CTS2. One representation form CTS2 is committed to doing this year, is representations of CTS2 in canonical RDF. This will be looking at standards like SKOS, Dublin Core, etc. A lot of the work was taken from OMV, but we omitted a few tags that OMV had. Where there are overlapping tags we tended to use Dublin Core or SKOS, which are compatible with OMV.
  • What implementations around the world are using OMV?
    • Please refer to "What is the extent of OMV adoption?" for information about implementations of OMV
  • Do you have a list of published paper/conference proceedings that mention use of OMV?
    • There is a list of papers that Raul and colleagues have published and some that others have referenced that Stuart Turner put together that we should use
    • Book of Onntology Engineering has a chapter of metadata and expands on OMV; Book's full title is "Ontology Engineering in a Networked World" (released beginning of 2012). It will have a full overview of OMV (core and extensions) and how it is and should be used.
    • Stuart Turner: The ORWG plans to include extensions we know of on the ORWG wiki and can share information we both gather on this information
    • Sherri: Another extension of OMV is CTS2 which is an OMG beta-standard.
    • Harold Solbrig: CTS2 spec uses XML and they plan to have an RDF rendering with plans to draw tags from OMV. One of the challenges with CTS2 was dealing with versioning, Raul also expressed interest in this topic.
    • Stuart Turner: We were looking at components of OMV that overlap with other models, like Dublin core and FOAF. One challenge is trying to determine how much do we modify OMV to map to other models and how much are really extensions. We also looked at ISO.
    • Raul: This is a very interesting point. Replacing some OMV vocabularies with other more widely used vocabularies, like Dublin Core, etc. We should make a plan on how to proceed with these kinds of topics around changes/recommendations to use/replace properties in OMV with other vocabularies. Raul and colleagues working on OMV want to collaborate and support the update of OMV for more formal standardization of OMV.
    • Stuart: The Ontolog community has been working with groups. They have sub-meetings on metadata evaluation.
    • Sherri: Our short term goal is to publish a smaller core of the OMV elements for a specific list of terminologies between NCBO and NCI and make them available to the community to get some feedback on usefulness of the ontology information. We hope that if we pointedly ask specific members we can get some feedback to decide how much to extend the model. We have agreed that the best people to submit the ontologies/terminologies are the actual creators or publishers, but we also want to evaluate NCBO's community feedback function (rating).
    • Raul: We can work in parallel to identify harmonizing and extending OMV with other models, etc. for use in this ORWG efforts as well as the implementation efforts of this small core set of elements.
    • Stuart: We spent most of our time evaluating OMV and trying to define community feedback; we are planning to leverage BioPortal and rating system. We are still trying to get a good handle on evaluation aspect; successes, etc.
  • How is OMV currently managed, and what is the level of active involvement in that process?
    • Q: What is the structure of OMV; meetings, involvement? A: OMV is primarily worked on by colleagues who have been involved and engaged since 2003. Meetings are ;ad hoc and committee meetings are scheduled as needed to address issues. Those working on OMV have been working on projects from 2003-2010 that included some aspect of OMV and meet to discuss and resolve issues related to OMV for those specific projects.
  • What plans do you have for the future development and direction of OMV; changes to current version?
    • Started to do additional work with extensions; identifying extensions already developed and implemented, and where there is value in creating extensions. Plan to take core and get community feedback and see what can be put through a standardization process; although specific standard organization has not been identified yet.
  • Next Steps:
    • Plan to keep in touch; recommendation to appoint liaison with OMV (Stuart Turner) and explicitly communicate and get agreement on this
    • Look at what all the groups are doing; NCBO, CTS2, etc.to identify overlap areas of harmonization, etc.
    • Use project plan to identify next steps and what we need to do
    • If OMV is interested in moving forward for standardization, this group can help in that process

Action Items

Assigned To

Description

Due Date

Raul Palma

Send the chapter on ontology metadata in the "Ontology Engineering in a Networked World" to the ORWG

10/27/2011

Stuart Turner

Provide link of Ontology metadata evaluation efforts to Riki for distribution to Raul and colleagues

10/24/2011

Riki Ohira

Send links to relevant information to Raul and colleagues including: Comparison table, ORWG sites, notes,

10/24/2011

  • No labels