Stuart Turner, Sherri DeCoronado, Rick Kiefer, Hua Min, Larry Wright, Jyoti Pathak, Mike Riben, Bob Freimuth, Mark Musen, Stuart Bell, Natasha Noy, Riki Ohira
- We should come up with a core set of properties to move forward
- We are currently looking at NCBO's model
- Are we reviewing NCBO's model more than reviewing OMV?
- Goal of reaching consensus document or statement about using OMV as a group
- [Natasha]: It is important to distinguish between comments/feedback from author versus the community
- Q: How do you track information coming from the community/author? A: When you're logged in, it will show if the comment comes from user versus the community.
- In the next few weeks we should decide what core properties we should include and how to implement it on a small scale
- NCBO is already using OMV to store ontology metadata; some fields are required, some are not
- We have not found any big gaps with the OMV information and we should be as aligned as possible
- We need to highlight issues that fall within metadata model and those that are implementation specific and keep them separately
- We would need to highlight the issues that would prevent us from moving forward. The table of comments is a start
- One key issue is that is was difficult to be as complete as possible. Open Ontology Repository (OR) is using NCBO as an effort to share
- OR uses the same metadata as NCBO. They don't have content that NCBO or CBIIT would not have.
- NeOn is finished as of last winter; not a real standard
- The group will plan to discuss the issues with OMV properties and if not come up with a resolution, at least an approach to begin resolving
- Other major component is peer review
- The Group - Review OMV test reviews and provide input/feedback on the OMV properties on the OMV Comment page.
- Natasha Noy - Continue to follow up with OMV to get the status (they have not been responsive)