NIH | National Cancer Institute | NCI Wiki  

Error rendering macro 'rw-search'

null

Versions Compared

Old Version 7

changes.mady.by.user Unknown User (wileyal)

Saved on

compared with

New Version 8

changes.mady.by.user Unknown User (meadch)

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

November 22 Version
Under definitions, Executive Decision Makers, the document mentions adopting or adapting caGrid or SI 2.0 “or both.” Earlier in the document, it discusses the two as if they are inseparable. Needs clarification on how they might be used independently. This is probably covered in the discussion about “just enough semantics” (presumably including none), but it is not clear how users, developers, etc. can use caGrid and SI 2.0 independently.
Resolution: Charlie Mead  A given organization can adopt a caGrid 2.0-compliant service by simply using the code developed by a CBIIT-funded project.  Alternatively, it could "adopt" a given specification at the PIM level (for example) and then "adapt" that specification by building its own PSM specification and, in follow-on, its own specification.

caGrid 2.0 and SI 2.0 are not independent from the perspective of caGrid since there is a run-time instance of SI 2.0 that forms the "semantic stack" that sites "on top of and is integrated with" the underlying caGrid 2.0 "tech stack."  However, in addition to this run-time instance of SI 2.0 in the context of caGrid 2.0, another SI 2.0 instance could provide semantic services -- e.g. terminology services (authoring, usage, etc.) -- to non-caGrid 2.0 customers.  In this sense, the SI 2.0 can be viewed as "independent" from caGrid 2.0.