Page History

2017.04.25

6 - Installing LexEVS 6.x CTS2 Services

closedOpen

Sprint Status

Current Sprint -  Sprint 54 (April 13, 2017 – April 26, 2017)

16X237 Agile Development - Sprint Status#16X237AgileDevelopment-SprintStatus-Sprint54

• Tracy mentioned that there was a CTRP meeting on Monday.
  • A request from that team is to get back limited data from the lexevs- service (instead of the entire entity).  Just FULLSYN data as an example.

• Testing update
• Install LexEVS admin
• Moving up the tiers
• URI Resolver (Java 1.8)CTS2 Deployment ticket for Dev

Discussion Points:

Decision Points:

• Cory to create ticket to deploy CTS2 on DEV blade.
• Cory to create a PTE for installing LexEVS admin.
  

Value Set Architecture Discussion

Discussion Points: 

• Working on scheduling a meeting to include everyone to attend.
• We looked quickly at the value set requirements
  • Value Set Architecture
  • One requirement is to reduce errors in the workflow when loading value sets.
    

Decision Points: 

• Jacob to install URI Resolver and CTS2 in separate containers.
• Kim's browser testing looks good.
• Tracy/Rob to load the latest source and then test today.
  • Kim/Jason will test with the latest source when Tracy has completed the load.

Decision Points:

•  If everything goes well, we should be able to create a FINAL version next week.

Value Set Architecture Discussion

• Use case for OWL expressivity

Discussion Points: 

• LexEVS 6.5.1 Value Set Architecture
• We had a meeting last week and another one is scheduled for this afternoon.
• Scott asked - What is the use case that would require us to use the triple store or OWL2 API?  Do we need an OWL representation?
  • Larry suggested it could be used for concept models, role groups, and traversal.  For value sets - it was for more rich information (hierarchical)
• Are there aspects of the OWL class that can't be stored in OWL?
  • Restrictions, Anonymous nodes are not well defined in LexEVS API.
• LexEVS API performance may be an issue and a reason to move to OWL.
• Larry offered a use case: Structured organization of the role relationships in the browser. They could only separate out roles that were directly attached.
  • This is associated to reasoning and OWL.
  • This is a general coding scheme issue (not necessarily associated to value sets).
• Gilberto - We only need OWL it if we show the OWL semantics. 
  
  • Relationships without the anonymous nodes is faster.
  • In the value sets, we don't need the expressivity. 
    
  • There may be a performance penalty to navigate from a concept in a value set to another entity

Tree Extensions in 6.5

• Testing/Validation

Discussion Points:

• Kim mentioned that he verified the tree extension issues that were fixed
  • .
    

Decision Points: 

Docker - Next Steps Discussion

• Update from recent meeting

Discussion Points:

• The server is configured with Jenkins and Docker.
  • There are a few adjustments that are still needed.
• Next Steps - Meet with the the systems group and work on reusable containers that have approved NCI tech stack software
• Jacob mentioned that he has the server configured. He is working on setting up Docker.
• Phil/Wei are looking into setting up Jenkins and running the Docker script in a master/slave setup in Jenkins.
  

Decision Points:

Discussion Points:

• This has already been discussed above to some extent.
• We will need to work through more of this during our VS architecture discussion
• Scott was wondering if Gilberto was interested in the graph db in Stardog.
• Gilberto suggested that the graph db and the triple store are the same.  It's just a matter of they refer to it.
  

Decision Points:

Discussion Points:

Decision Points:

•  We will migrate Scott will coordinate with the NCI team when we plan to change the DNS settings for lexgrid.org to github.  This will be seamless to the end user.
• We will work on this over the next sprint.

Decision Points:

• .

Access to NCI Wiki Pages

• External user access
• Development Documents access

Discussion Points:

• Craig was wondering if LexES Project Documents folder and sub folders should be visible to all.
  • Larry suggested these folders should be public unless there is private information.
   

Decision Points:

• Larry requested that we check the contract to verify what is mentioned.  Does it specify that certain pages should be public?
  • Kumar will investigate what the contract contains.
• It was decided to leave it open to the public for now.
  

Deployable LexEVS Containers

• • NCI Containers for deployment

Discussion Points:

• This was discussed above.

Access to NCI Wiki Pages

• External user access

Decision Points:

LexEVS External Users

•  Interest in LexEVS Docker containers for deploymentF
• caDSR content admin
  • Run queries against LexEVS and using Python (not using LexEVS Admin)

Discussion Points:

•  Scott has sent the user in caDSR some sample code and tips on how to directly access the LexEVS DB.
• The user is working on the UMLS.  The user wants the mappings.
  • The user wants to retrieve the semantic types for certain terms and also get the mappings.
  None

Decision Points:

• Scott to send the code examples to Tracy and she will add the code to the LexEVS coding examples on the wiki.

Mayo Team

• Cory
  
  • April 28
• Scott
  
  • April 28 - May 38
• Craig

NCI

• Tracy
  • April 27
    
• Rob
• Kim