Meeting Minutes 20080919 Lysters8

From NAMIC Wiki
Revision as of 18:25, 19 September 2008 by Lysterp (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Home < Meeting Minutes 20080919 Lysters8

Back to the 2008/09/19 Meeting Page

Peter Lysters Top 8 Action Items (August 2008)

The following 8 action items are derivatives of the NCBC AHM and are required before a formal release of Biositemaps/BRO 1.0.

1. Debrief meeting by tiger team

2. What remains to be done with the Biositemaps and BRO2.1 definition prior to their release?

3. Consumer/Authoring Tools for Biositemaps and BRO

This is what is needed is a light-weight, agile, robust and functional library to make the new RDF-based Biositemaps usable by other external resources (including, but not limited to iTools):

  • Consumption/Interpretation of biositemaps corpus
    • General User
      • Viewers (Browser, graphical, customized) (e.g., iTools)
        • Individual resource Explorers
        • Compendium of Resources
      • Mining, comparison, discovery of CompBio Resources
    • Expert User (e.g., iTools)
      • Reader/Parsers
      • API
  • Authoring/Generation of biositemaps and BRO
    • General User
      • Entry/Update Forms (Browser, graphical, customized)
      • Individual resource Explorers
    • Expert User
      • Writer/Parsers/Crawlers/Finders
      • API
      • Resourceome Integration/Interoperability
  • Timeline for BioPortal to allow browsing/searching Biositemap tools tagged/identified with BRO entries

4. We should get members from each of the centers on the tiger team

5. What remains to be done with the Biositemaps website and/or dissemination prior to release?

6. Should the Biositemaps white paper be updated? It still refers to an xml format

  • We need to make a collective decision if we tightly couple Biositemaps and BRO2.1 (and subsequent versions). Do these become one-and-the-same? I recommend we keep these concepts separate, synergistic and interoperable -- according with the general philosophy that compartmentalized resources, where each component can easily and efficiently be swapped with another (functionally equivalent) component, typically have broader appeal, longer shelf-life and function better.
  • Biositemaps make more sense as a concept and an infrastructure, rather than one specific implementation. If BRO and Biositemaps are "conceptually merged" and the "tiger team" decides to revise the (old) Biositemaps white-paper, the (new) manuscript title should be specific and include "RDF-based Biositemaps using Biomedical Resourceome Ontology". Again, I personally favor the distributed & decentralized approach to the (general) Biositemaps framework. If this is the approach the team decides to take, we may need two white-papers that emphasize "interoperability" rather than "standardization"!

7. How/when to approach other groups regarding harmonization (yes, that is the first time I have put that word in writing) and adoption of Biositemaps/BRO 1.0?

  • This depends on the answer of the Biositemaps/RDF-BRO synergies questions above. I would not widely announce anything that is not 98% functional. We are certainly close, though.

8. Next Steps beyond 2.1?

Back to the 2008/09/19 Meeting Page