OBI Developers Call - 18Apr2007 Agenda: -Update on discussion on representation of definition_source/citation -Branch report - volunteers? -Vote on representation of ontology authors using dc:creator tag, 1 per author - All -Vote on information re:representing advisors - All Participants: Trish Whetzel (TW), Allyson Lister (AL), Chris Stoeckert(CS), Bill Bug (BB), Tina Boussard (TB), Daniel Schober (DS), Gilberto Fragoso (GF), Alan Ruttenberg (AR), Ryan Brinkman (RB) Excused: Liju Fan, Helen Parkinson, Jennifer Fostel, Bjoern Peters =-=-=-=-=-=-= -TW - Update on discussion on representation of definition_source The representation of instances used as the definition_source was discussed at the Coordinators call in March. It was decided that in the official file representing OBI, that this information would not be represented as instances. For those that are using semantic web frameworks, the code that Alan developed can be used to convert the string representation used as a value for the definition_citation annotation property for use in semantic frameworks. AR - why is this a Coordinators decision? TW - this is one of the problems with the current structure of the OBI Groups Reg document, where I believe that it states that the Coordinators make BB - this also came up with MIO AR - we decided what to capture, but needed to make it accessible BB - we committed to use the string tag AR - there are 2 issues, what to record CS - the reason I view this as a Coordinators issue is WRT to where we should place our effort, it seemed to be additional work to get this implemented TB - is is easier to capture as a string TW - there was additional work needed to figure out where to AR - there was a script to do this and check the syntax and convert to the instance representation. this would be done by OBI itself, not needed on an individual community basis. CS - there would be two versions of OBI AR - BB - then those that use the semantic framework can access this information AR/TW - i think that the strings that do not pass the syntax checker, then these need to be fixed. CS - if there are strings that do not meet the spec of the string syntax then these need to go back to the developers, submitter who submitted the term. We don't want to put extra effort on the communities. AR - e.g. the script checks if there is a valid PMID that exists for what was submitted BB - implies that there is a specific task for the editors to review, syntax can be fixed by editors and others can go back to the term submitter AR - so there will be a second official version of OBI that will be maintained by Alan DS - can we put this agreed upon policy on the wiki TW - yes, this is on my To Do list and is on the MinimalMetadata wiki page AR - there is the MinimalMetadata page, a link from definition_source and then there will be a page to display the instance representation. -Branch report - volunteers? AR - ProtocolApplication Update -Goal getting to Top Level and a few subclasses. Worked to clean-up the file, removed deleted_classes, restrictions etc. Added new properties, getting BB - removed deprecated_classes? are we looking to send out a version vetted by the reasoner? AR - we agreed to at the workshop to remove the deleted_classes since they were interfering with the reasoner TW - the removal of these classes RB - Instrument Update starting reviewing the master list of instrument terms and beginning to review what is appropriate to this branch and what needs to be sent to other branches AL - there should be more terms from the PSI groups after their Spring meeting next week RB - DataTransformation Branch TB - Richard S sent terms, but it seemed as though the terms did not fit RB - suggest to re-propose the terms with definitions and the hierarchy and see if that will help the DT branch what the terms mean TB - have gone through all the terms as to whether the terms that are appropriate for this branch CS - for those that are not appropriate, what are being done with those? TB - will send to the obi-devel list with the suggested branch CS - why not send to the branch they seem to belong to BB - if there is a way to get the terms into the term tracker, batch process, then we can go to that RB - not at this level and easier to send via email BB - Role how to deal with Role in the context of BFO. AR has proposed some ideas to BFO and looking to see what needs to be in another branch. discussed a few issues that are in the process of being resolved. examined role in a certain type of experiment BB - Function getting this set-up and how to interact with people from GO as to where different aspects of 'Function' is best covered. this function as it relates to investigational detail. -Vote on information re:representing advisors - All TW - do we want to list the advisors in the OBI.owl file? DS - yes, why not CS - there have been active advisors and those that have not, although all are contacted on the advisors list etc. would be nice to run it by them before listing them. AR - would be nice if there is metric for including people,e.g. as an advisor? CS - this might now be a chance to ask the advisors this question. TW - not sure is this information is appropriate for a wiki CS - responsiveness of advisor to email discussions AR - a wiki page would be useful to organize this information Action Items - add wiki page about the expectations BB - are all the developers, advisors all in the same tag? TW - no, their affiliation is in the dc:contributor -Vote on representation of ontology authors using dc:creator tag, 1 per author - All -1 person/tag - OK to all -add in new developers - yes, Action Item - add information with 1 dc:creator/author and svn commit this file