Changes between Version 9 and Version 10 of OpenBioSemantics

Show
Ignore:
Timestamp:
2008/02/12 14:08:30 (10 years ago)
Author:
r.bruskiewich
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • OpenBioSemantics

    v9 v10  
    1111= Summary of Day 1 Discussions (11th Feb. Afternoon !AcademyHills) =  
    1212 
    13 == Preliminary Observations: Framing the Problem == 
     13== Observations: Framing the Problem == 
    1414 
    1515Cathedral versus the Bazaar: the global community of bioinformatics are struggling with the issue of semantics, and various formalisms are currently being used to capture such semantics, i.e. 
     
    3131It is generally agreed that semantics is a hard community problem ("herding the cats") but can be made tractable by "divide and conquer" (witness the relative success of GO and other similar ontology development communities).  Efforts should and generally are, driven by a specific set of practical tasks in the community, on an "as needed" basis. The expectation to create a consensual "mother-of-all-biological-data-models" is most likely unrealistic, but can some agreement on the general principles, process and tools of semantic collaboration be achieved? 
    3232 
     33== Preliminary Questions == 
     34 
     35 1. Can a formal community strategy (akin to that in successful ontology consortia) for the specification and evolution of open bio semantics be specified and endorsed? 
     36 2. Would the objective of interoperability between !OpenBio*, web services protocols and related initiatives be well served by the specification of a common consensual "platform independent" domain model (or set of domain models)?  
     37   * If so, how should this best be specified? Can an intersection set of !OpenBio* semantics be extracted and formalized (i.e. in UML or OWL)? 
     38   * How might it be used directly as a focal point for harmonization of !OpenBio* API's, web service protocols, etc. 
     39   * Can the task be partitioned down to size to make it tractable, yet large enough to be useful (achieve "buy-in")? Can guidelines for modular (community specific) code/data type modules be stipulated? 
     40   
     41= Summary of Day 2 Discussions (12th Feb. AIST/CBRC) =  
    3342 
    3443