Changes between Version 3 and Version 4 of OpenBioSemantics

Show
Ignore:
Timestamp:
2008/02/12 12:01:20 (6 years ago)
Author:
r.bruskiewich
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • OpenBioSemantics

    v3 v4  
    99= Summary of Day 1 Discussions (11th Feb. Afternoon !AcademyHills) =  
    1010 
    11 == Preliminary Observations == 
     11== Preliminary Observations: Framing the Problem == 
    1212 
    1313Cathedral 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. 
    1414 
     15 * '''Formal Code Implementations:''' expressed as a body of computer code (e.g. [http://www.open-bio.org/wiki/Main_Page OpenBio*] initiatives) 
    1516 * '''Object models:''' expressed in UML (e.g. OMG style "Model Driven Architecture" using Unified Modeling Language (UML)) 
    1617 * '''Ontology initiatives:''' 
     
    1920 * '''XML Schema driven languages:''' EMBRACE WS-I, !BioCase, Tapir, etc. 
    2021 * '''Common Database Schemata and Queries:''' BioSQL, [http://www.gmod.org Generic Model Organism (GMOD) Chado], [http://www.icis.cgiar.org International Crop Information System], etc. 
     22 
     23At this meeting, a general desire is being expressed to achieve interoperability, at least, between OpenBio* initiatives generally, and more specifically, between OpenBio* and web services protocols like BioMoby and EMBRACE. 
     24 
     25An addition targeted need is simply to harmonize specific ontology pertinent to key interoperability technology. A specific example of such a need (from M. Wilkinson) is the harmonization of [http://www.biomoby.org BioMoby] and [http://www.mygrid.ac.uk myGrid] service ontology. 
     26 
     27It 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). 
     28