Changes between Version 3 and Version 4 of OpenBioSemantics

Timestamp:

2008/02/12 12:01:20 (17 years ago)

Author:

r.bruskiewich

Comment:

--

OpenBioSemantics

@@ -9 +9 @@
 = Summary of Day 1 Discussions (11th Feb. Afternoon !AcademyHills) = 
 
-== Preliminary Observations ==
+== Preliminary Observations: Framing the Problem ==
 
 Cathedral 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.
 
+ * '''Formal Code Implementations:''' expressed as a body of computer code (e.g. [http://www.open-bio.org/wiki/Main_Page OpenBio*] initiatives)
  * '''Object models:''' expressed in UML (e.g. OMG style "Model Driven Architecture" using Unified Modeling Language (UML))
  * '''Ontology initiatives:'''
@@ -19 +20 @@
  * '''XML Schema driven languages:''' EMBRACE WS-I, !BioCase, Tapir, etc.
  * '''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.
+
+At 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.
+
+An 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.
+
+It 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).
+