| 41 | | = Summary of Day 2 Discussions (12th Feb. AIST/CBRC) = |
| | 41 | = Summary of Day 2 (12th Feb. AIST/CBRC) = |
| | 42 | |
| | 43 | * Group facilitator caught up with capturing day 1 proceedings (above) from poster notes. |
| | 44 | * It was decided to use UML (rather than OWL/RDF) to initially document object models in !OpenBio* projects for further community discussion on shared semantics, given that these models are coming from reverse engineered "object oriented" software (which UML is well suited to describe). Such a model could, in the future, be expressed as an OWL/RDF platform specific implementation, for more general computability (i.e. in Moby 2.0?). |
| | 45 | * Moving forward this idea that a shared domain model might facilitate interoperability in !OpenBio* projects and web services, Richard Holland and Richard Bruskiewich spent part of the afternoon of day 2 drawing [BioJavaDomainModel UML diagrams reflecting the BioJava object data types], and started tracking down (over email) a !BioPerl UML model that is rumoured to be available. |
| | 46 | |
| | 47 | = Summary of Day 3 (13th Feb. AIST/CBRC) = |
| | 48 | |
| | 49 | * No specific ontology team discussions convened but theme specific discussions underway (e.g. with Glycoinformatics and Phyloinformatics teams). |
