October 23, 2015, 1 PM EST

Attendees

Steering Group Members

Jon Corson-Rikert (star), Melissa Haendel, Eric Meeks, Andi Ogier, Julia Trimmer, Alex Viggio

(star)= note taker

Ex officio

 debra hanken kurtz, Graham Triggs, Mike Conlon, Jonathan Markow

Regrets

 Paul Albert, Kristi Holmes, Dean B. Krafft (1 of 2),  Bart Ragon (1 of 3), Robert H. McDonald (1 of 2)

Dial-In Number:  641-715-3650, Participant code: 117433#

Agenda

 
Item
Time
Facilitator
Notes
1Updates5 minAllSee below.
2Review agenda2 minAllRevise, reorder if needed
3Attribution work, support10 minMelissaPotential for VIVO support of attribution ontology work.
4In-kind contributions and membership20 minJonathanReport of steering sub-group
5VIVO Site Registry10 minMikeData entry starting. See http://duraspace.org/registry/vivo. Data will appear on the new VIVO web site w/ VIVO branding. 
6ORCID and VIVO10 minMikeFirst discussion. Draft will here https://goo.gl/Fa87xZ
7Future topics3 minAll

Harvard Profiles; how does VIVO get bigger?; webinar series; training program; rotation of Steering Group members

Notes

  1. Updates
    1. Release 1.8.1 nearing completion.  Substantial list of performance improvements and bug fixes.  See https://goo.gl/QyEg4m
    2. Release 1.9 planning starting.  See Will hold open house discussions on Imp Dev, Apps and Tools, Outreach and Engagement.  See VIVO 1.9 Release Planning
    3. As proposed by the Asset Inventory Task Force and the ontologists, the Ontology JIRAs have been moved from their own JIRA to VIVO Jira.  VIVOONT is empty and will be removed.  13 open issues previously in VIVOONT join 31 open ontology issues in VIVO.  This will improve management of the issues and identification of software issues related to ontology work.  VIVO-ISF issues are managed at GitHub.
    4. Wiki improvements.  How to pages (Benjamin Gross), Development section remodeled (Conlon and Gross), VIVO Data Management in Technical remodeled (Conlon), new page on Identifier Management (Conlon and Littman), 1.8.1 Release notes (Triggs), 1.9 Release Planning (Conlon)
  2. Review agenda
    1. Mike will link to the list of international local dial-in numbers that allow participation without an 800 number (that costs money), and check with Melissa and Kristi to see if that approach will work
  3. Attribution work and support (Melissa) – Potential for VIVO support of attribution ontology work
    1. Pursuing engagement with a potential funder – in final negotiations for a project to develop ontology models that would include VIVO-ISF but not be exclusive to that
    2. Recruiting input on models developed as pilots and test applications
    3. Potential for development of the models using workshops and hackathons
    4. Pilot is easy for VIVO; we're in a conversation about evolving the ontology and the software already
      1. And it gets complex when changes to the ontology require rewriting the triples – decisions will have to be made here with Steering
      2. So we can't pre-commit to incorporating changes we don't know about
      3. And we can expect that changes will eventually make their way into our production software
      4. In the meantime we can certainly pilot changes, but some may not be realistically realizable in the software
    5. We don't need a letter, just assent of this group – the goal is to have an attribution standard that works with a variety of systems
      1. Having VIVO involved all the way through will be very helpful and likely influence how things are designed so that they can be implementable
      2. Will use ontology improvements in the SciENCV work, and hopefully ORCID will follow suit
      3. We'll invite VIVO community members to all the workshops, and there may be funds for travel
    6. If what is being proposed is more roles and attributions beyond our current, but following the same pattern, that's relatively easy
    7. The model we have now in VIVO-ISF is consistent with the PROV model; less so with SCORO; but is probably very close to what will emerge
      1. Might be more intermediate subclasses to help navigation
      2. And we've been talking about the ways for high-level classes to have numeric and human-readable URIs – not everywhere but perhaps for the attribution portion of the model
    8. Will have a blog entry about the new SciENCV project, and would appreciate help in deciding what to focus on for this announcement.
    9. Steering assented support for the proposed work
  4. In-kind contributions and membership (Jonathan) – Report of steering sub-group
    1. What kind of policy will best support VIVO in terms of encouraging people to make in-kind contributions?
    2. Ideally there would be a DuraSpace-wide policy that would be as consistent as possible across projects since many member organizations participate in more than one project
    3. There's presently an option to contribute half an FTE to the project as a way to be on the Leadership Committee (but this does not current confer membership status)
      1. It's very difficult for institutions to commit half an FTE, even when assembled from more than 1 person's time
      2. And that is clearly worth more than $20K, so why does that level of in-kind contribution  not confer membership status
    4. And we don't want to discourage financial contributions, since we're always short on those
    5. The subcommittee has met and has an idea to float
      1. Maybe we can say, if you become a bronze member and add a .25 FTE commitment reporting to the project, you get to raise one or more levels for the year
      2. The numbers and level jumping would have to be worked out, but concept is to require some money to enter membership and then allow stepping up to a higher level
    6. And another suggestion that it's not just developers, but ontologists and other kinds of leadership roles (leadership roles only?)
    7. The subcommittee notes that this will require some degree of administration
      1. e.g., does being on a conference committee count, and how do you measure relative tasks and time commitments
    8. Was there any consideration of the relative cost of talent (e.g., a student programmer, vs. a trained ontologist)
      1. student workers have an uneven level of quality and reliability, but can also find variation in professional staff – has to be some judgement and probably some arbitrariness in terms of standards
      2. the key to success is active management so the work is fun and people stay engaged; some people may have to be let go
      1. That's hard to do – our interactions with people are thin and we're not present where the work is being done
    9. In principle a good approach to have the commitment of a starter dollar contribution
      1. Important to clarify that this means under direction of the project
      2. And we may encourage a trial period
    10. We might have a shopping list of what we need – this particular role at this level of commitment constitutes a bump in membership
      1. Some tasks can be evaluated at the end; some just need to happen – if we solicit a conference program chair, that has to happen
  5. VIVO site registry (Mike) – Data entry starting. See http://duraspace.org/registry/vivo. Data will appear on the new VIVO web site w/ VIVO branding
    1. There is such a thing now; DuraSpace has maintained a site registry for Fedora, DSpace, and DuraCloud for some time
    2. With the new website we have moved forward with having VIVO sites listed in the site registry
      1. One database fronted in Drupal – fronted in different ways to the DuraSpace and VIVO websites
    3. Can filter with facets
    4. But we don't have good contact information for our sites – don't have a person or email address in any centralized way
      1. This should help significantly with that issue
    5. Kristi Searle is putting in what she has, but we will ask people to look at their registry entry and provide updates to her
      1. There is some contact name information in http://vivo.vivoweb.org
      2. Jon will set Mike up with a login with admin rights so that he can run a SPARQL query
  6. ORCID and VIVO (Mike) – First discussion. Draft will here https://goo.gl/Fa87xZ
    1. ORCID is at the other end of the spectrum from VIVO as a profile system – a centralized model with a small data model, in contrast to VIVO, but it can function as a profile system of last resort
    2. And it is a very important identifier – everyone should have an ORCID iD - and that helps the development of the scholarly ecosystem
    3. The statement is a short draft (edited during the call)
    4. We want this for our own community, to clarify the relationship between ORCID and VIVO after the Nature article, but would also to publicize this as a statement that captures the synergy of our two organizations
      1. Likely to be a blog post on the VIVO blog that we then reference in VIVO updates and to our Leadership Group
      2. Dean had offered that Simeon Warner review what we wrote to be sure it's clear from the ORCID perspective
  7. Other topics
    1. Stony Brook has not renewed their institutional involvement with VIVO – there may still be reseach-level involvement
      1. Not sure what the implications for long-term hosting of the UMLS vocabulary service – it's not currently running
  8. Future topics
    1. Harvard Profiles
    2. how does VIVO get bigger?
    3. webinar series
    4. training program
    5. rotation of Steering Group members

Action Items

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





All content on the LYRASIS Wiki is licensed under the CC BY (Attribution) license, unless otherwise noted.