- Updates, intros, review agenda
- Ontology Interest Group Google Folder: http://bit.ly/2EDX9am
Needs a sub-folder for the new ontology work
ACTION: Decision to move old files to Archive and use the existing one for current work.
- CTSA Ontology workshop: http://ncorwiki.buffalo.edu/index.php/Ontology_for_Precision_Medicine:_From_Genomes_to_Public_Health#Organizers
Mike attended, with about 40 other people
Talked to Chris Stoeckert (U Penn) who works on IAO - they are interested in working with us
Oliver He who runs Ontobee and other tools
Janna Hastings (Babraham Institute, Cambridge, UK) speaking on Can ontologies help overcome the impasse in mental health research?
OBO is looking at the things that everyone needs, like w3c time ontology, FOAF, etc. but that aren’t currently covered by an OBO ontology
OBO Foundry has recognized that there is a need to represent foundational terms which are between BFO and VIVO. We use FOAF, which is not OBO Foundry, we put hierarchy and a link to OBO foundry. They want to put a layer which are not in anyone's domain so we all represent what is only in our domains. They are interested in w3c ontology, dates, and other ontologies.
There is a related effort, the common core ontologies (https://github.com/CommonCoreOntology/CommonCoreOntologies)
VIVO - we shouldn't be in the business of creating classes and properties that are not in our domains.
How do we engage with them. Get on firstname.lastname@example.org so we can interact with them and align our efforts.
- Getting the language right regarding new ontology work:
- Version 2 of the ontology?
- Refactoring, rewriting, improving?
We have been discussing the idea of the significant work on the vivo ontology. How do we describe this? As a new ontology - VIVO. It wasn't actively developed because it was constrained by the software. Now we want to separate development concerns from ontology concerns. The VIVO ontology should represent the domain of scholarship and it can be used by a software that wants to use it. Should we rename it? Does VIVO Ontology 2.0 sound logical? Everyone agreed with calling it VIVO Ontology 2.0.
- Trello https://trello.com/invite/b/L1b80jtm/02182347f8d5d76dc1f9c47507cae0f6/version-2-ontology
We need a place to organize our work, such as the foundational ideas about our work. Trello seams like a good place to park these ideas. For example there are some things that VIVO has never talked about like impact. There is no ontology to represent that. Also, "patent" - we should have a domain model for patent otherwise we won’t be able to put a patent on person's profile.
VI: how do we use Trello in synergy with JIRA? Eventually we can put links to all Trello cards to relevant JIRA tickets.
MC: will talk to Andrew Woods about how to use kanban boards in JIRA.
- Covering the sub-domains
Somebody should have the ontology for journals, for organizations, etc. In OpenVIVO we moved to a common vocabulary but we should think carefully about the diagram and what we think are common subdomains. Things at the bottom layer are things lots of people think, work on, and talk about.
In VIVO we are about people in the center. Accomplishments - we are weak on that. We want to add performances, more ephemeral things that people have on their resumes. How best to accomplish this?
Regarding organizations ontology, ORCID, CrossRef and Thor are coming with different one than the one developed by Digital Science - GRID.
- Next call – March 21