See also: IRC log
tim:most of the interesting work has been done
on swansioc - did some work on swan to align to sioc
... requests report from paolo and alex on the work so far
alex: did the sioc owl-dl alignments, map swan properties to sioc properties, and added some new classes to sioc
alex: worked mainly on the model and not on the apps, so next step is to look at scf and see how to implement the model
tim: proposed that stephane corlosquet will join in the SCF team and tim, axel polleres and john breslin will discuss this on monday
paolo: have been discussing mainly about tagging, wondering about using own qualifiers
tim: has seen a lot of the
detailed work that has come out, and thinks it is very strong,
so believes it is worthwhile to do a member submission
... requests info from ericP on how to do this
ericP: a member submission
requires a sig of at least one member of w3c
... look at the w3c TR page and you will see what a technical
report should look like
... You submit the doc, w3c looks at it and they check from a
publication perspective for format, links, etc.
... then a team comment will be returned saying "you should
look at X which is related, or should have done Y"
... The submission gets a URI, where people can refer to it as
a "defacto" standard although it is not actually a
standard
... any questions?
tim: asks if there is a typical timeline for these things?
<ericP> n.b. W3C Submissions Page
ericP: have chance to make changes before published finally
tim: is there a requirement for deployment
ericP: no, can be published before full implementation (hair brained scheme!)
tim: any other suggestions / objections to submission?
alex: three documents, one about SWAN, one about SWANSIOC and one about SIOCTypes with which SWAN is also aligned
paolo: question, if we send in three documents in the same submission, how do we submit changes in the future
ericP: If you make one submission
that is three documents, do you have to do it all over
again
... Best have an index document saying here are the three
things that are being submitted, independent pages for each
document (SWAN, SWANSIOC, SIOC Types)
... did this for previous documents (e.g. RDF) for a better
user experience
tim: Everyone comfortable with proceeding in this way?
all: no objections
tim: David Newman met with Tim in England last week, and trading slides along with info on v1.2 of the SWAN ontology
tim: quick review shows two types
of problems
... There are parts of our use cases that are similar enough to
be overlapping and defined somewhat differently
... myExp:actor and swan:Agent, and some other examples I
missed
... first instinct is to have a use case first before we go
around aligning these things
... the gaps here are the real physical experiments
... myExperiment has a notion of an experiment being a
container for computational experiments
... not focussing on things being mixed in a test tube and
centrifuging
... Tim did a sketch on how this gap could be filled
...
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG/SWANSIOC/Meetings/2008-12-12_Conference_Call?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=SWAN-myExp-Gap-Filling-Sketch.pdf
... (the integration issues are in
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG/SWANSIOC/Meetings/2008-12-12_Conference_Call?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=SWAN-myExp-Notes.rtf)
... have an Experiment superclass with info on whose it was,
conditions, when it was done, what pages in whose lab
notebook
... subclass of Physical and Computational experiments
... (the orange stuff in
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG/SWANSIOC/Meetings/2008-12-12_Conference_Call?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=SWAN-myExp-Gap-Filling-Sketch.pdf
is what would have to be built, this document is titled "A
Rough Sketch of Potential Connections between SWAN and
myExperiment Ontologies")
... this is a strawman
dave: no reason this information
couldn't be stored within a myExperiment:Experiment
... apart from that, have it all right about how SWAN and
myExperiment can interact
tim: In process of getting a
project started in Harvard that could be a source of data, a
cross-disciplinary thing with the stemcell institute regarding
medical expressions about stem cells in blood
... project would be to do analysis on this but also to create
a repository for the analysis using SCF
... would involve building a repository that would have its own
ontology that could fit in with this
... Anyone else interested in this to test out some
ideas?
... There has been work on Experimental ontologies in
Lilly?
susie: Yes, in Singapore
tim: Would welcome any involvement from experimental people, e.g. the Lilly Singapore group
matthias: May be interested in Ontology of Biomedical Investigations (OBI)
<matthias> http://obi-ontology.org/
matthias: may see the usefulness
of OBI for this use case
... International collaboration, Matthias peripherally
involved, coordinator is Alan Ruttenberg from Science Commons
(or at least one of them)
Susie: OBI would be worth linking
into, the Singapore folks found that OBI didn't meet needs at
the time but it is better to move towards an open standard
approach rather than a proprietary solution
... Alan leading charge in one part of it
... Not sure was it Susannah Saranson from EVI (sp.) who was
involved
<matthias> People involved in OBI http://obi-ontology.org/page/Consortium
Susie: Good quality people
involved, Lilly were looking for concepts that weren't in it
(Chip?) at the time
... Susanna Sansone was that person from EBI
dave: Will look at OBI and see how it ties into SWAN and myExperiment
tim: May be able to adapt what
they have, or it may be possible that there are many right
generalisations without the detailed stuff that is needed
... shouldn't be an impediment to this work
... Tim thanks matthias for making us aware of that
tim: Take a real project that is relevant and use as an initial test bed
dave: has details of a second possible testbed
tim: experimental notebook idea,
like pages is a lab book, but also include readouts
automatically
... also include chemical analysis experimental data
dave: Electronic Lab notebook,
generate plans and carry out these plans, all in RDF
... will dig up a reference
<david_newman> SmartTea, Electronic Laboratory Notebooks and User-Centred Design
ericP: Should have noticed that
since some of this is happening within the interest group, that
some of this can be done within the IG as an interest group
note
... downside is that you have to get more buy in from the
IG
... more weight in that it shows consensus from the group, and
it is easier to imagine the examination of the subject
material, as the IG would be able to assess it more readily
than a member submission
... would have to go to a Thursday HCLS meeting for
approval
ericP: and it would have more weight
ericP: More familiar with IG path, and can have older version links and latest version links, and sets of documents that are conceptually related can make use of version links to help a user navigate - helps a user to better access the relevant versions
tim: asks if ericP recommends IG
note as opposed to Member Submission
... is it the consensus that we should proceed to construct
this note
all: yes
ericP: Timeline for this?
tim: maybe February
... Next meeting on (sorry missed it)
... Discuss how to connect PhysicalExperiments to data
... Next meeting on Friday January 2nd at the same time!