View source for Meeting Minutes 20080919 Lysters8

[[SDIWG:Meeting_Minutes_20080919 | Back to the 2008/09/19 Meeting Page]]

==Peter Lysters Top 8 Action Items (August 2008)==

The following 8 action items are derivatives of the [http://meetings.nigms.nih.gov/index.cfm?event=home&ID=4095 NCBC AHM] and are required before a formal release of Biositemaps/BRO 1.0.   

=== 1. Debrief meeting by [[SDIWG:Meeting_Minutes_20080919 | tiger team]]===

=== 2. What remains to be done with the Biositemaps/BRO definition prior to its 1.0 release?===

===3. Consumer/Production Tools===
This is what is needed is a light-weight, agile, robust and functional library to make the new RDF-based Biositemaps usable by other external resources (including, but not limited to [http://iTools.ccb.ucla.edu iTools]):
* Consumption/Interpretation of biositemaps corpus
**  General User
*** Viewers (Browser, graphical, customized) (e.g., iTools)
**** Individual resource Explorers
**** Compendium of Resources
*** Mining, comparison, discovery of CompBio Resources
** Expert User (e.g., iTools)
*** Reader/Parsers
*** API
* Authoring/Generation of biositemaps and BRO
** General User
*** Entry/Update Forms (Browser, graphical, customized)
*** Individual resource Explorers
** Expert User
*** Writer/Parsers/Crawlers/Finders
*** API
*** Resourceome Integration/Interoperability
* Timeline for BioPortal to allow browsing/searching Biositemap tools tagged/identified with BRO entries

===4. We should get members from each of the centers on the [[SDIWG:Meeting_Minutes_20080919 | tiger team]]===

===5. What remains to be done with the Biositemaps website and/or dissemination prior to its 1.0 release?===

===6. Should the Biositemaps white paper be updated? It still refers to an xml format===
* We need to make a collective decision if we tightly couple Biositemaps and BRO?!? Do these become one-and-the-same? I recommend we keep these concepts separate, synergistic and interoperable -- according with the general philosophy that compartmentalized resources, where each component can easily and efficiently be swapped with another (functionally equivalent) component, typically have broader appeal, longer shelf-life and function better.

* Biositemaps make more sense as a concept and an infrastructure, rather than one specific implementation. If BRO and Biositemaps are "conceptually merged" and the "tiger team" decides to revise the (old) Biositemaps white-paper, the (new) manuscript title should be specific and include "RDF-based Biositemaps using Biomedical Resourceome Ontology". Again, I personally favor the distributed & decentralized approach to the (general) Biositemaps framework. If this is the approach the team decides to take, we may need two white-papers that emphasize "interoperability" rather than "standardization"!

===7. How/when to approach other groups regarding harmonization (yes, that is the first time I have put that word in writing) and adoption of Biositemaps/BRO 1.0?===
* This depends on the answer of the Biositemaps/RDF-BRO synergies questions above. I would not widely announce anything that is not 98% functional. We are certainly close, though. 

===8. Next Steps beyond 1.0?===

<hr>
[[SDIWG:Meeting_Minutes_20080919 | Back to the 2008/09/19 Meeting Page]]