Notes for Feb. 16, 2018 DFT Virtual meeting

05 Mar 2018

 Notes for Feb. 16, 2018 DFT meeting   (Gary Berg-Cross)
 

Attendees

  • Gary Berg-Cross

  • Mike Conlon

  • Raphael Ritz

  • Thomas Zastrow

  • Ann Racuya-Robbins

 

Agenda items
 

  1. P11 Status, plans and related efforts

    1. No joint meeting planned but maybe some input to other groups like VSIG

  2. Tool & vocabulary updates

  3. Possible Update  from IEEE pre-conference (Gary submitting a paper, Raphael can't attend)

  4. Term registry and process to resolve terms differences

  5. Use of our vocabularies and talk by Amir (DDRI) on use of vocabularies and terms as part of group analysis. (explanation)

  6. New and other topics

1. P11 Status, plans and related efforts

We will largely follow the agenda outlined above.

Gary suggested that he needs to post a question to the DFT Wiki page about who plans on attending and what are their interests.

 

We had a discussion about being brief on our presentations to allow more time for discussion.

There was agreement to be brief, but Mike, who was a newbie last time, agree but suggested we also need to orientation new people bout the purpose of DFT and how far along are we.

 

One question was who from IRIDIUM (International Research Data Management) might attend? Gary may email the group to find out their plans.

 

Gary will have an updated 1 pager on DFT as a handout and asked Mike to read the previous version to see he would have suggestions on edits and additions. Raphael's RDA work Identified ICT Technical Specifications should be added to the 1 pager.
 

Will expect and hope that someone from the MIG attend as usual.

 

2. Update on terminologies and Enhancements to the Term Tool

There have been a modest number of additions in Feb to the vocabulary on the Term Tool (TeD-T- see http://smw-rda.esc.rzg.mpg.de/index.php/Main_Page) by Gary

 

Thomas had briefed us on tool updates at the last meeting.

One Q was if we should have a new version of the vocabulary for Plenary.

Should it V 1.5 or 2.0?

Gary prefers 1.5 to have a full version change once a year.

Raphael added that we can have names to these releases. So 1.0 was Montreal and P-11 will be the Berlin release.

Gary will post a link to the tool on main wiki page.

The major thing is the change in the way that Ids are handled. A new, preferred way using latest handle system.

We can use path IDs to jump into a place on the page of the DFT vocabulary.

This is using anchors on the DFT page which has the ID.

We will bring this up at P-11 for the community to comment on. We need to let then know ahead of time to see what they think. It is a motivator for online and Plenary discussion.

Thomas also discussed the work from Collections group. They are using some DFT vocabularies and may have new, useful ways of grouping terms.

There is nothing new with the  Reptor API tool (PHP application for catalogs) & how it is used.

It was developed as part of the Research data RDA group) People can create collections independent of their prior identity and group them as you are interested.

see: http://dft-rda.esc.rzg.mpg.de/reptor/

 

3. Developing a registry for data management vocabularies.

 

With so many different data vocabularies there may be a role of a registry for data vocabularies. This could be used for many things from helping to find them to promoting discussion, sharing and exposing differences in scope as well as specific definitions.

 

As discussed last time RDA seems well situated to help or even take on this effort.

It might require being a WG and this might be discussed at the Plenary.

 

Raphael worried about the issue of how to handle alternate definitions in different contexts. Resolving differences, as we have experienced in DFT, is hard because much if it depends on context and perspective. We often get into extended exchanges that could be differences about concepts vs words. And in DFT, to some degree, we have learned to live with these differences.

 

Mike thought this a 3rd order problem.

First we want to see there are differences. That's important and the process supporting this is natural.

It is true that vocabularies and ontologies are developed from some view, in some context or scope. Mike is OK with that. We want to know what varied definitions are needed to discuss the data world and once know this and can then start working on this.

 

It is one idea of a foundational approach.

Gary largely agreed and noted that this natural process was evident in the first 3 or 4 DFT WG sessions at Plenaries where people argued about such differences as “digital object” vs “digital entity” or “data object”.

 

Thomas, noted that sometimes among the terms discussed the differences are often verb vs noun/substantive use. A URL links you to a term (say in Wikipedia), but you can see lots of detail and differences there.

 

P-11 will be an opportunity to discuss processed to resolve this problem of alternate definitions and how can groups cooperate on vocabulary development. If we have a simple process we may be able to employ it as part of a registry.

 

4. Wrap Up
 

Each person should think of who to invite to the P-11 meeting for a larger discussion of these issues and actions.

 

Gary needs to ask for  Remote access, and a scribe.

 

File Attachment: 
  • John Graybeal's picture

    Author: John Graybeal

    Date: 06 Mar, 2018

    Gary, all,
    At the recent US2TS meeting Gary and I talked at the meeting about possible intersections of interest between this group and the VSSIG group [3].
    I think that any of the VSSIG topics are potentially applicable, a lot depends on the rigor and techniques you are bringing to the DFT work. I could speak to this at your meeting (if I don't have a conflict!) if you want. But also people could have a look and suggest their own intersections, or participate with questions directly in the VSSIG Slack channels.
    In a more parochial way, but perhaps more concretely useful, I could talk a little bit to the group about how tools like BioPortal [1] and CEDAR [2] could be applied to the DFT work, or even extended by DFT members (not sure how likely that is) to create a workflow. I'm not fully up to date on the plans and progress, but I've seen the pages in the past so I have a notion. It may be relevant that Anthony Juehne of RDA has been working a lot on using CEDAR for some RDA projects having to do with annotating RDA content, so this is not out of left field I think.
    But I know you have an ontology framework in the Semantic Media Wiki, so your semantic tool needs may be partially or wholly met. Your discussion of "a role of a registry for data vocabularies" in the last notes may be something that Anthony's work, or BioPortal, could help address, depending on exactly what you mean.
    John
    Tool / Website
    [1] https://bioportal.bioontology.org / https://bioontology.org
    [2] https://cedar.metadatacenter.org / https://metadatacenter.org
    [3] VSSIG details:
    To get you connected to the VSSIG information, the slack channel in question, and the minutes, here are some links:
    * RDA VSSIG site: https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/vocabulary-services-interest-group.html
    * VSSIG sign up process/context: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gQ5FK7LXmdE5VdXMnDBP8uSJ3Ca-B5Mq...
    * tg-change-requests slack channel: https://vocabulary-services.slack.com/
    On Mar 5, 2018, at 9:02 AM, Gary <***@***.***> wrote:
    Notes for Feb. 16, 2018 DFT meeting (Gary Berg-Cross)
    Attendees
    * Gary Berg-Cross
    * Mike Conlon
    * Raphael Ritz
    * Thomas Zastrow
    * Ann Racuya-Robbins
    Agenda items
    1. P11 Status, plans and related efforts
    * No joint meeting planned but maybe some input to other groups like VSIG
    2. Tool & vocabulary updates
    3. Possible Update from IEEE pre-conference (Gary submitting a paper, Raphael can't attend)
    4. Term registry and process to resolve terms differences
    5. Use of our vocabularies and talk by Amir (DDRI) on use of vocabularies and terms as part of group analysis. (explanation)
    6. New and other topics
    1. P11 Status, plans and related efforts
    We will largely follow the agenda outlined above.
    Gary suggested that he needs to post a question to the DFT Wiki page about who plans on attending and what are their interests.
    We had a discussion about being brief on our presentations to allow more time for discussion.
    There was agreement to be brief, but Mike, who was a newbie last time, agree but suggested we also need to orientation new people bout the purpose of DFT and how far along are we.
    One question was who from IRIDIUM (International Research Data Management) might attend? Gary may email the group to find out their plans.
    Gary will have an updated 1 pager on DFT as a handout and asked Mike to read the previous version to see he would have suggestions on edits and additions. Raphael's RDA work Identified ICT Technical Specifications should be added to the 1 pager.
    Will expect and hope that someone from the MIG attend as usual.
    2. Update on terminologies and Enhancements to the Term Tool
    There have been a modest number of additions in Feb to the vocabulary on the Term Tool (TeD-T- see http://smw-rda.esc.rzg.mpg.de/index.php/Main_Page) by Gary
    * Adaptable information Object
    * Data understanding
    * Data Lifecycle‎
    * Data Science‎
    Thomas had briefed us on tool updates at the last meeting.
    One Q was if we should have a new version of the vocabulary for Plenary.
    Should it V 1.5 or 2.0?
    Gary prefers 1.5 to have a full version change once a year.
    Raphael added that we can have names to these releases. So 1.0 was Montreal and P-11 will be the Berlin release.
    Gary will post a link to the tool on main wiki page.
    The major thing is the change in the way that Ids are handled. A new, preferred way using latest handle system.
    We can use path IDs to jump into a place on the page of the DFT vocabulary.
    This is using anchors on the DFT page which has the ID.
    We will bring this up at P-11 for the community to comment on. We need to let then know ahead of time to see what they think. It is a motivator for online and Plenary discussion.
    Thomas also discussed the work from Collections group. They are using some DFT vocabularies and may have new, useful ways of grouping terms.
    There is nothing new with the Reptor API tool (PHP application for catalogs) & how it is used.
    It was developed as part of the Research data RDA group) People can create collections independent of their prior identity and group them as you are interested.
    see: http://dft-rda.esc.rzg.mpg.de/reptor/
    3. Developing a registry for data management vocabularies.
    With so many different data vocabularies there may be a role of a registry for data vocabularies. This could be used for many things from helping to find them to promoting discussion, sharing and exposing differences in scope as well as specific definitions.
    As discussed last time RDA seems well situated to help or even take on this effort.
    It might require being a WG and this might be discussed at the Plenary.
    Raphael worried about the issue of how to handle alternate definitions in different contexts. Resolving differences, as we have experienced in DFT, is hard because much if it depends on context and perspective. We often get into extended exchanges that could be differences about concepts vs words. And in DFT, to some degree, we have learned to live with these differences.
    Mike thought this a 3rd order problem.
    First we want to see there are differences. That's important and the process supporting this is natural.
    It is true that vocabularies and ontologies are developed from some view, in some context or scope. Mike is OK with that. We want to know what varied definitions are needed to discuss the data world and once know this and can then start working on this.
    It is one idea of a foundational approach.
    Gary largely agreed and noted that this natural process was evident in the first 3 or 4 DFT WG sessions at Plenaries where people argued about such differences as “digital object” vs “digital entity” or “data object”.
    Thomas, noted that sometimes among the terms discussed the differences are often verb vs noun/substantive use. A URL links you to a term (say in Wikipedia), but you can see lots of detail and differences there.
    P-11 will be an opportunity to discuss processed to resolve this problem of alternate definitions and how can groups cooperate on vocabulary development. If we have a simple process we may be able to employ it as part of a registry.
    4. Wrap Up
    Each person should think of who to invite to the P-11 meeting for a larger discussion of these issues and actions.
    Gary needs to ask for Remote access, and a scribe.
    Attached files:
    Notes for Feb. 16, 2018 DFT meeting.doc
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/data-foundations-and-terminology-ig/po...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/59049
    ========================
    John Graybeal
    Technical Program Manager
    Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
    Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
    650-736-1632

submit a comment