[esip-semanticweb] Next Sem Web Call - Tomorrow 10/27

Wed Nov 4 08:39:35 EST 2015

Hi Soren and John:

I think this discussion is really interesting and hits many topics of importance, such as metadata or ontology quality, provenance, UI, curation of code, different kind of searches, usability, etc...

It would help lot if you could provide examples of portals that illustrate the various points.

Line

Sent from my iPhone
Line Pouchard
Purdue University Libraries

On Nov 3, 2015, at 11:04 PM, "soren scott" <sorenscott at gmail.com<mailto:sorenscott at gmail.com>> wrote:

Sorry, had to track down my design hat again...

So part of it is a design concern, that we'll focus too much on the researcher as publisher and ignore the researcher as consumer. We don't have, as far as I've seen, much in the way to guide us on how to effectively display all of this new publisher info very effectively. There's something about visual literacy here that I can't quite put my finger on. If we look at data/metadata portals, we don't have a design vernacular for handling the concept of A+ quality thing that's actively maintained by a trustworthy entity and that follows whatever the best practices are for the kind of object. We use proxies for open source code - we look at commit dates and that kind of thing but there's no shorthand for "Actively Maintained" so there are limits to borrowing from code projects.

As for the portals, they are a pragmatic, responsible choice for these things. We know, as users, how to interact with the things. My concern is more as we start to ask for more information from contributors that we do a terrible job of showing why what we're asking is valuable to that individual contributor. if it's just an extractive process, we don't get what we need for a well-tuned search, for example. So that's the building the tool for the culture you want - we want to get good descriptive, informative text but have we built the UI in such a way that prevents that? Really hard to do well.

Soren

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:52 PM, John Graybeal <jbgraybeal at mindspring.com<mailto:jbgraybeal at mindspring.com>> wrote:
I'd like to suggest, as a generalist with no institutional stakes in this, that we leave a place for alternatives to the standard web portal with an upload form and a linear search. My sense is that we're hitting the limits of those …

Hi Soren,

With my BioPortal hat on (as of today, I'm the lead of the BioPortal project -- please be nice to me in this role for a while :->), I'd like to explore what you mean by this.

A 'standard web portal' can cover a wide ground, with APIs and all sort of other things, and still have an upload form and a 'linear' (= simple?) search. But it can also provide many other things -- these things aren't a constraint. I know BioPortal is very interested in pursuing these directions.

And if I slip my MMI ORR hat on for a sec, it has supported straightforward authorship, credit, and provenance metadata entry since it started; supporting other features would not be hard to add.

So can you spell out what exactly is the limiting factor you are concerned about?  Are you just calling out high-functioning capabilities like faceted search and community-anointed ontologies?  Or is it more of the cultural, workflow, and publication social practices?

John

P.S. I've included my Stanford contact info below, and my email there is jgraybeal at stanford.com<mailto:jgraybeal at stanford.com>. BioPortal questions should be directed to the usual support lists, or to me at that address. While I try to keep up with my *other* work mail (jbgraybeal at mindspring.com<mailto:jbgraybeal at mindspring.com>, the one I have on all these lists) daily, but it's tough.

---------------------------------------
John Graybeal
Technical Program Manager
Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval / NCBO BioPortal
Biomedical Informatics Research Division
Stanford University School of Medicine
650-736-1632<tel:650-736-1632>

On Oct 31, 2015, at 11:14, soren scott via esip-semanticweb <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>> wrote:

Line, agreed - ownership, maintainership, preservation, discoverability, credit and citations... Longterm financial support.

I'd like to suggest, as a generalist with no institutional stakes in this, that we leave a place for alternatives to the standard web portal with an upload form and a linear search. My sense is that we're hitting the limits of those as we deal with graph data, bigger data stores and the need to signal more things (quality, trust, authorship, credit, etc). Longer term concerns but we are talking about changing the culture and technology we use needs to support that. Stepping off the soapbox now.

Cheers,
Soren

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Pouchard, Line C <pouchard at purdue.edu<mailto:pouchard at purdue.edu>> wrote:
Soren:

This is an important topic, well worth exploring, and find solutions to.  We have encountered that with the ESIP Semantic Web Portal, where people can add their ontologies or rely on the portal administrators to do so.  The portal software requires a contact person and email, and it’s not always clear who that should be.  In addition, when ontologies are extended, we get into versioning issues that bear on governance: for instance, what happens when a new version changes “ownership”?

—
Line Pouchard, PhD
Assistant Professor, Purdue Libraries
Computational Science Information Specialist
Stewart Center, Room 345
504 W. State Street
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2058
linepouchard at gmail.com<mailto:linepouchard at gmail.com> (alternate email)

From: esip-semanticweb <esip-semanticweb-bounces at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-semanticweb-bounces at lists.esipfed.org>> on behalf of soren scott via esip-semanticweb <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>>
Reply-To: soren scott <sorenscott at gmail.com<mailto:sorenscott at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 2:06 PM
To: Nancy Hoebelheinrich <nhoebel at kmotifs.com<mailto:nhoebel at kmotifs.com>>
Cc: ESIP Semantic Web Cluster <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>>

Subject: Re: [esip-semanticweb] Next Sem Web Call - Tomorrow 10/27

I'm not sure we'd get all of the interested parties to the semweb business meeting. Just given the timing and all of these kinds of discussions independently ramping up at the same time, it would be beneficial to have a kind of MOU for the spring and then something more structured at the summer meeting. Identify who's in what community WG/IG/cluster to communicate across those parties on the governance activities throughout the spring.

Soren

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Nancy Hoebelheinrich <nhoebel at kmotifs.com<mailto:nhoebel at kmotifs.com>> wrote:
I agree that this would be a good session.  Perhaps we could start the discussion at a SemWeb planning discussion at Winter mtg, then bring in people from other ontologies/ organizations to discuss / present for summer?
Nancy

<image001.png><https://kmotifs.com/>

Nancy J. Hoebelheinrich
Information Analyst/Principal
nhoebel at kmotifs.com<mailto:nhoebel at kmotifs.com>
San Mateo, CA  94401
(v) 650-302-4493<tel:650-302-4493>
(f) 650-745-3333<tel:650-745-3333>

From: esip-semanticweb [mailto:esip-semanticweb-bounces at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-semanticweb-bounces at lists.esipfed.org>] On Behalf Of James Gallagher via esip-semanticweb
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 10:02 AM
To: soren scott
Cc: ESIP Semantic Web Cluster
Subject: Re: [esip-semanticweb] Next Sem Web Call - Tomorrow 10/27

On Oct 29, 2015, at 9:18 AM, soren scott via esip-semanticweb <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>> wrote:

Very late to add to the session topics but one to consider at least for the summer:

The governance of ontologies, vocabularies, and other shared resources has been coming up across communities (RDA, EarthCube, ESIP, etc) and across domains (semantic web, software sustainability, documentation, and others). The conversations I've been involved with across those areas are often much the same so what can we share about what works and what doesn't? What are the systems that support some of those governance requirements? And our larger who should be responsible for managing these systems and the objects within?

I think this would be an excellent session; summer, winter or both.

1+

James

(I include documentation here for things such as code lists (just another structured vocabulary) and schemas.)

Cheers,
Soren

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Tom Narock via esip-semanticweb <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>> wrote:
Reminder that our next ESIP Semantic Web Cluster call is tomorrow, 10/27, at 4pm Eastern time. Topics for discussion are the Semantic Web strategic plan and sessions for the upcoming Winter meeting.

Let me know if you have any additional topics to add to the agenda.

Thanks,
Tom
_______________________________________________
esip-semanticweb mailing list
esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb

_______________________________________________
esip-semanticweb mailing list
esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb

--
James Gallagher
jgallagher at opendap.org<mailto:jgallagher at opendap.org>

_______________________________________________
esip-semanticweb mailing list
esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/esip-semanticweb/attachments/20151104/5b7c8438/attachment-0001.html>