Dear members of the PDDI Info Task Force,
This is a follow up on our conversation on April 29. In this meeting we started a sub-group on knowledge representation planning.
Currently the following peoples have signed up for that sub-group:
PDDI Info Task members who want to join this sub group, please let me know.
We are tasked to clarify the statements discuss and clarifying the scope of formalization of the minimum information model to be found here:
Those of you interested in participating in the work of the subgroup, please look at the document and add comments or questions. If you have the chance to do that before the meeting next week (May 26) that would be awesome.
If you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
From: Richard Boyce
Date: Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 6:44 AM
To: "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", Laura Slaughter, "[hidden email]", Mathias Brochhausen, "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]", "[hidden email]"
Subject: PDDI Info Task Force (Standard sub-group) - Minutes/recording for 4/29
Below are pasted the minutes of the Standard sub-group for the PDDI DDI Minimum Information Model Task Force .
Minutes for 4/29/2016 (Standard subgroup)
In Attendance : Matthias Samwald, Xia Jing, Brian LeBaron, Schneider, Jodi, Chris Vitale (PHS), Michael Miller, Oliver He, Kim Nolen, Øystein Nytrø, Oya Beyan, Richard Boyce, Mathias Brochhausen, Daniela & Ratnesh
Meeting recording: http://goo.gl/UTX6pY
-- Richard D Boyce, PhD Assistant Professor of Biomedical Informatics Faculty, Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing Faculty, Geriatric Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Gero-Informatics Research and Training Program University of Pittsburgh [hidden email] Office: 412-648-9219 Twitter: @bhaapgh
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
as a board member of FGED (1) i've been involved with MIAME and am one of the lead developers of MAGE and FuGE. both MAGE-ML, based on MAGE-OM, and FuGE-ML, based on FuGE-OM, are implementations (rather than minimum information models) that are intended to be able to allow users to specify and interchange their experiments in compliance with the minimum information standards. MAGE was specifically for microarrays and MIAME, FuGE was an attempt to broaden the scope to any minimum information standard in the -omics arena. although at Rosetta Biosoftware we had a robust implementation of MAGE-ML for our Resolver microarray product, it proved difficult for many organization with limited developer resources. so, spearheaded by the EBI, MAGE-TAB (2) was developed, also based on MAGE-OM, a spreadsheet approach that has worked quite well. although not as robust as MAGE-ML it is much simpler to implement and captures about 90% of what MAGE-ML can. similarly, ISA-TAB (3,4) was come up with to be a spreadsheet counterpart to FuGE.
Institute for Systems Biology
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|