Semantic resources project/Meeting notes/2010-11-11

Attendance
AR, PC, JAR, TD (by phone: EW, SD)

Agenda

 * 1) alignments.owl
 * 2) quality quality?
 * 3) broker paper
 * 4) background editing
 * 5) figures, suggestions
 * 6) mouse status
 * 7) template
 * 8) table-format
 * 9) CT ontology/resource
 * 10) antibody paper
 * 11) SD would like to contribute
 * 12) Report
 * 13) Grid -> draft
 * 14) 10 minutes of conclusion brainstorming
 * 15) MS option: 5 minutes.

Possible conclusion sentences

 * 1) Building ontologies is communal, and slow. Goals rarely align to support an ontology 'per se'.
 * 2) Engaged PRO, incorporating EW into PRO, moving them in a new direction.
 * 3) Ontology proliferation results from a steep learning curve for existing ontologies, which is steeper for OBO/BFO ontologies.
 * 4) "Collaboration reduces total effort."
 * 5) Why was this done using "semantic" technology? Can we give an example of an advantage?
 * 6) Durable & distributable results should be emphasized. VM image, documentation, data, software that funder can point people to.
 * 7) Include letters from PRO, CT, etc.
 * 8) "Modeling" means different things to different people, with different returns on investment.