Semantic resources project/Meeting notes/2010-03-18

Meeting Notes 3/18/2010

Attending
JAR, PC, TWD, KT, EW, AR?

= Agenda =


 * Licensing
 * AlzForum
 * JAX
 * Annotation Tool
 * Mouse Data
 * AlzForum models?
 * Getting new data from AlzForum on antibodies
 * Data export process from annotation tool
 * Rules for SWAN validation -- on the wiki
 * Ultimate location of the AlzForum data
 * HSP submission to PRO

= Discussion =


 * Licensing:
 * Discussion of licensing for the word "commercial" and the question of whether data falls under that rubric.
 * PC: If the JAX lab doesn't change their licensing, then what?
 * AR: JB has promised to talk about it.
 * AR: We can ask for specific licensing.
 * AR: There are other fallbacks beyond that.
 * PC: can we work on the structure of the model we want to adopt, even in the absence of commercially-useable data? What's the worse case scenario?
 * AR: we could ask Thinh for an analysis here, for the data that we want to collect: standard names for mice, genetic backgrounds, perhaps even association with the ontology terms, probably not the JAX identifiers
 * AR: sends out mail with additional on the licensing. But AR knows them, and doesn't think there will be a significant problem.
 * AlzForum: JW has tried to have a conversation with E at the [organization]
 * EW: doesn't know what policy [the organization] wants.
 * Moving foward: SC will draft a document describing the issue, and there will be a person behind it. Then, EW will help us find someone to talk to at AlzForum about this.


 * Mouse Data
 * AR: we are going to move forward and talk to JAX (M. Sasner)
 * AR: SCF needs to give us requirements for what we need from the mouse models
 * PC: shows the PDOnline mouse model site.
 * AR: the appropriate place to talk about requirements is on the mailing list: obo-mouse-strain


 * Antibody Data in OBO
 * AR: there didn't seem to be any objections, so we should move forward
 * PC: what's the commitment when you put a new project in OBO?
 * AR: there is no commitment, in general. But we should make commitments to other ontologies, as part of OBO Foundry.


 * EW: Returning to the licensing question.
 * EW: if we create a composite data repository, can't each data item be labeled with provenance? Does the entire dataset need to be licensed.
 * AR: For OBO Foundry, the entire dataset has to be licensed under CC-BY or CC-0. If AlzForum doesn't agree with this, then we will stop the resource with the completion of the first 2,000 antibodies.


 * Annotation Tool
 * TD goes over revised to do list.

Revised to do list: 1. curated flag 2. option to search uniprot directly 3. dynamic saving 4. db-fields to term requests 5. tooltips to the left display 6. manually edit annotations


 * TD: talk to Alan about dynamic saving strategies.


 * HSP submission to PRO
 * AR: we need to review the spreadsheet
 * PC: RED means rejected, and there is a reason in the 3rd column
 * AR: asks PC to put Darren's note in the bottom cell of the sheet.
 * Drafting a response to Darren
 * Questions about the protein families?
 * We need to start asking for species-specific terms.
 * What happened to the SCF_#### Ids?
 * We need to ask what classes are subclasses of the HSP70-like proteins.
 * The next thing we want to see is a PRO with the HSP family integrated with this.

= Action Items =


 * KT will talk to Thinh about a licensing requirements document.
 * TD: will put an entry in the updates email to monitor the progress of the talks with JAX about licensing.
 * SCF People: need to draft some content requirements for mouse models.
 * TWD: set up a time to talk to EW about annotation and tutorial
 * AR has sent an email to Darren -- will CC the response to our list.