group objectives

[Melissa Haendel]

Hi all,

I wanted to reach out to you all and determine where we stand with this group's interest. We've (I've) been a bit sporadic with our meetings since Jessie et al/Biositemaps have been moving on to other things, and attendance has been diminishing.

With the new CTSA coordinating center in place, the CTSA Booz Allen Hamilton contracts and other supplements funded, perhaps we may want to retool this group and what it might do for us? It was originally a great mechanism to discuss how to model research resources for discovery and sharing across applications and institutions. What do we need from it now? Not that research resources are less important, but perhaps there are other related interests that can be brought to bear on ontology coordination for the purposes of connecting researchers and clinicians, sharing of resources, and promoting collaboration.

I am happy to help coordinate, but would like to invigorate with some new objectives should we decide to keep this group going. Your thoughts and/or participation are welcome.

Cheers,

Melissa

Dr. Melissa Haendel

Assistant Professor
Ontology Development Group, OHSU Library

http://www.ohsu.edu/library/

Department of Medical Informatics and Epidemiology
Oregon Health & Science University
hae...@ohsu.edu
skype: melissa.haendel

503-407-5970

[Barnett, William Kinne]

Melissa – First, thanks for your leadership with this group.  Second, I have one suggestion.  A few years ago, I was pushed to develop a 'marketplace of cores'  you could think of as a 'marketplace of resources'. I don't know where Eagle-I is with this, but I do know that the coordinating center is piloting a central database of rare resources like next gen sequencing centers.  I've approached both Gordon Bernard and Paul Harris about evolving this into an architecture that can support transactions but in order to do this we need, among many things, ways to describe the features, such as pricing, and artifacts, such as MTAs, that would have to be presented, consumed, negotiated, etc.  I think this would be of great benefit for promoting translational research and those cores that want to sell their services across the consortium would be motivated to populate and maintain their entries.  So, it would require some coordination with the C4, but I think it is something where some effort in standardizing terms around the commerce of resources could help catalyze a national effort to support core workflows at a national level.

I don't know if resource representation can also mean representation of the consumption of resources.

Hope that makes sense.  Thanks, - Bill

-- 

William K. Barnett, Ph.D.

Research Technologies (Science Community Tools) and the Pervasive Technology Institute

Indiana University

email: barnettw @ iu.edu, work: +1 (812) 856-3038, cell: +1 (812) 361-3369

http://mypage.iu.edu/~barnettw 

[Collier, Elaine (NIH/NCATS) [E]]

Dear all,

 

Science Exchange is an “online marketplace for outsourcing science experiments” that includes core facilities (many at universities) and commercial scientific service providers.  Listing of a core facility is free as is searching for core facilities/services.  The business model is that they provide already established payment relationships with universities and also with the resources so easy for researchers to pay for services or use of core facilities if they find what they need quickly.  They are looking toward adopting the eagle-i ontology for resources.  I was intrigued by the blub in Nature when it came out last summer and spoke to them recently about how it is working; it is gaining but not a finished effort. 

 

This seems very similar to what Bill is describing but not restricted to CTSAs.  CTSAs could list their resources and researchers at CTSAs could purchase resources from CTSAs and others with non-CTSA resources.  I am not promoting this company in particular (there are likely others who do this as well) but suggesting look to see if we can use already established or influence (partner with, leverage, ?) already established mechanisms rather than reinventing the process over again with money and effort in coordinating center.  Branding as associated with CTSAs or ABRF or a Cancer Center could likely be done easily if “recognition” is important (re Communications KFC value program!).  Preventing silos is really important……even CTSA silos.  Maybe talking with Strategic Goal 5 or Translation KFC about such efforts would be helpful as well.

 

I think this is beyond resource representation group original scope.  But group would seem to be critical to assure the coordination of resource ontology/representation is promoted, shared broadly, and areas needed are represented (but not in too much depth so folks do not use!).

 

Science Exchange

 

e-bay for Science – Nature 19 August 2011

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110819/full/news.2011.492.html

 

Kauffman Foundation Postdoctoral Entrepreneur Award 14 March 2012

http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/component/content/article/628-2012-postdoctoral-entrepreneurs-awards-presented

 

CCing the Translation and Elaine

 

Elaine Collier, MD

Office of Policy, Communications, and Strategic Alliances

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences

[Whelan, Nancy B]

Hi Everyone,

 

I’m happy to engage as the conversation continues, especially if the subject includes Material Transfer Agreements. At Pitt we have decades of experience to draw from in biorespositories which run the gamut from IRB approved consent to distribution and everything in-between: Letters of Intent (LOI), Research Evaluation Panel (REP), Site Selection, etc…. See www.mesotissue.org for access to publically available annotated data; for a more in-depth search contact me for authorization.

 

Happy to be kept in the loop if/when monthly calls continue.

 

Best,

Nancy Whelan, MPPM

 

Project Manager

University of Pittsburgh

Department of Biomedical Informatics

5230 Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh PA 15232

Email: nb...@pitt.edu

Office: 412 623 3860.

 

 

 

From: resource-represent...@googlegroups.com [mailto:resource-represent...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Melissa Haendel
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 6:04 PM
To: resource-represent...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [rrc] group objectives

 

Hi all,

[Bernie LaSalle]

Although I have not been a very active participant, we (Utah) clearly need to interact with people like Nancy and institutions with Pitt's experience.  I am certainly interested in being more involved goin forward.

Bernie

Bernard A LaSalle

Director of Operations

Biomedical Research Informatics Service Core

AVP HSC IT

Office: 801-213-4093

Mobile: 801-750-7366

From: <Whelan>, Nancy B <whel...@upmc.edu>
Reply-To: "resource-represent...@googlegroups.com" <resource-represent...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 7:19 AM
To: "resource-represent...@googlegroups.com" <resource-represent...@googlegroups.com>

[Andrea Arnaud Stagg]

Another model (demo store) you may be interested in is Open Biobank, http://openbiobank.com/

Before we move on, we at NIF would also like to discuss the addition of a 'Crowdsourcing' Resource Type and where it should go, as well as revisit some of the subcategories listed under our "Biomaterial supply resource" branch.

Thanks,
Andrea

-- 
Andrea Stagg
Neuroscience Information Framework
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093-0446
http://neuinfo.org/

[Conlon, Mike]

I’ve always found Biositemaps appealing.  The level of representation seemed useful – a list of 100 or so resources of each major center that could be used by others, along with contact information and some categorization.  The data management appeared manageable – as a CTSA we can identify resources at this level and establish data management practices to keep the information accurate.  The ontology had some odd features – it seemed that many of our resources ended up in a narrow band while whole chunks of the vocabulary went unused.  The technology worked well – centralized provisioning, RDF and the editor all worked for this kind of information.  To my understanding it hasn’t been integrated with other projects, nor broadly adopted.  I can certainly understand why C4 would want to have something similar for the consortium.

 

Mike

 

 

From: resource-represent...@googlegroups.com [mailto:resource-represent...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Melissa Haendel
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 6:04 PM
To: resource-represent...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [rrc] group objectives

 

Hi all,

[anita bandrowski]

Hi Melissa, Mike and all,

I think that there are a couple of interest areas cropping up here and we should consider each for a few weeks perhaps.

1. The ontologies / terminologies of resource description (still a hot topic especially as these can impact MTAs)

2. The data formats (e.g., Biositemaps, bioDBcore, NIF registry, eagle-i)

3. Systems for handling these types of data (Are there things that our systems don't handle well, or things that they do handle particularly well? What is the optimal system that is intended to be used as a resource sharing platform?)

I would still like to be involved and also believe that we should involve the commercial folks at ScienceExchange (as Elaine pointed out).

-anita

--
Anita Bandrowski, Ph.D.
NIF Project Lead
UCSD 858-822-3629
http://neuinfo.org
9500 Gillman Dr.#0446
la Jolla, CA 92093-0446

[MacFadden, Douglas]

Agreed that Biositemaps and the work being done at Vanderbilt for C4 clearly play an important role in identifying hard to find resources.

One of the largest historical challenges in resource cataloging efforts is enabling utility to the broad user community.  As with all information, utility can be increased by improving it's flow into the world of the user - rather than requiring the user to come find it.  From my perspective, standards play the most important role in enabling information flow (visibility) by increasing the opportunities for connectivity with related information and systems.  As a result, I strongly urge all efforts of resource cataloging to adopt standards in both semantics and data sharing formats.  Nothing unfamiliar for this group; community developed ontologies and RDF seem well suited to the task.  I strongly encourage the continued work of this group.

Of course, standards don't just facilitate the discovery process; they also enable interoperability with other parts of the resource eco-system.  I am encouraged by Science Exchange's interest in using community ontologies for resources and expect that this will help enable integrations of discovery systems with transactional resource sharing systems; making it easier to fulfill the goal of broad resource discovery and sharing – someday.

Doug

Douglas MacFadden
Director of Informatics Technology, CBMI/Countway
Harvard Medical School
douglas_...@hms.harvard.edu
617-432-2213

[Jessie Tenenbaum]

Melissa- thanks for taking the baton. I regret that my funding situation has changed so that I can't continue to help drive this, but I would love to see this group continue to coordinate efforts as resource representation and discovery and to participate as I'm able.

As Doug and Mike point out, integration and standards adoption are key. To that end, I remember that work was done to align Biositemap resources with the eagle-i ontology. Can anyone give an update on the status of uploading Biositemaps content to eagle-i? Doug or Julie?

I don't believe anyone is actually being funded on Biositemaps or BRO right now, but it would be a shame not to take advantage of the content they hold.

-Jessie

[Maryann Martone]

Nif has loaded all the biositemaps data too and provided some curation on top of it, I believe.

Sent from my iPhone

[Borromeo, Charles]

I can give a quick overview of the current status of Biositemaps.  Mark Musen at the NCBO graciously offered to oversee the project without any funding.  I am in the process of discussing the project with Ray Fergerson.  In the meantime, I am more than happy to provide any information regarding Biositemaps.  However, I think this thread got hijacked a bit.  Melissa's original email asked about group objectives, we got into the details a bit.

Can we identify a set of "high level" objectives in this thread and then use them for a teleconference?  I'll throw these out for fodder.  Feel free to revised/reject:

1.  A common data exchange format for resources ("how do we share information between NIF, eagle-I, etc.")

2.  Marketing and evangelism of these systems ("getting the word out")   

3.  Catalog use cases for future projects/grant opportunities ("researchers working on disease X cannot find resource Y")

Chuck Borromeo

University of Pittsburgh

[Julie Earnest]

I think those are excellent objectives, Chuck!  I especially like the idea of cataloging / prioritizing use cases - this will be an essential step to ensure the success of objectives 1 and 2.  Let me know if there's a way I can help.....

Julie

Julie Earnest, PhD
Exec Director
Oregon Clinical & Translational Research Institute

[MacFadden, Douglas]

Anita,

Please note that eagle-i is much more than a data format.  It is a platform for collecting, curating and publishing resource data that produces RDF and is based upon community developed ontologies.

You can learn more about the platform on our open source site: https://open.med.harvard.edu/display/eaglei/Welcome

The ontologies are also available open source: http://code.google.com/p/eagle-i/

Thanks,

Doug

Douglas MacFadden
Director of Informatics Technology, CBMI/Countway
Harvard Medical School
douglas_...@hms.harvard.edu
617-432-2213

[Barnett, William Kinne]

Well, my original suggestion was to leverage the below activities to establish a 'marketplace' or 'exchange' of core services.  Some of these appear to already exist at various levels, but it is unclear which ones can effectively exchange data or support workflows (at least in my mind).  So, where I totally subscribe to the below, I think it will only be exciting to translational investigators if we can help them use these services to get their research done.  Maybe that is what is meant in point 2, but I think it should be the goal.  My 2 cents…

Thanks, - Bill

-- 

William K. Barnett, Ph.D.

Research Technologies (Science Community Tools) and the Pervasive Technology Institute

Indiana University

email: barnettw @ iu.edu, work: +1 (812) 856-3038, cell: +1 (812) 361-3369

http://mypage.iu.edu/~barnettw 

[MacFadden, Douglas]

Agreed that a marketplace of services and sharing would provide real value.  This objective could have profound impact.

Doug

Douglas MacFadden
Director of Informatics Technology, CBMI/Countway
Harvard Medical School
douglas_...@hms.harvard.edu
617-432-2213

[Collier, Elaine (NIH/NCATS) [E]]

A marketplace or better yet possibility of all resources in many marketplaces using same standards and representation.

[Melissa Haendel]

Hi all,

This a great discussion and I really appreciate all the ideas. I agree that we should be discussing how to better establish all aspects of exchange of services and resources, not just their exposure. Things such as MTAs, permissions and consent, licensing, cost sharing, document sharing, etc are all important for actual reuse. 

Certainly as part of this, we aim to have interoperable ontologies and use of linked data to make it easier for applications to consume information about resources. NIF (Anita Bandrowski), Biositemaps (Trish Whetzel, Chuck Borromeo, Jessie Tenenbaum), and eagle-i (myself, Carlo Torniai, and others) have worked on a shared representation of research resources, leveraging other domain ontologies such as OBI, GO, IAO, etc in support of maximum data interoperability across domains.

I also agree with Chuck that this group can collect use cases such as "researchers working on disease X cannot find resource Y", as this will help us understand which pieces of the puzzle we need to focus on as a group. Is there anyone from C4 on our group? If not who would be most relevant to include? It would be great too, for them to help get the word out about our resources (both ontological and the services and resources themselves!) and leverage this joint work. 

Lets keep the discussion going, and concurrently I will send out a doodle poll to find a recurring call day/time, as well as some suggested topics for our next call (I might task some of you to present a thing or two).

Thanks so much,

Melissa

[Elizabeth Iorns]

Hi all,

It's really great to hear about the enthusiasm for a marketplace of
core facilities, as well as the interest in how Science Exchange could
potentially provide such a service.

If anyone is interested in learning more about Science Exchange and
our platform's offerings for core facilities, I'd be happy to answer
any questions or concerns you may have. I'm happy to also engage over
the next group call, if you feel it may be appropriate.

Best wishes, and excited to see such enthusiasm for a shared
marketplace!

Elizabeth Iorns, Ph.D.
Co-Founder, Science Exchange
www.scienceexchange.com

On Apr 25, 7:52 am, Melissa Haendel <haen...@ohsu.edu> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This a great discussion and I really appreciate all the ideas. I agree that we should be discussing how to better establish all aspects of exchange of services and resources, not just their exposure. Things such as MTAs, permissions and consent, licensing, cost sharing, document sharing, etc are all important for actual reuse.
>
> Certainly as part of this, we aim to have interoperable ontologies and use of linked data to make it easier for applications to consume information about resources. NIF (Anita Bandrowski), Biositemaps (Trish Whetzel, Chuck Borromeo, Jessie Tenenbaum), and eagle-i (myself, Carlo Torniai, and others) have worked on a shared representation of research resources, leveraging other domain ontologies such as OBI, GO, IAO, etc in support of maximum data interoperability across domains.
>
> I also agree with Chuck that this group can collect use cases such as "researchers working on disease X cannot find resource Y", as this will help us understand which pieces of the puzzle we need to focus on as a group. Is there anyone from C4 on our group? If not who would be most relevant to include? It would be great too, for them to help get the word out about our resources (both ontological and the services and resources themselves!) and leverage this joint work.
>
> Lets keep the discussion going, and concurrently I will send out a doodle poll to find a recurring call day/time, as well as some suggested topics for our next call (I might task some of you to present a thing or two).
>
> Thanks so much,
> Melissa
>
> On Apr 25, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Barnett, William Kinne wrote:
>
> Well, my original suggestion was to leverage the below activities to establish a 'marketplace' or 'exchange' of core services.  Some of these appear to already exist at various levels, but it is unclear which ones can effectively exchange data or support workflows (at least in my mind).  So, where I totally subscribe to the below, I think it will only be exciting to translational investigators if we can help them use these services to get their research done.  Maybe that is what is meant in point 2, but I think it should be the goal.  My 2 cents…
>
> Thanks, - Bill
> --
> William K. Barnett, Ph.D.
> Research Technologies (Science Community Tools) and the Pervasive Technology Institute
> Indiana University

> email: barnettw @ iu.edu<http://iu.edu>, work: +1 (812) 856-3038, cell: +1 (812) 361-3369http://mypage.iu.edu/~barnettw

>
> From: Julie Earnest <julie.earn...@gmail.com<mailto:julie.earn...@gmail.com>>
> Reply-To: <resource-represent...@googlegroups.com<mailto:resource-repr esentation-...@googlegroups.com>>
> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:29:23 -0700
> To: <resource-represent...@googlegroups.com<mailto:resource-repr esentation-...@googlegroups.com>>
> Subject: Re: [rrc] Re: group objectives
>
> I think those are excellent objectives, Chuck!  I especially like the idea of cataloging / prioritizing use cases - this will be an essential step to ensure the success of objectives 1 and 2.  Let me know if there's a way I can help.....
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Earnest, PhD
> Exec Director
> Oregon Clinical & Translational Research Institute
>

> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Borromeo, Charles <ch...@pitt.edu<mailto:ch...@pitt.edu>> wrote:
>
> I can give a quick overview of the current status of Biositemaps.  Mark Musen at the NCBO graciously offered to oversee the project without any funding.  I am in the process of discussing the project with Ray Fergerson.  In the meantime, I am more than happy to provide any information regarding Biositemaps.  However, I think this thread got hijacked a bit.  Melissa's original email asked about group objectives, we got into the details a bit.
>
> Can we identify a set of "high level" objectives in this thread and then use them for a teleconference?  I'll throw these out for fodder.  Feel free to revised/reject:
>
> 1.  A common data exchange format for resources ("how do we share information between NIF, eagle-I, etc.")
> 2.  Marketing and evangelism of these systems ("getting the word out")
> 3.  Catalog use cases for future projects/grant opportunities ("researchers working on disease X cannot find resource Y")
>
> Chuck Borromeo
> University of Pittsburgh
>

> From: Maryann Martone <mary...@ncmir.ucsd.edu<mailto:mary...@ncmir.ucsd.edu>>
> Reply-To: "resource-represent...@googlegroups.com<mailto:resource-repr esentation-...@googlegroups.com>" <resource-represent...@googlegroups.com<mailto:resource-repr esentation-...@googlegroups.com>>
> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:47:37 -0400
> To: "resource-represent...@googlegroups.com<mailto:resource-repr esentation-...@googlegroups.com>" <resource-represent...@googlegroups.com<mailto:resource-repr esentation-...@googlegroups.com>>
> Cc: "resource-represent...@googlegroups.com<mailto:resource-repr esentation-...@googlegroups.com>" <resource-represent...@googlegroups.com<mailto:resource-repr esentation-...@googlegroups.com>>
> Subject: Re: [rrc] Re: group objectives
>
> Nif has loaded all the biositemaps data too and provided some curation on top of it, I believe.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>

> On Apr 25, 2012, at 4:58 AM, Jessie Tenenbaum <jess...@gmail.com<mailto:jess...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Melissa- thanks for taking the baton. I regret that my funding situation has changed so that I can't continue to help drive this, but I would love to see this group continue to coordinate efforts as resource representation and discovery and to participate as I'm able.
>
> As Doug and Mike point out, integration and standards adoption are key. To that end, I remember that work was done to align Biositemap resources with the eagle-i ontology. Can anyone give an update on the status of uploading Biositemaps content to eagle-i? Doug or Julie?
> I don't believe anyone is actually being funded on Biositemaps or BRO right now, but it would be a shame not to take advantage of the content they hold.
>
> -Jessie
>

> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:13 PM, MacFadden, Douglas <Douglas_MacFad...@hms.harvard.edu<mailto:Douglas_MacFad...@hms.harvard.edu>> wrote:
> Agreed that Biositemaps and the work being done at Vanderbilt for C4 clearly play an important role in identifying hard to find resources.
>
> One of the largest historical challenges in resource cataloging efforts is enabling utility to the broad user community.  As with all information, utility can be increased by improving it's flow into the world of the user - rather than requiring the user to come find it.  From my perspective, standards play the most important role in enabling information flow (visibility) by increasing the opportunities for connectivity with related information and systems.  As a result, I strongly urge all efforts of resource cataloging to adopt standards in both semantics and data sharing formats.  Nothing unfamiliar for this group; community developed ontologies and RDF seem well suited to the task.  I strongly encourage the continued work of this group.
>
> Of course, standards don't just facilitate the discovery process; they also enable interoperability with other parts of the resource eco-system.  I am encouraged by Science Exchange's interest in using community ontologies for resources and expect that this will help enable integrations of discovery systems with transactional resource sharing systems; making it easier to fulfill the goal of broad resource discovery and sharing – someday.
>
> Doug
>
> Douglas MacFadden
> Director of Informatics Technology, CBMI/Countway
> Harvard Medical School

> douglas_macfad...@hms.harvard.edu<http://douglas_macfad...@hms.harvard.edu/>
> 617-432-2213<tel:617-432-2213>

>
> From: Conlon, Mike [mailto:mcon...@ufl.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:55 PM
> To: resource-represent...@googlegroups.com<mailto:resource-repre sentation-c...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [rrc] RE: group objectives
>
> I’ve always found Biositemaps appealing.  The level of representation seemed useful – a list of 100 or so resources of each major center that could be used by others, along with contact information and some categorization.  The data management appeared manageable – as a CTSA we can identify resources at this level and establish data management practices to keep the information accurate.  The ontology had some odd features – it seemed that many of our resources ended up in a narrow band while whole chunks of the vocabulary went unused.  The technology worked well – centralized provisioning, RDF and the editor all worked for this kind of information.  To my understanding it hasn’t been integrated with other projects, nor broadly adopted.  I can certainly understand why C4 would want to have something similar for the consortium.
>
> Mike
>

> From: resource-represent...@googlegroups.com<mailto:resource-repre sentation-c...@googlegroups.com> [mailto:resource-represent...@googlegroups.com]<mailto:[mail to:resource-represent...@googlegroups.com]> On Behalf Of Melissa Haendel
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 6:04 PM
> To: resource-represent...@googlegroups.com<mailto:resource-repre sentation-c...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [rrc] group objectives
>
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to reach out to you all and determine where we stand with this group's interest. We've (I've) been a bit sporadic with our meetings since Jessie et al/Biositemaps have been moving on to other things, and attendance has been diminishing.
>

> With the new CTSA coordinating center in place, the CTSA Booz Allen Hamilton contracts and other supplements funded, perhaps we may want to retool this group and what it might do for us? It was originally a great mechanism to discuss how to model research resources for discovery and sharing across applications and institutions. What do we ...
>
> read more »

[Lyster, Peter (NIH/NIGMS) [E]]

I’d like to add my support for the efforts.  NIH has an interest in the dissemination of the fruits of biomedical research.  Among items discussed below: common exchange format (dare I say ‘standard’); marketplace; use cases.  Any standard of course needs to have a good base in the community of users and developers.  I know progress is slow and funding is not always uniform in time, but I hope we can persevere on this effort.

 

Peter Lyster, PhD, Program Director, Division of Biomedical Technology, Bioinformatics, and Computational Biology, NIH/NIGMS

[Barnett, William Kinne]

As a follow-up, Melissa Haendel kindly introduced me to Elizabeth Iorns, the CEO of Science Exchange, and we have had a conversation.  She would be happy to do a brief presentation to this group if you are interested.  It might be nice to have a presentation also from biositemaps on the same call?  

- BIll

-- 

William K. Barnett, Ph.D.

Research Technologies (Science Community Tools) and the Pervasive Technology Institute

Indiana University

email: barnettw @ iu.edu, work: +1 (812) 856-3038, cell: +1 (812) 361-3369

http://mypage.iu.edu/~barnettw 

From: "Lyster, Peter (NIH/NIGMS) [E]" <lyst...@nigms.nih.gov>
Reply-To: <resource-represent...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:08:24 -0400
To: "resource-represent...@googlegroups.com" <resource-represent...@googlegroups.com>

[anita bandrowski]

We have spoken to her as well and I agree with you that a conversation with this group would be useful.
I don't think that we have a person in charge of scheduling talks. Do you want to ask when she is available during the usual Thursday time-slot?
anita

[Melissa Haendel]

Hi all,

This group has traditionally had two time slots:

The second monday of each month at noon PT/3pmET for "all-hands" types of presentations, and every other Thursday at 1pm PT for the in-the-weeds ontology work. 

Can folks who would like to participate, please let me know if the second monday time doesn't work for you? Else we can keep this time and schedule for the June time slot.

Looking forward to speaking with you all soon.

Best,

Melissa

[Borromeo, Charles]

Hi Melissa,

  Both of those times work for me.

Thanks,

Chuck

[Barnett, William Kinne]

Elizabeth Iorns would be happy to present on the June 11 call, if you'd be willing to put her on the agenda. - Bill

-- 

William K. Barnett, Ph.D.

Research Technologies (Science Community Tools) and the Pervasive Technology Institute

Indiana University

email: barnettw @ iu.edu, work: +1 (812) 856-3038, cell: +1 (812) 361-3369

http://mypage.iu.edu/~barnettw 

From: Melissa Haendel <hae...@ohsu.edu>
Reply-To: <resource-represent...@googlegroups.com>

[Melissa Haendel]

That sounds great!

Hopefully everyone can still make this time. It certainly was a hard one to find the first time around ;-).

Thanks for coordinating Bill.

Cheers,

Melissa