I agree with Ramona and Philippe. We will need to collaborate since these two ontologies overlap a lot.

 

One quick question for Philippe: does STATO import the whole OBI or part of OBI (as OBCS does)? It appears STATO include many obsolete OBI terms. So I am wondering.

 

One note: STATO is claimed to have broader scope than biological and clinical statistics. The Ontology of Biological and Clinical Statistics (OBCS) is for sure focused on biological and clinical statistics as reflected from its name. Therefore, there may be some big difference here in terms of the domain/scope of these two ontologies. I know STATO uses OBI that is focused on biomedical domain. I am not sure about the STATO’s vision of going beyond biomedical domain.    

 

Yes, let’s find a time to discuss.

 

Thanks,

 

Oliver (on behalf of OBCS developers)

 

 

From: Philippe [mailto:proccaserra@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 6:11 AM
To: obo-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net; obo-foundry-outreach-working-group@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Obo-discuss] coordination of STATO and OBCS

 

Dear OBO Foundry Outreach Working Group,

We as STATO developers are happy to collaborate, avoiding duplication of effort and entirely willing to engage.

We have put significant efforts in providing not only textual but also formal definitions for the majority of STATO classes and also provide extensive documentation embedded in the ontology, all of which are central foundry principles and indicative of the resource development status.

We will be happy to discuss with OBCS developers on how to move our efforts forwards.

Best regards,

Philippe (on behalf of STATO developers)

On 04/03/2014 03:03, obo-foundry-outreach-working-group@googlegroups.com wrote:

Dear community members:

Two recent requests for ontology prefixes have come in on the OBO Foundry Operations Committee tracker: One for the Ontology of Biological and Clinical Statistics (OBCS, Issue 130) and one for the Statistics Ontology (STATO, Issue 131).


Although there are no strict requirements for requesting an OBO Foundry Purl,  OBO Foundry Principles do suggest that ontologies have delineated content (FP 005 delineated content) and that they be developed by collaboration (FP 010 collaboration). In interest of pursuing these principles, we would like to have an update, on this list, on if and how the developers of these two ontologies have been working together to reduce redundancy between them and ensure harmonious ontology development, or at least how you might be willing to approach the subject in the future.

Thanks!

Ramona Walls

(on behalf of the OBO Foundry Outreach Working Group)



--------------------------------------------------------------------
The OBO Foundry Outreach Working Group
Open Biological and Biomedial Ontologies Foundry

To request a review or PURL, suggest an item for the OBO Foundry calendar, or ask a technical question, use the OBO Foundry Operations Committee issue tracker at http://code.google.com/p/obo-foundry-operations-committee/issues/list.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce.
With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works. 
Faster operations. Version large binaries.  Built-in WAN optimization and the
freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk




_______________________________________________
Obo-discuss mailing list
Obo-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/obo-discuss

 

**********************************************************
Electronic Mail is not secure, may not be read every day, and should not be used for urgent or sensitive issues