Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[bioontology-support] [BioPortal] Feedback from Kati Carson

John Graybeal jgraybeal at stanford.edu
Thu Feb 22 13:47:15 PST 2018


Kati,

I assume you are considering creating a new entry for this ADI in the existing BioPortal?  Because the answer has several parts (hoping I have all these details right at this point!).

First, there is a way to specify the license wording explicitly in the metadata for the ontology, this is entered as part of the ontology submission information. If that's all you want, you can stop reading all the 'enhancement' ideas below.

As you know, though, the license words do not provide any enforcement. I know of no reasonable way to enforce this within BioPortal. Here are the options:

* If there are very few users expected, then you could make the ontology private until the user registers with you, then give them access on BioPortal one at a time (by adding them to the accession list by their BioPortal ID, one at a time). But they would not see the metadata for the private ontology, so no one would not see the ontology advertised unless they have permission to see it.

* Conversely, you could enter a metadata-only ontology, but then no one would see the content at all, and BioPortal couldn't make its services available for that ontology's terms. And there is no mechanism in BioPortal to constrain access to a full ontology until  the person has registered.  (Though definitely a feature to be considered.)  If you referred users to a site outside BioPortal, you could get them to register at that site if you wanted to collect their information before giving them access.

* If not too many users would be involved, you could mix both approaches by creating one BioPortal entry for the metadata, and another for the private ontology. That just seems wrong somehow, but I don't think we could fix BioPortal any time soon.

* Finally, in an extended variation, you could create your own BioPortal virtual appliance just for this ontology, and implement whatever rules you want for people to get accounts on it.

I would note that the thing that makes ontologies most valuable—the ability for anyone to interoperate with them in lots of different ways—also makes them all but ungovernable. But if you/HIPxChange are really motivated to make this happen, you could consult with us about adding a feature to enable what they want. I'm imagining any actual cost might be out of their price range, but I wanted to put that option on the table.

John


On Feb 22, 2018, at 12:03 PM, support at bioontology.org<mailto:support at bioontology.org> wrote:


Name: Kati Carson

Email: Katherine.Carson at seattlechildrens.org<mailto:Katherine.Carson at seattlechildrens.org>

Location: http%3A%2F%2Fbioportal.bioontology.org<http://2Fbioportal.bioontology.org>%2F

Feedback:

My team is considering creating a bioportal for the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) based on 9-digit zip codes. This data is owned by HIPxChange who are interested in tracking those who use the data. Is it possible to do specific terms & agreements for specific ontologies?

Thanks
Kati

_______________________________________________
bioontology-support mailing list
bioontology-support at lists.stanford.edu<mailto:bioontology-support at lists.stanford.edu>
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/bioontology-support

========================
John Graybeal
Technical Program Manager
Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
650-736-1632


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/bioontology-support/attachments/20180222/43eaae64/attachment.html>


More information about the bioontology-support mailing list