GO Advisors Meeting: Difference between revisions

From GO Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 12: Line 12:


The workshop will consist of these sessions, we'll need to refine the morning before long:
The workshop will consist of these sessions, we'll need to refine the morning before long:
*8AM - 1PM, GO presentations
*8AM - 1PM, GO presentations: New initiatives in the renewal
**New initiatives in the renewal
**Ontology Developments (Chris & David)
***Ontology
**Reference Genomes (Michael)
*1PM - 2PM, Advisors meet with go top over lunch
**Outreach (Jen?)
*2PM - 3PM, Advisors powwow
**Break
*3PM - 5PM, Feedback and discussion
**Advocacy (Eurie and Jane)
*6PM group dinner
**New management structure (Suzi)
**Summary of issues we face: pink sheets and more (Judy)


== Participants ==
== Participants ==

Revision as of 19:03, 27 July 2006

Aim of the meeting

The main focus of this meeting is to obtain our advisors views and perspectives on the work we have planned (i.e. the new proposal) and the approach we are taking to accomplish our aims.

Please add items below that you think need to be presented. When possible, please put your request in priority rank order:

  1. Who is the target audience for the annotation tool?
  2. How does the idea of an annual functional annotation tool bake-off sound to you? How would you approach it? Can it be used to keep orphaned genomes up-to-date?
  3. Almost everyone agrees that the GO Consortium should develop an annotation tool, but once we begin asking questions about what the tool should do, it becomes clear that every group has very different ideas about what such a tool should do. Groups within the GO tend to advocate for the development of a tool that satisfies their own research efforts at the moment, because that is the immediate need as they understand it. Could the advisors suggest a way of determining which of these special-purpose applications are best for the GO user community as a whole, so that we can decide how to focus our development efforts? What's the best way to encourage inter-group communication to foster collaboration on tools and minimize redundant development efforts? How can we decide whether specific, highly targeted annotation tools or general, lowest-common-denominator annotation tools would be most useful to our user community?

Agenda

In order to meet our objectives, we need to present all of the material in the morning.

The workshop will consist of these sessions, we'll need to refine the morning before long:

  • 8AM - 1PM, GO presentations: New initiatives in the renewal
    • Ontology Developments (Chris & David)
    • Reference Genomes (Michael)
    • Outreach (Jen?)
    • Break
    • Advocacy (Eurie and Jane)
    • New management structure (Suzi)
    • Summary of issues we face: pink sheets and more (Judy)

Participants

  1. Michael Ashburner
  2. Judy Blake
  3. Eurie Hong
  4. Suzi Lewis
  5. Rex Chisholm
  6. Jen Clark
  7. Midori Harris
  8. David Hill
  9. Ben Hitz (representing production services)
  10. Jane Lomax
  11. Chris Mungall
  1. Larry Hunter (advisor)
  2. Lynette Hirschman (advisor)
  3. Barry Smith (advisor)
  4. David States (advisor)
  5. Mike Tyers (advisor)
  6. Craig Neville-Manning (advisor)
  7. Peter Tarczy-Harnach (advisor)
  8. Ian Dix (advisor)
  1. Monte Westerfield?
  2. Peter Good?

Venue

Accommodation: Silver Cloud Inns / Seattle-University Village

 5036 25th Avenue NE
 Seattle, WA 98105
 Phone: 206-526-5200