Data Consultant, Honorary Academic Editor Associate Director, Principal Investigator Community-driven metadata standards in the life science - analyzing their life cycle Susanna-Assunta Sansone, PhD miame MIAPA MIRIAM MIQAS MIX MIGEN ARRIVE MIAPE MIASE MIQE MISFISHIE. REMARK CONSORT MAGE-Tab GCDML SRAxml SOFT FASTA DICOM MzML SBRML SEDML GELML ISA-Tab CML MITAB AAO CHEBI OBI PATO ENVO MOD BTO IDO TEDDY PRO XAO DO VO In life sciences there are more than 600 content standards Databases and tools implementing Standards; also training material on and around standards In life sciences there are more than 600 content standards Many organizations and quite diverse, few examples: de jurede facto grass-roots groups standard organizations Nanotechnology Working Group Many organizations and quite diverse, few examples: organization types (open, close to members, society, WG etc.) standards development (how to design, develop, evaluate, maintain etc.) adoption, uptake, outreach (journals, funders, commercial sector etc.) funds (sponsors, memberships, grants, volunteering etc.) de jurede facto grass-roots groups standard organizations Nanotechnology Working Group Life cycle - phases Formulating -> use cases, scope and prioritization Life cycle - phases Formulating -> use cases, scope and prioritization Technologically-delineated views of the world Biologically-delineated views of the world Generic features (common core) - description of source biomaterial - experimental design components Arrays Scanning Arrays & Scanning Columns Gels MS FTIR NMR Columns transcriptomics proteomics metabolomics plant biology epidemiology microbiology Formulating -> use cases, scope and prioritization Use cases and competency questions: Life cycle - phases Formulating -> use cases, scope and prioritization Conducting -> iterations, testing, feedback and requests Life cycle - phases Formulating -> use cases, scope and prioritization Conducting -> iterations, testing, feedback and requests Maintaining -> implementations, metrics, education, sustainability and evolution Life cycle - phases The International Conference on Systems Biology (ICSB), August, 2008 Susanna-Assunta Sansone12 Social engineering Community activities are very rewarding but it is hard work social engineering is a difficult and demanding task, there is always somebody that will not be happy Funds are hard to get just for standards per se, but easier if embedded into a research project user needs and case studies are pivotal to develop, test, test again and again, evaluate and improve the work Future proofing the work is the challenging! how to best meet the immediate needs, or at least 80% of them, but keep an eye on the next steps? An open community work, belongs to the community how to best credit each contributors, encourage and reward participation? how to allow freedom vs moderate the work? How to address governance and ownership? Some of the lessons learned Green = months WG is just starting The products are principles for linking information about databases, content standards and journal / funder policies in the life sciences and a curated registry to access and cross-search the information, on which a variety of stakeholders can base their decisions This is a joint WG The work will benefit from the existingalso part of Proponents, core WG members and adopters Operational Team based at the Philippe Rocca-Serra, PhD Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran, PhD Milo Thurston, PhD Peter McQuilton, PhD Allyson Lister, PhD Eamonn Maguire, Dphil / Contractor David Johnson, PhD Susanna Sansone, PhD