OBO Foundry in 2021: Operationalizing Open Data Principles to Evaluate Ontologies
Rebecca JacksoniD, Nicolas MatentzogluiD, James A. OvertoniD, Randi VitaiD, James P. BalhoffiD, Pier Luigi ButtigiegiD, Seth CarboniD, Mélanie CourtotiD, Alexander D. DiehliD, Damion DooleyiD, William D. DuncaniD, Nomi L. HarrisiD, Melissa Anne HaendeliD, Suzanna LewisiD, Darren A. NataleiD, David Osumi-SutherlandiD, Alan RuttenbergiD, Lynn M. SchrimliD, Barry SmithiD, Christian J. StoeckertiD, Nicole VasilevskyiD, Ramona WallsiD, Jie ZhengiD, Chris MungalliD, Bjoern PetersiD
Abstract
Biological ontologies are used to organize, curate, and interpret the vast quantities of data arising from biological experiments. While this works well when using a single ontology, integrating multiple ontologies can be problematic, as they are developed independently, which can lead to incompatibilities. The Open Biological and Biomedical Ontologies (OBO) Foundry was created to address this by facilitating the development, harmonization, application, and sharing of ontologies, guided by a set of overarching principles. One challenge in reaching these goals was that the OBO principles were not originally encoded in a precise fashion, and interpretation was subjective. Here we show how we have addressed this by formally encoding the OBO principles as operational rules and implementing a suite of automated validation checks and a dashboard for objectively evaluating each ontologys compliance with each principle. This entailed a substantial effort to curate metadata across all ontologies and to coordinate with individual stakeholders. We have applied these checks across the full OBO suite of ontologies, revealing areas where individual ontologies require changes to conform to our principles. Our work demonstrates how a sizable federated community can be organized and evaluated on objective criteria that help improve overall quality and interoperability, which is vital for the sustenance of the OBO project and towards the overall goals of making data FAIR.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 214
- FWCI
- 10.82
- Field percentile
- top 1%
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- A tool for assessing alignment of biomedical data repositories with open, FAIR, citation and trustworthy principles
F. Murphy, M. Bar-Sinai, M. E. Martone·bioRxiv·Jan 19, 2021
- Towards semantic interoperability: finding and repairing hidden contradictions in biomedical ontologies
Luke T. Slater, Georgios V. Gkoutos, Robert Hoehndorf·BMC Medical Informatics and Decision MakingPeer-reviewed·Dec 15, 2020
- Omics Discovery Index - Discovering and Linking Public Omics Datasets
Yasset Perez-Riverol, Mingze Bai, … Henning Hermjakob·bioRxiv·Apr 18, 2016
- Enabling Semantic Queries Across Federated Bioinformatics Databases
Ana Claudia Sima, Tarcisio Mendes de Farias, … Christophe Dessimoz·DatabasePeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2019
- BioSharing: Harnessing Metadata Standards For The Data Commons
Susanna-Assunta Sansone, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran, … Milo Thurston·bioRxiv·May 31, 2017
- NGBO: Introducing -omics metadata to biobanking ontology.
Dalia A. Alghamdi, Damion Dooley, … William Hsiao·bioRxiv·May 9, 2023