Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 20, 2023. It is now read-only.


cannin edited this page Jun 10, 2016 · 1 revision


  • Huaiyu Mi (HM)
  • Stuart Moodie (SM)
  • Anatoly Sorokin (AS)
  • Falk Schreiber (FS)
  • Tobias Czauderna (TC)

Meeting minutes from Gatersleben meeting

  • AS: provide links to the Google docs on
  • HM: Which meeting?
  • FS: Editors meeting in Gatersleben (Germany) 16th and 17th of December 2013, basically review of the specifications and what needs to be done for Level 1 Version 2 specs
  • FS: export pdfs and put it on
  • AS: will do it

Release of the next version of ER specification

  • FS: This relates to Nicolas' mail on the mailing list.
  • FS, SM: We should check the meeting notes from the Gatersleben meeting and see what still needs to be done.
  • AS: What about the synchronisation event I have proposed?
  • TC, FS, SM: This was planned for Level 2, wasn't it?
  • AS: What about removing 'delay'?
  • AS: We should release it around Harmony 2014.
  • AS, HM: Removing 'delay' will take some time (discussion and so on). Should be Level 2 then.
  • AS: I have fixed a lot of things.
  • AS: I can finish it by end of February 2014 and will send it to the editors first. Afterwards it will be sent for public approval.
  • AS: I would like to send it for public approval latest end of March. Then we can take feedback during Harmony.

Next version of PD specification

  • SM: I started to work on the spec recently again and will do some more work in the next time.
  • SM: We should try to have a draft for Harmony as well.

Next version of AF specification

  • HM: I'm currently working on the LEGO project. They didn't fully accept AF yet for their work because it doesn't completely cover what they need.
  • HM: I currently try to capture what exactly they need.
  • FS: But necessary changes should be Level 2 then, right?
  • HM: Yes, we could do it.
  • TC: Can we invite someone to Combine?
  • HM: Yes, should be possible.
  • FS: Should we have the next version for Harmony as well?
  • HM: The only change was the process.
  • TC: We should review the meeting notes from Gatersleben meeting because there was some confusion.
  • TC: Process is in the spec but there was no vote.
  • AS: Yes, there was a vote about phenotype but not about process.
  • HM: We should check, I will provide a link to a mail from the mailing list.
  • FS: We should have a version for Harmony. We need to add 'annotation'.

Planning of HARMONY 2014

  • FS: Who will be there?
  • FS, HM, TC: No.
  • SM: In principle I could go but I need to fund myself.
  • AS: I'm not sure.
  • SM: Anatoly, if you come to Edinburgh we could go together.
  • SM, TC: Maybe some funding is available for editors?
  • AS: I will know if I can go by beginning of March.
  • FS: It might be good if SBGN can be represented.
  • TC: Let's discuss it during next meeting again.

Planning of COMBINE 2014

  • HM: We can support the editors. Let me know if someone needs a letter of support.
  • HM: We will have the SBGN meeting on 16th and 17th of August.
  • FS: We should announce it soon.
  • SM: I can't be there for the whole Combine but I will be there for the SBGN meeting.

Plannning of ICSB 2014

  • AS: I won't go.
  • SM: I won't go as well.
  • FS: Tobias or I will be there. We will take part in the Combine tutorial which is planned for ICSB.
  • HM: I'm still trying to figure out if I can go.

SBGN Review Paper

  • FS: We got a response to the NAR inquiry. They want us to take into account other approaches as well and compare them to SBGN.
  • SM: We probably should go for a different journal then.
  • TC: Yes, otherwise we might loose the focus on what we actually wanted to submit.
Clone this wiki locally