This document describes a web-based registry that aims to provide guidance for researchers, developers, and curators on selecting content standards and databases. There are almost 600 content standards in the life sciences. The registry will allow users to search for, filter, submit, and view information on standards and databases. It will link standards to databases that implement them and provide visualizations of standard formats and terminologies. The goal is to help stakeholders make informed decisions by providing a curated, searchable registry of standards and database information. An advisory board and working group will oversee the registry's development and operations.

1. Funded by:

2. ~ 156
~ 70
~ 334
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 the life sciences there are almost 600 content standards
Databases and tools !
implementing !
Standards; also training
material on and around
standards!

3. A web-based, curated and searchable registry ensuring that
standards and databases are registered, informative and discoverable;
also monitoring the development and evolution of standards, their use in
databases and the adoption of both in data policies.
Launched Jan 2011,
extending on

4. Researchers, developers and curators lack support and guidance on how to best navigate and
select content standards, understand their maturity, or find databases that implement them;
Funders, journals and librarians do not have enough information to make informed decisions
on which content standards or database to recommended in policies, or funded or implemented
Goal: assist stakeholders to make informed decisions

5. The International Conference on Systems Biology (ICSB), 22-28 August, 2008 Susanna-Assunta
Sansone www.ebi.ac.uk/net-project
Core functionalities:
• search and filtering, e.g. by
funder
• submissions forms to add
new records
• “claim” functionality of
existing records
• person’s profile (as
maintainer of records)
associated to the ORCID
profile (for credit, as
incentive)
• visualization and views of
content
Search, filter, submit, claim (get credit) view and more
Annotation Sources:
• 4 axis: (material, process,
quality, information)
• NIF,OBI,CL,GO,IAO,EDAM

6. STANDARD DATABASE
Standards and databases cross-linked

7. Work in progress
1. Connectivity: put standards and databases in context
2. Schema view: visualize formats, (via BioPortal) terminologies,
and progressively reporting guidelines
3. Export of metadata elements: as part of (see poster)

8. The relationship among
popular standard formats
for pathway information. !
Demir, et al., The BioPAX
community standard for
pathway data sharing,
Nat Biotech. 2010.
Work in progress
4. Create relation or “usage maps and guides”, e.g.:
5. Metrics of maturity, usability and popularity
6. Embed in the ecosystem of complementary registries

9. Advisory Board and Working Group - core members and adopters
Operational Team

10. Complementarity of registries
• All provide information to those seek guidance to use, do or
recommend something (databases, tools, standards, training material
etc)
• Designed with a slightly different focus and user needs; focus on
curating/cataloguing certain information
• Having different entry points and UIs to fit the specific scope/user
needs is good, so federation is key, e.g. cross-references
• Address need for funds to implement a common CV (EDAM) for this
federation (curating existing records retrospectively, but also
prospectively, via e.g. common curation practices, maintaining and
developing a common CV)
Ø Also address the issue of overlaps/diversity: formats (BioSharing vs
EDAM) and databases (BioSharing and identifiers.org), see notes from
Tech Coord Group