Clarification - Re: Steering Committee feedback and next Bioschemas Community meeting

Dear Bioschemas Community,

We realise the wording of our previous email was confusing and we 
apologise for that.

So, let’s start again.

Of the 15 released Bioschemas profiles we have 8 that are actually 
domain agnostic: TrainingMaterials, Computational Tool, Computational 
workflow, Formal Parameter, DataCatalog, Dataset, Course and CourseInstance.

We have had other research sectors tell us that they did not look at 
these because they had the word “bio” associated and assumed it only 
applied to biology, whereas they would be great for them too. To avoid 
wheel reinvention, we propose to

(i) retain Bioschemas as it is, with all its strong branding and Biology 
relevance, and

(ii) spin up a Cross-Disciplinary space where we can also showcase the 
domain agnostic profiles that are applicable to a wider community. We 
propose to call it schemas.science <https://schemas.science>. It will 
have a simplified style logo, akin to the branding of Bioschemas, but 
with a different colour scheme. We don’t want to lose that. The aim is 
for this tweaked branding to mirror the domain-agnostic specifications 
being hosted, so researchers in other areas can easily find them.

That is it. No attempt at world domination for all sciences. It’s just 
showcasing what we already have in another way.

Kind regards,
Bioschemas Steering Council


On 16/05/23 12:38, Ivan Mičetić wrote:
>
> Dear Bioschemas community,
>
> We wanted to provide some updates from the Steering Committee, as well 
> as solicit feedback on a number of issues that arose during our recent 
> Steering meeting.
>
> *Schemas.science*. Due to cross-domain interest in some of our 
> schemas, we are launching schemas.science (development at a very early 
> stage). This will allow us to to take a sidestep away from the implied 
> ‘bio’ focus of ‘BioSchemas’ and encourage uptake in other areas. 
> Subdomains, e.g., bio.schemas.science can be used for domain-specific 
> specifications. We’d like your insight on:
>
>   * What are the implications?
>   * How will this be organised?
>
> *Community calls*. We are looking for input on changing the format of 
> community calls
>
>   * To improve inclusiveness, we’d like to move away from excessively
>     technical discussions (e.g., GitHub issues).
>   * We propose to have first half on ticket discussion, and second
>     half for discussions and issues faced by group leads, but are open
>     to suggestions of other formats with the goal of making the
>     community calls:
>       o More interactive
>       o A setting for active groups to highlight progress (e.g.,
>         provide a more ‘show and tell’ setting)
>
> *Community needs*. We are also interested in hearing more about the 
> community needs for
>
>   * Tooling: What works well?  What could be improved (and how)? What
>     is missing?
>   * Training: We want to provide guidance for different CMS systems.
>     What are the priority ones?
>
>
> These topics will be covered in our monthly Bioschemas Community 
> Meeting scheduled for next Monday, 22 May 2023 at 17:00 - 18:00 CEST 
> (16:00 - 17:00 BST, 8:00-9:00 PDT).
>
> Meeting agenda:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kd5F97ogdiPNhLTnkei-RVR8TC8Ohpc5QSPX3KsfDrk/edit#heading=h.2zqrmsjs2w7a
>
> Hub provided Zoom link for the meeting:
> https://elixir-europe-org.zoom.us/j/84783095388?pwd=cmprWVFSVzlXVUZ4SFdJK0lVRkdEZz09
>
> Thank you,
> regards,
>
> Ivan Mičetić on behalf of the Steering Committee
>