The group then spent one hour wrapping up and deciding on actions in a session chaired by Dawn Field, who gave a brief overview of the meeting and then opened the floor for discussion. All were in agreement that: 1) MIBBI should continue; 2) future meetings would be of value; 3) the Portal should be improved; 4) that there is a need to strike a balance between the independence of MI communities (as listed in the Portal) and the need for harmonization (through the Foundry); 5) that communication should be improved; and that 6) in general there are many ways in which the project could develop.
Attendees felt that the most positive outcomes of the meeting were:
The chance to meet other MI checklist project coordinators and exchange knowledge.
The clarification of the roles of MIBBI:
o For developers: promoting best practice on creating MIs; working with those seeking validation for their implementation (e.g., software/instrument vendors); supporting DOIs (Web Site) and ORCIDs (Web Site); providing ‘common’ checklist modules that can be re-used by communities to improve compatibility; development and maintenance of mappings between community checklists; providing tutorials and forums for discussion.
o for end-users: provision of guidance and tools to simplify the identification of relevant standards; links to summaries of journals’ and funders’ requirements and tools to support those requirements; provision of instructive examples of usage; and the development of a wizard to help end-users identify checklists with which they should be trying to comply.
The agreement to provide a core set of MIBBI modules covering common bioscience workflow components for reuse in communities’ own checklists.
The identification of tools to help users to meet the requirements of several MI checklists, such as ISA software suite.
The commitment to work together to help promote the efforts of each group providing checklists (for example, by working towards a journal special issue).
Agreements on the specific roles and further development of the various parts of MIBBI included:
Roles: maintain up-to-date versions of descriptions of MI projects; actively engage with checklist project representatives, for example, through regular email circulars.
Best practices: ensure all projects provide standard descriptions of their MI checklists; define ‘style guidance’ for checklists (which currently vary greatly); support DOIs and ORCIDs; recommend the use of version control and the timely handling of requests for revisions.
Certification/uptake: creation of a process to certify tools/systems, to maximize adoption (because the more tools that are genuinely compliant, the easier it is for users to comply); opening of dialogs with national standards groups.
Role: enhance the compatibility of community checklists without encroaching on their independence.
Common elements: the MIBBI Foundry should offer a core set of modules covering common areas of workflows; those modules and their components should be semantically tagged and available in several formats, to be reused by individual communities to enhance checklist compatibility.
Project-specific content: offer the facility to host or mirror communities’ checklist content to facilitate its discovery and use, ensuring that users have straightforward access to up-to-date guidance.
Role: to provide information about the project to newcomers and others in concise, bulleted form.
User management: the website should cater to developers and other kinds of user (bench scientists, reviewers of various kinds) separately, acknowledging their different needs.
MIBBI in the context of the BioSharing initiative
Role: to represent the interests of the MI checklist community and to ensure stable links to other standards and the bodies that represent them.