The CEREALAB Database : Ongoing research and future challenges

The objective of the CEREALAB database is to help the breeders in choosing molecular markers associated to the most important traits. Phenotypic and genotypic data obtained from the integration of open source databases with the data obtained by the CEREALAB project are made available to the users. The first version of the CEREALAB database has been extensively used within the frame of the CEREALAB project. This paper presents the main achievements and the ongoing research related to the CEREALAB database. First, as a result of the extensive use of the CEREALAB database, several extensions and improvements to the web application user interface were introduced. Second, always derived from end-user needs, the notion of provenance was introduced and partially implemented in the context of the CEREALAB database. Third, we describe some preliminary ideas to annotate the CEREALAB database and to publish it in the Linking Open Data network.

Contributed by Domenico Beneventano, Sonia Bergamaschi, Abdul Rahman Dannaoui, Justyna Milc, Nicola Pecchioni, Serena Sorrentino

You can view/ download the submitted paper from HERE.

After reviewing the paper you can leave your comment on this post, and/ or rate the paper (Rate this – above the title of the post).


1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to “The CEREALAB Database : Ongoing research and future challenges

  1. I really enjoyed reading the specific paper, despite the fact that there were some issues, at least from my point of view. What I really liked was the fact that it describes a database which brings the end users/practitioners closer to research outcomes (the contents of the database). However, I would appreciate a more detailed description of the database (e.g. indicating the number and types of records, a link to the original project website etc.). There is also no information about if these records can be shared with other platforms/exposed through any kind of service (e.g. OAI-PMH target). A comparison with other related databases could highlight the advantages over the existing ones and the need for the development of the specific database.

    Some parts of the paper are really technical (such as the first paragraphs of section 2) and could be replaced by more relevant information. On the other hand, the information about the user generated content (next paragraphs of the same section) was really interesting, despite the fact that no information is provided about the potential role of metadata and the corresponding user interface.

    One of the most interesting parts of the paper was the one about the RDF-ization: It is really well-described and the decisions made for this purpose are justified. However, the Conclusions are really poor and do not make justice to the rest of the in only a couple of sentences, it roughly provides a short overview of related future actions.

    Overall, I found the paper really interesting but it left me with the feeling that there were parts missing and made me ask for more information, based on links and references available, which should not be the case for getting an overall view of the subject of the paper.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s