I agree with Olivier, particularly when considering multi-component systems
(certainly our goal).
Which brings up the questions of priorities? (1-10 each?)
Is it to demonstrate the functionality and value of languages/OWL?
informatics? universal standards? value of component research? specific
tools?
And relative to- patient care? lowering healthcare costs? more
accurate/faster diagnosis? fewer errors? And/or?
.02- MM
Mark Montgomery
Founder, Kyield
http://kyield.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Olivier Bodenreider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Eric Neumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Alan Ruttenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Notes from informal Demo F2F / "aha"
Eric Neumann wrote:
[...]
It was also apparent that we need to identify what the specific "aha"
or "cool factor" is in the demo when shown to the select audience; it
appears to me taht it should be about the RDF or OWL nature of the
data, federated SPARQL querying, and ability to add new data or
annotations and get even more out of the construct.
I usually get a "aha" moment with an animation I created to show that an
integrated resource is more than the sum of its parts. The "aha" slide
is attached is for a paper that was just accepted for presentation at
Medinfo next summer (much less ambitious than the demo, but well
received so far).
Sahoo S, Zeng K, Bodenreider O, Sheth AP.
From "glycosyltransferase" to "congenital muscular dystrophy":
Integrating knowledge from NCBI Entrez Gene and the Gene Ontology.
Medinfo 2007:(accepted).
http://mor.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/pdf/2007-medinfo-ss.pdf
(If somebody has a need for the RDF version of Entrez Gene we created,
we are of course willing to share.)
-- Olivier
