> I also think that the machine-readable representation of facts about > biology > should have a higher priortiy than the description of experimental setups > and procedures (which is the major goal of OBI and EXPO). People only have > limited time and motivation to create machine-readable annotations, and it > is much more useful when they spend that time on describing the RESULTS > (biological facts). Of course, descriptions of experiments are also > valuable, when there are sufficient resources left for creating them.
Good point. What I was sort of driving at (and failing) was the context in which the facts are mentioned---are they the aim of the paper, background information, mentioned as results and so forth? Currently in our (Project Prospect) RSS feeds we connect the OBO terms to the article with the content module of RSS, which I feel is unsatisfactory. Best wishes, Colin. -- Dr Colin Batchelor MChem MRSC, Production Systems Analyst Informatics Department, Royal Society of Chemistry, Thomas Graham House, Cambridge UK CB4 0WF [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +44 1223 432280 DISCLAIMER: This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening.
