I fully agree with the statement that ' But seriously, Tim, if we were to pursue this problem, we would need some form of unambiguous identifier for "things"... and given the distributed nature of the biomedical domain, we'd want to make sure that there was some way of resolving that identifier to obtain metadata about it from a variety of disparate sources who might have very different information - clinical, molecular, demographic, etc... '
For this reason we have been developing rule-based, unambiguous, self documenting identifiers for molecules and their sub-components of relevance to use-cases such as drug design. The method is called 'Chem-BLAST' http://www.igi-global.com/Bookstore/Article.aspx?TitleId=47107 Recently we have been extending this method to text-based vocabulary such as those used to describe cell image data. I am enclosing one of our abstracts for further reading T N Bhat -----Original Message----- From: public-semweb-lifesci-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tim Clark Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:55 PM To: Mark Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org Subject: Re: An Universal Exchange Language I think we are qualified and should apply for the $ - we could make a YouTube video of our application and send it in. People could learn something - and we might get rich. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 14, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Mark <ma...@illuminae.com> wrote: > But seriously, Tim, if we were to pursue this problem, we would need some > form of unambiguous identifier for "things"... and given the distributed > nature of the biomedical domain, we'd want to make sure that there was some > way of resolving that identifier to obtain metadata about it from a variety > of disparate sources who might have very different information - clinical, > molecular, demographic, etc... > > hmmmm.... > >
CYTO_2011_Baltimore.pdf
Description: CYTO_2011_Baltimore.pdf
