On Jun 5, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Miller, Michael D (Rosetta) wrote:
Hi Ben and Matt,
An RDF version of the
UMLS knowledge sources would be seem to be very useful - at
least for
bioinformatics research purposes ...
What I was trying to discover was, from a purely RDF/ontology
standpoint, what is
I would strongly recommend using the neuroanatomy community's
ontologies if at all possible. People I work with at MGH use that
for doing structural morphometry, the results of which you would want
to integrate with experimental results from other modalities as well
as organized research
I wouldn't suggest an open neural anatomy ontology be built without the
neuroscience community. Such an animal would need to be like a large open
source software effort (think Linux, for example) but with both
informaticists and neuroscientists rather than traditional coders.
Don
-Original
For more up-to-date information about neuronames and related tools,
please visit: http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/. While building our
own open neural anatomy is one option, getting the neuroscientist (e.g.,
braininfo people) involved if possible may be another option (outreach
to the ne
For more up-to-date information about neuronames and related tools,
please visit: http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/. While building our
own open neural anatomy is one option, getting the neuroscientist (e.g.,
braininfo people) involved if possible is another option (outreach to
the neuros
Matthew’s statement is a truism.
Even though I’m in private
enterprise I feel the patent/copyright/etc. system is broken and a huge
liability for where IP needs to go during the 21st century. Worse,
the problem has been exacerbated by the Bayh-Dole Patent act.
Enough rant…
Anyon
Phone
+1 617 761 6200, conference 24668 ("BIONT")
IRC
irc://irc.w3.org:6665/hcls
Browser-based IRC client
http://www.w3.org/2001/01/cgi-irc
Date and Time: 6th June, 2006, 11:00am –
12:00pm
Agenda:
-
Di
Seems like rights restrictions on standard ontologies (within UMLS for example) could be a significant hindrance to semantic web efforts.John, Daniel,I wonder if this may be an area where Science Commons (and the NCBO) can help? i.e. By encouraging the rights owners for ontologies to open them up t
kei cheung wrote:
Hi Olivier,
Sorry, I missed part of your talk (the beginning part and the ending
part) as I needed to be at other meetings. Is Neuronames
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9410576&dopt=Abstract)
part of UMLS now? If so, does it
As much as I was opposed to OWLizing the UMLS, I agree that it would be
doable and certainly useful to RDFize it. My group at NLM is actually
working on something similar as part of a larger project where we
develop a repository of facts extracted from the literature,
terminologies and struct
Hi Olivier,
Sorry, I missed part of your talk (the beginning part and the ending
part) as I needed to be at other meetings. Is Neuronames
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9410576&dopt=Abstract)
part of UMLS now? If so, does it make sense to conve
Hi Ben and Matt,
> An RDF version of the
> UMLS knowledge sources would be seem to be very useful - at
> least for
> bioinformatics research purposes ...
What I was trying to discover was, from a purely RDF/ontology
standpoint, what is gained without any other knowledge of UMLS?
This q
Hi,
I would tend to agree with Matt on this one. An RDF version of the
UMLS knowledge sources would be seem to be very useful - at least for
bioinformatics research purposes - without the benefits of the
"correct" OWL ontology with which to describe the relationships
included.
Though
Hi All,
> But presumably the relations which characterize the structure
> of UMLS could be given their own URIs, no?
> Along with the concepts themselves.
>
> And then UMLS could then be expressed in RDF, using UMLS
> specific relations, rather than standard OWL relations.
This, of course, wo
But presumably the relations which characterize the structure of UMLS could be
given their own URIs, no?
Along with the concepts themselves.
And then UMLS could then be expressed in RDF, using UMLS specific relations,
rather than standard OWL relations.
It would then at least be URI-ified and
Benjamin Good wrote:
Are there any plans to release the UMLS or parts thereof as RDF / OWL ?
Not to my knowledge, Ben. And I certainly would be very cautious of any
attempt to doing it. The main reason is that many relations used for
creating hierarchies in biomedical vocabularies are not true
Are there any plans to release the UMLS or parts thereof as RDF / OWL ?
thanks
-Ben
On Jun 5, 2006, at 7:44 AM, Olivier Bodenreider wrote:
A PDF file with the slides of my UMLS presentation this morning is
available at:
http://mor.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/pres/060605-BioRDF.pdf
-- Olivier
Sus
Hi Mark,
Just to add a bit to Steve's reply...
> > If the only thing that comes from the LSID spec is a notion of an
> > identifier
> > syntax that becomes widely adopted by bioinformatics data
> providers, it
> > would be a huge success, ...
In the gene expression domain, best practice stat
Call
for Papers
International Conference on Next generation Web Services Practices (NWeSP'06)
is a forum which brings together researchers and practitioners specializing on
different aspects of Web based information systems. The inaugural conference
will bring together the world's most res
A PDF file with the slides of my UMLS presentation this morning is
available at:
http://mor.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/pres/060605-BioRDF.pdf
-- Olivier
Susie Stephens wrote:
Don't forget to participate in Monday's BioRDF call, as Olivier
Bodenreider will be giving an overview of UMLS.
Call Detai
20 matches
Mail list logo
