Hi Trish,I too would be interested in hearing more about what Chris M. has been doing with alphanumeric IDs in translating between OBO format & OWL.As I've mentioned earlier, I'm more comfortable with the sort of URI Alan presents below, than one where term strings are used as IDs. In essence, the
Hi Trish,
What was the specifics of the argument for alphanumeric versus numeric
identifiers?
If you check out the go-format list I recently sent some examples that
use identifiers of the form
http://www.bioontologies.org/2006/02/obo/GO#001
Details are in
http://sourceforge.net/maila
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: 11th July, 2006,
11:00am - 12:00pm
Agenda:
-
Discuss progress on Ontology
Task Force tasks
-
An
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: 13th June,
2006, 11:00am - 12:00pm
Agenda:
-
Discuss progress on Ontology
Task Force tasks
-
Any o
With Annotea social bookmarks a user can tag their published experiments
with selected topics. This helps in finding them especially if we come
up with some recommended topics and publish them as bookmark files and
make links between topics that are similar enough. The rest of the
detailed in
Dear Philip,Thanks again for your thoughtful and candid comments.I'm glad you mentioned "Sonic Hedgehog." :-)I would have to disagree on the point you are making here.From the point of view of mining the literature, use of language is remarkably "messy" given the business of science.As wonderfully
AR> Could I strongly support the following. If there is one
AR> repeatedly confirmed lesson from the medical communities
AR> experience with large terminologies/ontologies/ it is to
AR> separate the "terms" from the "entities". ...
Not that I wish to disagree with Alan, of course, but
Hi All,
> Yes, but put another way, you have refactored the problem of
> "incommensurateness" into two more tractable pieces - one about the
> data structures to convey meaning, the other about the meanings
> conveyed. You have also removed the risk of conflating the two ...
Thanks, Alan
On 10 Jul 2006, at 11:42, Phillip Lord wrote:
"AR" == Alan Rector <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AR> All
AR> Just catching up.
AR> Could I strongly support the following. If there is one
AR> repeatedly confirmed lesson from the medical communities
AR> experience with large term
Dear Philip,I agree with every comment you make - 100%.Thanks for taking the time to address some of these issues.See below for very brief addenda.Cheers,BillOn Jul 10, 2006, at 6:36 AM, Phillip Lord wrote: "WB" == William Bug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: WB> 5) OWL isn't perfect for representing
> "AR" == Alan Rector <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AR> All
AR> Just catching up.
AR> Could I strongly support the following. If there is one
AR> repeatedly confirmed lesson from the medical communities
AR> experience with large terminologies/ontologies/ it is to
AR> separate t
> "WB" == William Bug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
WB> 5) OWL isn't perfect for representing formal ontological
WB> frameworks - besides we're just representing terminologies, not
WB> building an ontology
OWL is sufficient for representing terminologies as far as I can tell.
To su
> "cm" == chris mungall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Converting between one syntax and another is fairly simple, and
>> there are some reasonably tools for it. XSLT would work for
>> converting XML into RDF. I wouldn't like to use it for converting
>> the other way (actually I would
13 matches
Mail list logo
