CALL FOR PAPERS
WORKSHOP ON HEALTH CARE AND LIFE SCIENCES DATA INTEGRATION FOR THE SEMANTIC WEB
held in conjunction with
THE 16th INTERNATIONAL WORLD WIDE WEB CONFERENCE
MAY 8-12, 2007
BANFF, ALBERTA, CANADA
Biomedical researchers need to be able to access all relevant data in ord
Hi Bill,
Is the work that you mention below part of that for BIRN and is there a
pointer to a policy?
Also, have you found it necessary to be able to re-create the graph within
the same version of the ontology on a day-to-day basis or is a
version-to-version basis acceptable?
Trish
As to
Are we talking about versioning at a very high granularity level (e.g., a URI
that points to an entire ontology)? Should we also consider versioning at
finer granularity levels such as the levels of concepts or terms and their
relationships within an ontology? Some of these concepts, terms and
William Bug wrote:
Here, here.
I also would join Chimezie in saying I don't want to ruffle feathers
on this issue, but if either NCBO and/or NLM/NCBI would start
experimenting with a more broadly deployed LSID Registry & Resolution
Service (NCBO for ontologies and NLM/NCBI for BioRDF data s
This is a very good.point; permanent URIs is a reasonable requirement we
will aim to provide. Though I am intrigued with your use case about
clinical systems referring to a URI. Are you aware of any commercial
system that is contemplating referring to entities on the semantic Web
via URI? We'd c
And the metadata (AnnotationProperties) I mentioned previously are
designed to support the ability manage versioning at the level of
nodes and edges. Again - it's just a proposal at this point, but its
in recognition of this need you stated more eloquently than I in your
previous post on t
Here, here.
I also would join Chimezie in saying I don't want to ruffle feathers
on this issue, but if either NCBO and/or NLM/NCBI would start
experimenting with a more broadly deployed LSID Registry & Resolution
Service (NCBO for ontologies and NLM/NCBI for BioRDF data sets and/or
data s
Hi,
Are we talking about versioning at a very high granularity level (e.g.,
a URI that points to an entire ontology)? Should we also consider
versioning at finer granularity levels such as the levels of concepts or
terms and their relationships within an ontology? Some of these
concepts, ter
On the format of URI (slash vs hash), it would be worth hearing from
the as much of the W3C community as possible, as there could be
differences of opinion. At this point, we are collecting the requirements.
In terms of synchronization, BioPortal will serve up the "current
version" as defined
LSID not dirty. LSID nice. :-)
TC
On WednesdayJan 10, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Mark Wilkinson wrote:
H... sounds like a job for LSID's... oops! Said a dirty
word! ;-)
Cheers all!
M
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:53:49 -0800, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One comment on versioning issues (quest
Folks,
I apologize for the bad timing on my part, but I will be traveling at
the same time as our planned Jan 11 call. I propose we re-schedule
it for Jan 18 (thurs) 11AM.
Tonya and I will put together an agenda focusing on our current tasks
and issues around ontology publishing (latest
How will LSIDs help?
-Alan
On Jan 10, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Mark Wilkinson wrote:
H... sounds like a job for LSID's... oops! Said a dirty
word! ;-)
Cheers all!
M
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:53:49 -0800, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One comment on versioning issues (question2) . The matter
(apologies for cross-posting)
Call for Papers
23rd International Conference on Logic Programming
ICLP 2007
Porto, Portugal, September 8-13, 2007
http://www.dcc.fc.up.pt/iclp07/
Conference Scop
(apologies for cross-posting)
*** CALL FOR WORKSHOP PROPOSALS ***
ICLP'07
23rd International Conference on Logic Programming
September 8-13, 2007
Porto, Portugal
URL: http://www.dcc.
I guess what I'm trolling for is some more careful description of
the desired behavior. Some examples would be helpful, etc.
My feeling is the technical management of how to arrange a uri/lsid
is much easier than specifying and agreeing upon what the versioning
behavior should be.
For in
Excellent, Vipul
Looking forward to that, Chimezie
Regards
Kerstin
Well, (not to open up a can of worms) ontology versioning can be handled
as a mechanism 'built-in' to the protocol (as is the case with LSID) or
via an HTTP resolution service (such as PURL). I'm more familiar with the
latter scenario than the former. Assuming you have a static PURL address
H... sounds like a job for LSID's... oops! Said a dirty word! ;-)
Cheers all!
M
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:53:49 -0800, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One comment on versioning issues (question2) . The matter is more complex
than the answer suggests. If a clinical system ever refers to a URI
>> Yes, a URI mechanism will be made available soon. Ontologies will have
their own namespaces defined by
>> the authors, or if none is provided, we will create one based on our
bioontology.org namespace.
If the authors have their own namespace URI, that means they have to
maintain a copy of
One comment on versioning issues (question2) . The matter is more complex
than the answer suggests. If a clinical system ever refers to a URI in
BioPortal this URI should stay forever. Even if a new version of the
ontology is deployed the original URI should still point to the old term
or conce
20 matches
Mail list logo
