The meeting minutes can be found at
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Meetings/2007-06-11_Conference_Call
or alternatively
http://tinyurl.com/328nxe
cheers,
Matthias Samwald
--
Yale Center for Medical Informatics, New Haven /
Section on Medical Expert and Knowledge-Based
Hi Again Matt --
You wrote...
It is also not "definitely necessary to relate hypotheses to evidence
with probability" (although it may be useful). There are a load of other
techniques that don't use probability: e.g. Wigmore Charts (from 1930's
onwards) and more recently, non-monotonic logical t
Today we will pack up the demo machines that were loaned to us from
HP. so hcls1 and hcls2 will be down, for at least a little while.
We have been offered a server hosted by Amit Sheth's group and should
be able to set this up hopefully this week or next.
Another server will be purchased and
> > inferences probably shouldn't be called evidence, but they are the
> > reason that some data are considered evidence, and others not,
[VK] Yes, but they do need to belong as "properties" of a generic evidence class
as pointed out by Daniel Rubin, at least that's how it's used in certain
clini
> inferences probably shouldn't be called evidence, but they are the
> reason that some data are considered evidence, and others not,
Exactly. That is why I would suggest to replace the evidence code
'inferred from genomic analysis'
with the process
'genomic analysis (experimental procedure
I changed the subject line to make it more specific.
I think that Evidence is a tricky, slippery subject. It seems to be both
traces (i.e. records of something) and in many cases, inferences. Those
inferences probably shouldn't be called evidence, but they are the
reason that some data are co
> "Evidence" is important, but is complex. If evidence is from
> collection of facts, then exactly how do those facts provide the
> evidence (there are many types of analyses you can do on raw data to
> produce evidence). So evidence is a function of the facts, the
> analysis method, the method o
On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 22:20 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Reviewing the Banff demo ontology infrastructure
> 1) What relations do we use to connect a biological entity with artificial
> entities describing it, e.g. ‘protein records’, ‘sequence records’, ‘Pubmed
> records’?
I've been using t
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for creating the document on URI's. Due to a meeting in Florida,
I won't be able to make today's BioRDF TC.
-Kei
Eric Neumann wrote:
+1 !
I've also added a reference to the Banff discussion on URI's. I plan
to put this also on the agenda for the next HCLSIG TC (June
Hi Jonathan,
Minutes from previously meetings are posted at:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Meetings
Information about upcoming meetings is available at:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup
Cheers,
Susie
On 6/10/07, Jonathan Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When's
+1 !
I've also added a reference to the Banff discussion on URI's. I plan to put
this also on the agenda for the next HCLSIG TC (June 21).
-Eric
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jonathan Rees
Sent: Mon 6/11/2007 6:09 AM
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: R
At 09:43 PM 6/10/2007, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
Matthias,
Thanks for the well organized e-mail, This is clearly one area where
the HCLSIG
community can provide some feedback. Chimezie had similar constructs
related to
"Patient Records" in his POMR. Let's try to distill out some issues so that
I've prepared a status report on the "URI Best Practices" task and
placed it here:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Tasks/URI_Best_Practices/Status_2007-06-08
Some of this bears on my agendum for today's meeting, so if you get a
chance please look it over before the meeting.
Jonath
13 matches
Mail list logo
