Hi Karen,
We're working on an expression of standard cognitive assessments and
behavior tests in BIRNLex, as many of the functional imaging studies
covered in the Function BIRN test bed make use of a whole battery of
such tests - including the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence.
Our
Per our discussion at yesterday's BioRDF teleconference, I've written down
my ideas on how to proceed on the task of producing a document giving
recommendations for choice and use of URI's.
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Tasks/URI_Best_Practices/Work_Plan
I also created a couple
This discussion on "evidence" makes me wonder if "inclusion" or "exclusion"
criteria for a study are considered as "evidence" or are they something else?
For example, if "smokers" are to be excluded from a study, a definition of a
"smoker" must exist, and then an interpretation of whether the
Hi Waclaw,
> Matthias, if you look carefully at BFO, you'll see that roles are
> entities. This means that evidences, as roles, are entities.
Of course. I just wanted to differentiate that an experiment is not an instance
of any class called 'evidence' (in other words, an experiment 'is not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* In the view of BFO-friendly ontologies, there exists no thing that IS
evidence. Instead, evidence is a ROLE that can be plaid by things in a certain
context.
Mathias, if you look carefully at BFO, you'll see that roles are
entities. This means that evidences, as
Daniel Rubin wrote:
At 07:15 AM 6/11/2007, Matt Williams wrote:
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'
Daniel Rubin wrote:
At 07:15 AM 6/11/2007, Matt Williams wrote:
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'
On 6/11/07, Eric Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 21).
-Eric
Thanks, but for the benefit of those of us who weren't at this dicussion in
Banff, could you
My thoughts on the discussion of evidence so far:
* Evidence is indeed a very fuzzy term, and it might be applied to several
things.
* There is a lot of theoretical and practical work behind 'evidence' (even a
discipline called "evidence science"), and we should invest significant work
into f
(apologies for multiple copies)
--
Dear Colleague,
ICLP 2007 registration is now open. Please note that early
registration ends on June 30th. More details on the conference and
its associated workshops can be found on the web
At 07:15 AM 6/11/2007, Matt Williams wrote:
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,
* SORRY FOR CROSS-POSTING ***
*** CALL FOR PAPERS ***
MedInfo 2007 Workshop: MedSemWeb 2007
What Semantics Do We Need for A Semantic Web for Medicine?
to be held in conjunction with MedInfo 2007
URL:
http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~patty/MedInfo2007/MedInfo%202007%20Workshop%20CFP
..html
19t
12 matches
Mail list logo
