If nothing else, this whole discussion illustrates the difficulties of merging
emails which use different interpretations of "interpretation".
On Mar 26, 2013, at 2:07 PM, "Rich Cooper" wrote:
> Dear David,
>
> I agree with you that the interpretations are not
> singular.
snip
David--
A few quick comments below.
On Jan 15, 2013, at 9:34 AM, David Booth wrote:
> Hi, and thanks for your comments!
>
> On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 12:58 +, RebholzSchuhmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> don't know how someone reads this, who does not know all these benefits
>> anyways. Reads as if y
get a sense of how far along CTO's are for rela
world CT data representation.
cheers,
Eric
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Frank Manola
Sent: Mon 7/9/2007 2:38 PM
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: clinical trial instance data
Could someone point
Could someone point me to the instance data for a clinical trial
described using some clinical trial ontology (an OWL ontology would
be preferred but I could live with another language)? I'm looking
into describing a specific clinical trial and it would help to have
an example to start w
Hi Xiaoshu--
Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
Frank,
This isn't to deny the usefulness of being able to dereference a
URI and get something useful (or to be able to find the RDF or OWL
describing a vocabulary when you're trying to process statements
employing that vocabulary). I'm merely pointing out tha
A couple of comments:
1. The "processing model" of RDF isn't "ambiguous", it is
*unspecified*; that is, no processing model is specified, and that is
deliberate. RDF doesn't define if and when a URI should be
dereferenced from an RDF model because RDF doesn't assume URIs identify
things
