Michel_Dumontier wrote:
Darren,
Also, while we recognize
that there are different qualities that can be ascribed to a basically
identical biochemical entity in different structural conformations or
states of ligand binding, we are not attempting (at least in the
beginning) to describe these st
Michel_Dumontier wrote:
Sequence form is again a placeholder term ...
... distinguish between a phosphorylated version of a
protein and the non-phosphorylated version (as an example). The need
for the latter derives from the fact that the two versions might have
different functions.
Inde
Darren Natale wrote:
Protein, in this scheme, is the amino acid polymer produced by a
translation process using an mRNA as a template.
This fits about any polypeptide produced by a ribosome.
I'd think that the term 'protein' is reserved for some, but not all
polypeptides (even if we talk
Matthias Samwald wrote:
The evidence for what I point out is found everywhere: "P12345 is
expressed in some tissues"... according to Alan's points, this
would be a wrong statement.
When the Semantic Web should really find widespread adoption, they would be saying
something like "C12345 is
sorry! i got confused by the response to response pattern.
vQ
Marijke Keet wrote:
p.s.: I did not write that, that was Eric.
I know I ought to have taken up that point as well, but then, my time is
limited.
regards,
marijke
Waclaw Kusnierczyk ha scritto:
Marijke Keet wrote:
The
Marijke Keet wrote:
The problem with proteins is that I haven't seen any biologists agree
on a general way to determine whether two proteins are the same or
not,
sure. how can you determine that *two* entities are *one* entity?
(they may become one, but that's a different story.)
vQ
[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'
