Here's my thinking: The whole point of the semantic web is to get away from
relying on terms. Why would you intentionally want to become dependent upon
labels (terms)?
Label's are not identifiers; they are annotations. There is no uniqueness
guarantee. A concept can have many labels and many co
I agree with Chime points. I will add that the great missing feature or
tool is versioning and depreciation handling.
I had a customer see a GUID URI once and freak out and almost drop a
contract. Readability and maintainability is important. Enforcing
uniqueness in literals is not part of the
I tend to believe that "Perfect is the Enemy of Good".
It seems that everyone agrees at some point you need semantic identifiers.
Look at the RDF, RDFS, and OWL standards. They don't use non-semantic
identifiers (alphanumeric/guids) for core Classes and Predicates. The
English-centric standard
It is a burden to carry this prefix file and maintain it, but its better
than not being able to do anything about it.
...from phone
On Jun 20, 2011 3:47 AM, "James Malone" wrote:
Hi,
On last week's call I was tasked with contacting Chris and Alan regarding
the form of the Relations Ontology UR
Is this the official MeSH base uri?
...from phone
On Jun 6, 2011 8:37 AM, "Amrapali J Zaveri"
wrote:
Hi,
Here's an example URI for a MeSH term:
http://bio2rdf.org/searchns/mesh/parkinson
MeSH also has a SPARQL endpoint available at http://mesh.bio2rdf.org/sparql
Hope that helps !
Regards,
Amr
It is a fascinating architecture. What particularly drew me in is the
multiple different evidence spaces they had to use. And that they made at
least a token mention to the power of utilizing structured knowledge to
enhance statistical methods.
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Oliver Ruebenacke
Well it seems like a utopian model, but at the same time in academics you
are judged on your papers and grants. So without some exclusivity it is
difficult for academics to cope.
Obviously with a study that couldn't be done without a great deal of cash,
collaborations are vital...but as much as
sary, but in order to engage a wider (and I don't count as a very
wide) clinical audience, we will need a better way of explaining and
presenting it. I don't know what that is, but I'm fairly sure its
necessary.
Matt
see any real upside in restricting the membership, but
I might be missing something.
Matt
Miller, Michael D (Rosetta) wrote:
hi all,
i've also been lurking, even more so than phil. priorities prevent me
from being more active but without access to this list i would not be
the propon
an IE approach easier.
HTH,
Matt
"Breast Neoplasms"[Mesh] AND ("antineoplastic agents" [Mesh] AND
"Prognosis"[Mesh]) AND (methods[Title/Abstract]) limited to English
language, Female, Adults, RCTs gives >400. The use of "Methods" aims to
pick out m
27;m sure there's a reason - I just don't know
what it is).
Thanks,
Matt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ronald
I checked RxNav and it is a good tool to get most of information we
needed for the COI test case.
I will check the mapping between RxNorm ingredients and SNOMED to see
how
graph saying
what you mean.
I'll try and find a paper on the "p-modals" (possible, probable, etc.)
and ways of combining them tomorrow and put a paragraph on the wiki.
Matt
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
I'm personally fond of the symbolic approach - I think it is more direct
and
a little work in the clinical domain using structured
abstracts as a guide to help extract info automatically/
semi-automatically. Looks promising, but noting concrete yet.
Matt
Colin Batchelor wrote:
I also think that the machine-readable representation of facts about
biology
should have a high
ight help,
but not enoughin any case, there are other bits (e.g. which type of
bananas they used) that you might well want to capture.
I may have missed something here, and if anyone has already done most of
this, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
Thanks,
Matt
--
http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
http://adhominem.blogsome.com/
+44 (0)7834 899570
ations and levels of belief in the literature.
Matt
--
http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
http://adhominem.blogsome.com/
+44 (0)7834 899570
A has done a bit more on
this - do you have any pointers/ papers/ work to suggest.
Thanks,
Matt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt
Can you elaborate on what aspects of mammography you include in your
ontology? I am interested in the diagnostic aspect, i.e. image
features, patient clinical in
existing terms (e.g. from GALEN, etc.)?
Matt
--
http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
http://adhominem.blogsome.com/
+44 (0)7834 899570
me page is linked to here:
http://adhominem.blogsome.com/2007/11/01/ictai-07/
HTH,
Matt
--
http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
http://adhominem.blogsome.com/
+44 (0)7834 899570
article:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=150359
HTH,
Matt
Jyotishman Pathak wrote:
This is sort of interesting, because I am also trying to explore more
information about GLIF, and was looking for relevant pointers:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web
majority of the data lies in MRI/PET,
rather than anything else (MRA, etc.)
HTH,
Matt
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
Ok. From which document did you get the information about the
particulars of the schema you mention?
-Alan
On Oct 15, 2007, at 4:27 AM, Matt Williams wrote:
No, I didn't - chasing
Dear All,
Have just realised the time of this call (in UK terms) which clashes
with me picking up the kids.
Sorry.
I will summarise those things I have anything to say anything about in
advance, and comment on the minutes (assuming they're on the wiki).
Apologies,
Matt
Susie M Ste
No, I didn't - chasing down images themselves seems prohibitive at this
time, given constraints.
I would agree with your reading of the terms of use.
Matt
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
Did you go through the application for access to get this information?
Looks like the terms of use
Yes. Timings?
Matt
Kei Cheung wrote:
It's fine with me.
Cheers,
-Kei
Susie Stephens wrote:
Matt, Kei,
Would you be able to provide a summary of the Globocan/ Cancer Mondial
data and the GIS data respectively during the BioRDF call on Oct. 15?
Cheers,
Susie
On 10/5/07,
GIS, but this is an
area I know little about.
Matt
--
http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
http://adhominem.blogsome.com/
+44 (0)7834 899570
he utility of this might
encourage them to relax the licensing restrictions.
I have an idea for a different data set which I will send as a separate
email.
Matt
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
[cc changed to public-semweb-lifesci]
We could distribute a script that does the conversion to R
If work goes well tomorrow, perhaps.
Else perhaps Monday pm.
Daniel - can we divide this sensibly?
Matt
Susie Stephens wrote:
Hi Matt, Daniel,
It would be great if you were able to write a brief description of the
data set, list the terms that are used, and also provide some
information
ave a
look.
The real "killer" might be to show how rdf-ing SEER data gives you an
advantage - the obvious gain would be that if the SEER data were
expressed in terms of a uniform ontology, it could link with some other
data.
HTH,
Matt
1: http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/philosophy/jw
Dear All,
I have added some more stuff to this on Toulmin-style evidential
reasoning; I'll try and finish it tomorrow.
Matt
--
http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
http://adhominem.blogsome.com/
+44 (0)7834 899570
I was going to try and pull some ideas together and send them as and
email; I'll do that, and as long as people aren't horrified by it (I
expect discussion) I'll set up a wiki page.
Matt
Eric Neumann wrote:
Bill,
Thanks for sending out the urls-- always good for a dis
Probabilistic Reasoning". Also,a look at the evidence
science website might be good: http://www.evidencescience.org/
HTH,
Matt
a look at the links you sent and probably be in touch
Matt
Dan Brickley wrote:
Matt Williams wrote:
I've been lurking & reading the discussion with interest.
It might be worth pointing out that there is an ongoing attempt to
classify/ represent evidential links/ weight/ etc. st
legal niceties may be unnecessary.
I also know that the issue has been looked at by some in the
argumentation community, where the "source" of the rules that make the
argument need to be defined.
If anyone is interested in these, please contact me off-list.
Thanks,
Matt
--
http://acl
On 3/30/07, Roderic Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Matt,
> Do you have any publications that outline the motivation here (except
> the LSIDs don't work for the semantic web argument you have outlined
> in your online material)?
No publication as yet on bioGUID, but
interpret records in one database to
find accession numbers for another database and so on until you find
sort of what you are looking for in the actual database you want.
cheers
Matt
On 3/30/07, Roderic Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've put together a web site called http://biogu
It's probably quite important to define various relation classes for the aggregated properties we tend to relate to a person. I would imagine this comes under standard upper ontologies. It would necessarily need to include definitions of FOAF and vCard so that we could classify across current data
Donald's solution feels a little circular. The interpretation of
these relations still need a formal specification, which OWL would do
nicely for, but then OWL already defines similar constructs.
I think the "one true ontology" idea fails simply through open world
semantics; I'm not sure
reasonably mapped to is_a and part_of relations.
Matt
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Olivier
> Bodenreider
> Sent: 05 June 2006 18:00
> To: Benjamin Good
> Cc: 'public-semweb-lifesci'
> Subject: Re: Bi
On 9/05/2006, at 8:46 PM, Matthias Samwald wrote:
Hi Alan,
As far as I know there is no standard URI for a resource at NCBI. I
would like to propose that there be one, since we will all need
them to use when we refer to these resources in our RDF. (and I
need one *now*)
I think we sh
oblems we have dealt with in
other systems, and it's really a matter of hard work and focus to
bring some of these tools into a more production oriented world.
cheers
Matt
On 5/04/2006, at 4:34 AM, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
Somewhere down near the bottom of the lengthy thread th
Here's my favorite example of useful automated ontology application, achieved
by combining two readily available technologies:
http://www.hackdiary.com/archives/70.html
Matt
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Inter
data in a form suitable for easy
unambiguous scraping, with the datatypes identified.
Matt
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alf Eaton
> Sent: 23 February 2006 18:01
> To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Subjec
elationship between an official "release" of Firefox (from Mozilla.org or from
another unofficial provider, as compared to the nightly builds. The
availability of the nightly builds has huge value, but if you want to be
cautious you can be too.
Matt
This email has been scanned by Postini.
For more information please visit http://www.postini.com
42 matches
Mail list logo
