Re: Interested in discussing a minimal information model for drug interaction evidence and knowledge?

Jodi Schneider wrote: > Are you interested in improving information exchange for drug interaction > evidence and knowledge? We hope to gather enough interest for an HCLS task > force. Please contact Rich (cc'd) if you'd like to > receive a Doodle poll and help decide th

Interested in discussing a minimal information model for drug interaction evidence and knowledge?

Are you interested in improving information exchange for drug interaction evidence and knowledge? We hope to gather enough interest for an HCLS task force. Please contact Rich (cc'd) if you'd like to receive a Doodle poll and help decide the time of the first meeting.

Re: Evidence-based healthcare ontology and Cochrane systematic Reviews - A linked data project

chrane.org<http://www.cochrane.org> <http://www.cochrane.org>), an international, non-profit healthcare research organisation dedicated to producing systematic reviews of healthcare interventions and the best-available evidence for healthcare decision-making for clinicians, patients, policy-m

Evidence-based healthcare ontology and Cochrane systematic Reviews - A linked data project

ated to producing systematic reviews of healthcare interventions and the best-available evidence for healthcare decision-making for clinicians, patients, policy-makers and others working in healthcare delivery. Our resource, The Cochrane Library (http://www.thecochranelibrary.com), includes the Coc

RE: pharmacogenomics evidence/clinical relevance schemes (was Re: Minutes from Clinical Decision Support teleconference)

Samwald Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org Subject: pharmacogenomics evidence/clinical relevance schemes (was Re: Minutes from Clinical Decision Support teleconference) On 04/27/2012 06:40 AM, Matthias Samwald wrote: There exist some evidence

pharmacogenomics evidence/clinical relevance schemes (was Re: Minutes from Clinical Decision Support teleconference)

On 04/27/2012 06:40 AM, Matthias Samwald wrote: There exist some evidence classification schemes in the pharmacogenomics domain (e.g. from PharmGKB, of course). I documented the PharmGKB schemes at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&key=0

Blog entry on: "a serious problem for evidence-based decision making in healthcare, …."

Connecting the evidence: an “ontology” for Threaded Publications THURSDAY FEB 02, 2012 Connecting the evidence: an “ontology” for Threaded Publications Unpublished research is a serious problem for evidence-based decision making in healthcare, http://blogs.openaccesscentral.com/blogs

Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences - a couple of more examples

In case you hadn't seen it already (I hope I didn't already send this!): and I hope that Alice and I will soon be able to demonstrate wet-lab proof of an interaction that I found using the IO Informatics Sentient Explorer, after formatting the data using SW standards (so that I could dyna

RE: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences - a couple of more examples

ere: http://www.io-informatics.com/news/articles.html All the best, Bob Stanley IO Informatics From: Amit Sheth [mailto:amit.sh...@wright.edu] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 11:23 AM To: Luciano, Joanne Sylvia; public-semweb-lifesci Cc: Oliver Ruebenacker Subject: Re: Evidence

Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

Jan 15, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Amrapali J Zaveri < amrapali.j.zav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Oliver, > > Recently, Amit P. Sheth sent around the attached article that also will > help you use as evidence. > > Regards, > Amrapali J Zaveri > http://aksw.org/AmrapaliZaver

RE: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

ms Biology > -Original Message- > From: Joanne Luciano [mailto:jluci...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:23 PM > To: Oliver Ruebenacker > Cc: public-semweb-lifesci; "eScience"; tw-h...@cs.rpi.edu > Subject: Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for

Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

This if interest in science news: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/337088/title/Network_analysis_predicts_drug_side_effects Sent from my iPad 2 On Dec 21, 2011, at 11:39, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote: > Hello, > > I am looking for evidence I can quote to convince non-e

Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

NYC) Cc: Oliver Ruebenacker; public-semweb-lifesci Subject: Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences Hi, It would be interesting to setup a list of companies which makes a mission-critical use of semantic-web technologies. This could start to be some good evidence on the

Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

> -Original Message- >> From: Andrea Splendiani (RRes-Roth) >> [mailto:andrea.splendi...@rothamsted.ac.uk] >> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:41 AM >> To: Waard, Anita de A (ELS-NYC) >> Cc: Oliver Ruebenacker; public-semweb-lifesci >> Subject: Re: Evidence of

Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

Hello, On 21/12/2011 17.39, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote: Hello, I am looking for evidence I can quote to convince non-experts of the significance of applying Semantic Web to biomedical research, especially computational cell biology. I need a recorded public statement from a source

RE: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

ic-semweb-lifesci > Subject: Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences > > Hi, > > It would be interesting to setup a list of companies which makes a > mission-critical use of semantic-web technologies. > This could start to be some good evidence on the impact of

Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

, I think it's hard to find this form of "breakthrough evidence" and this may even be counterproductive to convince people. If you present a high-level, breakthrough result (say, we save lives), than you leave two open questions: - how much of this is dependent on the computational suppo

Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

Hi, It would be interesting to setup a list of companies which makes a mission-critical use of semantic-web technologies. This could start to be some good evidence on the impact of these technologies. Does anybody knows if such a list exists ? STI people have a list of Semantic Web companies

Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

hink it's hard to find this form of "breakthrough evidence" and this > may even be counterproductive to convince people. > If you present a high-level, breakthrough result (say, we save lives), > than you leave two open questions: > - how much of this is dependent on the compu

RE: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

) wouldn't work - it's as simple as that. Is that enough evidence? Let me know if you need something more formal. Best, - Anita. Anita de Waard Disruptive Technologies Director, Elsevier Labs http://elsatglabs.com/labs/anita/ a.dewa...@elsevier.com -Original Message- Fr

Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

Hi Oliver, I think it's hard to find this form of "breakthrough evidence" and this may even be counterproductive to convince people. If you present a high-level, breakthrough result (say, we save lives), than you leave two open questions: - how much of this is dependent on th

Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

6 PM *To:* Oliver Ruebenacker <mailto:cur...@gmail.com> *Cc:* public-semweb-lifesci <mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org> *Subject:* Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences Hi Oliver, Related example:

Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

011 1:16 PM > *To:* Oliver Ruebenacker > *Cc:* public-semweb-lifesci > *Subject:* Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences > > Hi Oliver, > > Related example: > > http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/337088/title/Network_analysis_predicts

Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

ld also be interpreted as an illustration of how such things can be achieved without SW technologies! - Matthias From: Helena Deus Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:16 PM To: Oliver Ruebenacker Cc: public-semweb-lifesci Subject: Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

Re: Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

4:39 PM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote: > Hello, > > I am looking for evidence I can quote to convince non-experts of the > significance of applying Semantic Web to biomedical research, > especially computational cell biology. > > I need a recorded public statement from

Evidence of Significance of Semantic Web for Life Sciences

Hello, I am looking for evidence I can quote to convince non-experts of the significance of applying Semantic Web to biomedical research, especially computational cell biology. I need a recorded public statement from a source recognizable as authoritative to a non-expert: e.g. could be

Re: Representing conflicting evidence and refutation

8 PM > To: "M. Scott Marshall" > Cc: "HCLS" ; "Andrey Rzhetsky" > ; ; "Deborah > McGuinness" ; "Jim McCusker" ; > "Dominic DiFranzo" ; > Subject: Re: Representing conflicting evidence and refutation > >> Hi Scot

Re: Representing conflicting evidence and refutation

ciano" Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 4:28 PM To: "M. Scott Marshall" Cc: "HCLS" ; "Andrey Rzhetsky" ; ; "Deborah McGuinness" ; "Jim McCusker" ; "Dominic DiFranzo" ; Subject: Re: Representing conflicting evidence and refutatio

Re: Representing conflicting evidence and refutation

Hi Scott, Interesting you should being this up. Last week when I was at Manchester I attended the DL (Description Logics) lunch talk by PhD Student Pavel Klinov, The talk was on an analysis of CADIAG-2 KB. The aim of the project is to analyze (in)consistency of CADIAG-2 -- the large medi

Representing conflicting evidence and refutation

Lilly recently halted development of of the Alzheimer's drug "semagacestat" because it was making patients worse in two late stage clinical trials. This type of knowledge seems like very valuable information to researchers in Alzheimer's. However, in recent searches of http://clinicaltrials.gov suc

RE: Evidence

The point of DOLCE and related ontologies is having explicit *rationales* to justify modelling choices, not to dictate how people should think or model the world. As a matter of fact, in the context of the NeOn project (http://www.neon-project.org), we are movin

RE: RE: Evidence

tell biologists what not to do! :-) By the way, this discussion was triggered by my statement that things like 'binding assay result' are not subclasses of something called 'evidence', but instead 'evidence' is more of a role they play in certain contexts. My empha

Re: Evidence

On Jun 21, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: Which simplifies things enormously and means that busy, practical biologists don't have to keep wondering whether the Krebs cycle or a computer program is a continuant or an occurrent Why would a busy, practical biologist ever wonder if a comp

Re: Evidence

ions that are used to classify any entity at some time for some reason. Thats a nice definition. I presume it is OK to parse it as "...classify (any entity at some time) for some reason." Correct :) If you want to use Evidence as a role for (the result, execution of) an experiment,

Re: Evidence

. Thats a nice definition. I presume it is OK to parse it as "...classify (any entity at some time) for some reason." If you want to use Evidence as a role for (the result, execution of) an experiment, then you can use EventStructure or directly Concept. The distinction, where needed

Re: Evidence

ucture and Task in DOLCE-Ultralite. In general, the class Concept is used to talk of notions that are used to classify any entity at some time for some reason. If you want to use Evidence as a role for (the result, execution of) an experiment, then you can use EventStructure or directly Co

RE: Evidence

Scott, I was wondering if you could summarize your points and post it on the wiki. http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/Evidence Thanks, ---Vipul === Vipul Kashyap, Ph.D. Senior Medical Informatician Clinical Informatics R&D, Partners HealthCare System Phone:

Re: RE: Evidence

likely that the diction of software developers fails the acceptance test of understandability, and *not* BFO! By the way, this discussion was triggered by my statement that things like 'binding assay result' are not subclasses of something called 'evidence', but instead 'eviden

Re: Evidence

I see evidence as a special type of provenance for "facts", "observations", and "conclusions" in a knowledgebase. Motivation for evidence is the desire to represent information about an experiment, such as the hypothesis. If we want to work with hypothes

RE: Evidence

> As I elaborated on in a previous message, I don't buy the claim that > a workaround is necessary in the case of evidence as process as a > role. The statement simply doesn't make sense in BFO and my call for > a definition of what it would mean went unanswered. [VK] In

Re: Evidence

On Jun 20, 2007, at 12:06 PM, Mark Montgomery wrote: Alan, Hi Mark, Rather than using the public community for just debate, perhaps it would be best used as an educational tool. Ouch :) (though I do think that debate is a useful tool in education, and a survey of my posts would demonst

Re: Evidence

the problem, the proposed solution, and the necessary workarounds? As I elaborated on in a previous message, I don't buy the claim that a workaround is necessary in the case of evidence as process as a role. The statement simply doesn't make sense in BFO and my call for a definiti

Re: Evidence

r KR/Logic languages I might call a construct the method of writing an existential as a someValuesFrom restriction. For the discussion of evidence I would call the method I proposed - that in the case of the gene ontology annotation, the evidence is about the existence class, and that the evidence/

Re: Evidence

As someone who has Googled since very early beta, I don't mind saying that I shouldn't need to, but I did long ago. - MM - Original Message - From: "Phillip Lord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:34 AM Subject: Re: Evidence

Re: Evidence

On Jun 20, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote: VK> I think Pat raises a very valid point. I do sense that folks are treating BFO as ³true² and sometimes probably trying to shoe-horn their requirements into it. The scientific method requires that the various constructs and distinctions

Re: Evidence

> "MM" == Mark Montgomery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: MM> Also, for those who use generic email addresses without links to MM> web sites, it would be very useful to occasionally inform folks MM> on our backgrounds and relationships, like a link to a web page MM> and/or bio for example

RE: Evidence

> Usually I think of the scientific method as trying to determine > truth, not utility, though as you know I'm a big one for utility. [VK] Thanks for the clarification. But I propose that we can leverage the scientific method to determine: Is it true that X is useful? :) > Note that my general

Re: Evidence

://www.initiumcapital.com - Original Message - From: "Alan Ruttenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: ; "Pat Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:53 AM Subject: Re: Evidence On Jun 20, 2007, at

Re: Evidence

On Jun 20, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote: VK> I think Pat raises a very valid point. I do sense that folks are treating BFO as “true” and sometimes probably trying to shoe- horn their requirements into it. The scientific method requires that the various constructs and distinctions

Re: Evidence

If I may interject, the fact that you need to find a way 'around' this illustrates what I have long found to be the case, that the continuant/occurrent distinction, and the resulting artificial restrictions that it places upon what one is allowed to say, is more harm than it is worth. One can t

Re: Evidence

that an experiment is not an instance of any class called 'evidence' (in other words, an experiment 'is not' evidence). Instead, it should be associated with an 'evidence-role'. The only problem with this is that roles inhere in continuants rather than in occurrents

Re: Evidence

The discussion on evidence has brought up many thoughts collected through difficult trials over the past 15 years related to global adoption of a digitized social medium. While tremendous gains have been made, particularly by making available important information that would not otherwise be

Re: Evidence

n my general understanding processes can be ascribed roles, too. However, I find the restriction of BFO understandable, and it would probably be possible to associate the role with the participants of the experiment and not the experiment itself. I have no problem with that. > Now on refle

Re: Evidence

at an experiment is not an instance of any class called 'evidence' (in other words, an experiment 'is not' evidence). Instead, it should be associated with an 'evidence-role'. The only problem with this is that roles inhere in continuants rather than in occurr

Evidence Wiki

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

Re: Evidence

class called 'evidence' (in other words, an experiment 'is not' evidence). Instead, it should be associated with an 'evidence-role'. The only problem with this is that roles inhere in continuants rather than in occurrents. One way around this is not to say that ev

Discussion of "Evidence" from HCLSIG

I think there is a very relevant discussion under way in HCLSIG which has ramifications for our attempts to build an Uncertainty Ontology. The wiki URL is included below, just in case someone may find it useful. http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/Evidence Cheers, Vipul

RE: Evidence

2:30 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Waclaw Kusnierczyk; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > Subject: Re: Evidence > > > > On Jun 12, 2007, at 3:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Hi Waclaw, > > > > > >> Matthias,

Re: Evidence

On Jun 13, 2007, at 12:33 PM, SATYA SANKET SAHOO wrote: On Jun 13, 2007, at 3:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am following part of this thread and feel like popping in. Maybe it helps. In clinical trials and 'evidence' based medicine the word evidence is strictly defin

Re: Evidence

class called 'evidence' (in other words, an experiment 'is not' evidence). Instead, it should be associated with an 'evidence-role'. The only problem with this is that roles inhere in continuants rather than in occurrents. One way around this is not to say th

Re: Evidence

Hi, I am avidly following this interesting discussion. I had the following points: > I am following part of this thread and feel like > popping in. Maybe it helps. > > In clinical trials and 'evidence' based medicine the > word evidence is strictly defined and

RE: Evidence

Interesting question. There are clinical rules in the form of "X diagnosed_by Y", e.g. "Diabetes Mellitus proven by fasting plasma glucose >= 126 mg/dL" where a laboratory test result is expressly intended as evidence to support a specific diagnosis. I'd think th

Re: Evidence

nn; William Bug; public-semweb-lifesci hcls Cc: Waclaw Kusnierczyk; Barry Smith; Matthias Samwald Subject: RE: Evidence OK! The wiki page is now ready... Matthias, Thanks for getting this started! Matt, have incoporated your view point, feel free to modify it if required... http://esw.w3

RE: Evidence

Thanks Vipul for putting this up! Eric -Original Message- From: Kashyap, Vipul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 6/13/2007 12:33 PM To: Eric Neumann; William Bug; public-semweb-lifesci hcls Cc: Waclaw Kusnierczyk; Barry Smith; Matthias Samwald Subject: RE: Evidence OK! The wiki

RE: Evidence

Thanks Vipul for putting this up! Eric -Original Message- From: Kashyap, Vipul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 6/13/2007 12:33 PM To: Eric Neumann; William Bug; public-semweb-lifesci hcls Cc: Waclaw Kusnierczyk; Barry Smith; Matthias Samwald Subject: RE: Evidence OK! The wiki

RE: Evidence

OK! The wiki page is now ready... Matthias, Thanks for getting this started! Matt, have incoporated your view point, feel free to modify it if required... http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/Evidence Bill, please add your references to this web page... I think HCLS + BIONT can make some

RE: Evidence

Wow that's great-- so many willing volunteers! I'm expecting a real comprehensive and useful wiki page. ; ) Eric -Original Message- From: Matt Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 6/13/2007 11:13 AM To: Eric Neumann; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org Subject: Re: Eviden

RE: Evidence

Thanks Vipul for volunteering! -Eric -Original Message- From: Kashyap, Vipul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 6/13/2007 11:13 AM To: Eric Neumann; William Bug; public-semweb-lifesci hcls Cc: Waclaw Kusnierczyk; Barry Smith; Matthias Samwald Subject: RE: Evidence I volunteer to

Re: Evidence

cussion thread-group to have the same common references! It may be necessary to identify not one, but a few definitions of evidence to be used by different groups (e.g., researchers def vs. HC compliance forms-- Dirk's point)-- remember, its about namspaces and the ontological structures associ

RE: Evidence

ject: RE: Evidence Bill, Thanks for sending out the urls-- always good for a discussion thread-group to have the same common references! It may be necessary to identify not one, but a few definitions of evidence to be used by different groups (e.g., researchers def vs. HC compliance forms-

RE: Evidence

Bill, Thanks for sending out the urls-- always good for a discussion thread-group to have the same common references! It may be necessary to identify not one, but a few definitions of evidence to be used by different groups (e.g., researchers def vs. HC compliance forms-- Dirk's

Re: Evidence

r-relating entities that is - as best we can implement it - tied to a realist view of biomedical reality b) dealing in a consistent and - as much as is practical - formal way with evidence - which includes dealing in a consistent manner with "information" entities. I think

Re: Evidence

I am following part of this thread and feel like popping in. Maybe it helps. In clinical trials and 'evidence' based medicine the word evidence is strictly defined and may not be compatible with the word 'evidence' used in logic: if then . I support the idea of connectin

Re: Evidence

). The ultimate goal is - built on a BFO + OBO-Relations foundation - to express evidence associated with executing these assessments using OBI and the PATO-associated Phenotype assertion formalism under development by NCBO+GO investigators. We'd hoped to also make use of relevant terms in

RE: Evidence

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

Re: Evidence

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 wor

Re: Evidence

[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 evid

Re: Evidence

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

Re: Evidence

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

Re: Evidence

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 si

Re: Evidence

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 evi

Re: Evidence

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, n

RE: Evidence

> > 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

Re: Evidence

> 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 'geno

Evidence

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 dat

RE: Evidence for backing statements/Wiki page for HCLS Uncertainty Use Cases

Brickley Cc: Matt Williams; public-semweb-lifesci hcls Subject: RE: Evidence for backing statements This would be a good time to begin collecting use-cases from HCLS for the URW (Uncertainty Reasoning for the Web, http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/) incubator group involving uncert

Fwd: Evidence for backing statements

AIL PROTECTED]>, "Dan Brickley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Matt Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" Subject: Re: Evidence for backing statements On May 18, 2007, at 7:40 PM, Eric Neumann wrote: am I correct to assume t

Re: Evidence for backing statements

Eric -- You wrote...I see several potential categories of uncertainty, some around the current reification discussions; here's a starter list that is by no means exhaustive: 4. ??? Here's my 2 cents worth for item 4. I'd say that an application or a reasoner that uses RDF or other

Re: Evidence for backing statements

On May 18, 2007, at 7:40 PM, Eric Neumann wrote: am I correct to assume that within HCLS, all RDF statements we are considering are not facts, but assertions, that may in the future be proven false, but never proven true? I am very excited to hear this will be a W3C focused activity. Sta

RE: Evidence for backing statements

This would be a good time to begin collecting use-cases from HCLS for the URW (Uncertainty Reasoning for the Web, http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/) incubator group involving uncertainty, beliefs and probabilities... I see several potential categories of uncertainty, some around the curre

Re: Evidence for backing statements

by people such as Wigmore and continued by people such as David Schum & William Twining. There's currently a Leverhulme-sponsored research programme on "Evidence Science", centered at UCL, London. Such efforts don't seem to easily map to rdf (they're often based

Re: Evidence for backing statements

arted in the legal domain by people such as Wigmore and continued by people such as David Schum & William Twining. There's currently a Leverhulme-sponsored research programme on "Evidence Science", centered at UCL, London. Such efforts don't seem to easily map to rdf (th

Re: Evidence for backing statements

as David Schum & William Twining. There's currently a Leverhulme-sponsored research programme on "Evidence Science", centered at UCL, London. Such efforts don't seem to easily map to rdf (they're often based on Bayesian models), but might provide some inspiration, al

Evidence for backing statements

lliam Twining. There's currently a Leverhulme-sponsored research programme on "Evidence Science", centered at UCL, London. Such efforts don't seem to easily map to rdf (they're often based on Bayesian models), but might provide some inspiration, although some of the