No, they don't. They have a responsibilty to do what they are being paid
to do (or want to achieve for their own purposes) in a rapid and
efficient manner. The point of standards is to make it easier to do this
in the same way as others than to not. People write URLs correctly
because otherwise t
Yeah, I have heard this argument before. Soon as you give me an
assayable and testable definition for reality, I'm right with you.
Phil
Jerven Bolleman writes:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Phillip Lord
> wrote:
>> This is a broken definition of "good" to my mind. It suggests that we
On Mar 21, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
> On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
>>>
>>> To me, that seems to lead us back to the earlier discussion (rathole?)
>>> about owl:sameAs
>>> I tend to a view that there are
On 22 March 2013 14:38, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Peter Ansell
> wrote:
>> On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> To me, that seems to lead us back to the earlier discussion (r
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Alan Ruttenberg
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 21, 2013, at 11:38 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Peter Ansell
>> wrote:
>> > On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg
>
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> On Mar 21, 2013, at 11:38 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Peter Ansell
> wrote:
> > On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg
> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll
> wrote:
On 22 March 2013 15:15, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2013, at 11:38 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
>> On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> I am not sayin
On Mar 21, 2013, at 11:38 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
> On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
> >>
>
> I am not saying that science presented as fact is infall
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
> On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll
> wrote:
> >>
> >> To me, that seems to lead us back to the earlier discussion (rathole?)
> >> about owl:sameAs
> >> I tend to a view that t
Alan,
that is a superb message, very well-articulated
I will ponder it.
And as I said I don't really want to keep doing this theoretical dance and look
forward to more substantive conversations.
Jeremy
On Mar 21, 2013, at 9:38 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:
On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
>>
>> To me, that seems to lead us back to the earlier discussion (rathole?)
>> about owl:sameAs
>> I tend to a view that there are diminishing returns in terms of levels of
>> indirection he
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
> To me, that seems to lead us back to the earlier discussion (rathole?)
> about owl:sameAs
>
Don't think so. It is a simple application of the pattern of having
information about something. The statements don't have to be true.
>
> Yes,
Well, I don't quite know what to say. I feel a bit like a designer of cheap,
workable, everyday town cars, and I have a customer who wants a Ferrari.
I agree, Jeremy, you have a hard problem here. It sounds like you need
statistical or probabilistic methods to keep track of these small likeliho
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Phillip Lord
wrote:
> This is a broken definition of "good" to my mind. It suggests that we
> should make all the distinctions that we can make, all the time.
> Unfortunately, this means that everyone bears the cost of the complexity
> all the time also.
True but t
This is a broken definition of "good" to my mind. It suggests that we
should make all the distinctions that we can make, all the time.
Unfortunately, this means that everyone bears the cost of the complexity
all the time also.
A good data model should be an accurate reflection of biology. But
Hi,
Good point.
I personally find strange to deal with sequences in RDF.
On one side, a sequence is a perfect identifier of itself (once if we factor
out experimental errors).
However, identity of sequences doesn't matter much (similarity of sequences is
what counts). So we could have perfect id
On 03/20/2013 06:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
To me, that seems to lead us back to the earlier discussion
(rathole?) about owl:sameAs
Yes, we can model what we are doing at an arbitrary level of
sophistication, but no, we may not want to.
I tend to a view that there are diminishing returns in
Is this issue wholly addressed by having a URI for the reference? Or is there
some subtlety that I am missing here?
i.e. I would expect a minor version of a reference genome to have a different
URI from a different minor version of the same major version of the reference
genome …. am I naive?
On 20/03/2013 22:09, Jerven Bolleman wrote:
Hi All,
This is fine in RDF, the important thing to separate is the concept of
a Chromsome/Patient sequence and a set of observations and hypothesis
about that Chromosome sequence.
So instead of chromosome M you are really talking about assembly X of
Hello,
On 20 March 2013 18:09, Jerven Bolleman wrote:
> So instead of chromosome M you are really talking about assembly X of
> a set of reads R mapped via some (variant calling) processes to
> reference chromosome C that is also really an assembly of a different
> set of reads.
Just to add t
To me, that seems to lead us back to the earlier discussion (rathole?) about
owl:sameAs
Yes, we can model what we are doing at an arbitrary level of sophistication,
but no, we may not want to.
I tend to a view that there are diminishing returns in terms of levels of
indirection here!
OTOH the
Hi All,
This is fine in RDF, the important thing to separate is the concept of
a Chromsome/Patient sequence and a set of observations and hypothesis
about that Chromosome sequence.
So instead of chromosome M you are really talking about assembly X of
a set of reads R mapped via some (variant call
Hi Jeremy,
On 20/03/2013 16:04, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
> One of the things I am learning about genetic sequencing is this process,
which is meant to tell you about the patient's DNA, is in fact somewhat
problematic, resulting in facts which are disputable.
>
It gets worse... the association
Pat Hayes wrote:
"[RDF] is intended for recording data, and most data is pretty mundane stuff
about which there is not a lot of factual disagreement."
One of the things I am learning about genetic sequencing is this process, which
is meant to tell you about the patient's DNA, is in fact somewha
24 matches
Mail list logo
