Phillip Lord wrote:
>
> Matthew Cockerill wrote:
>> I agree that the details of gene function probably don't belong on
>> Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's at least conceivable that Wikipedia may play an important role
>> in providing widely accepted identifiers for such high level classes
>> and i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In terms of preserving the bits:
>
> Just as, if you believe that the only way to preserve BioMed
> Central's content is to scratch it in a shrinking spiral onto 2"
> nickel disks (as recommended here
> http://www.longnow.org/projects/conferences/10klibrary/ ), then
> th
> > It's at least conceivable that Wikipedia may play an important role
> > in providing widely accepted identifiers for such high
> level classes
> > and instances, since the high level of usage of wikipedia would tend
> > to keep those high level concepts far better maintained and curated
>
Matthew Cockerill wrote:
> I agree that the details of gene function probably don't belong on
> Wikipedia.
>
> However, as these two recent articles
>
>
> Are the current ontologies in biology good ontologies?
> Larisa N Soldatova & Ross (Nature Biotechnology)
> htttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt09
>
> [Snipped]
>
> It's at least conceivable that Wikipedia may play an important role in
> providing widely accepted identifiers for such high level classes and
> instances, since the high level of usage of wikipedia would tend to keep
> those high level concepts far better maintained and
I agree that the details of gene function probably don't belong on
Wikipedia.
However, as these two recent articles
Are the current ontologies in biology good ontologies?
Larisa N Soldatova & Ross (Nature Biotechnology)
htttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt0905-1095
Time to Organize the Bioinform
Matthew Cockerill wrote:
Again, important conceptual issues. But again, the proof of the pudding
is in the eating.
We'll be doing some tests with some "hard core" users sometime this year,
so we'll see to what extent they are willing to eat (or is it cook?) the
pudding :-)
The problem with expecting people to update the core data is that
this can be quite difficult, at least for anything beyond fixing
spelling errors. Let's say you are looking at the page for some
protein you are familiar with, e.g. http://expasy.org/uniprot/
P00750. You notice that somethin
Matthew Cockerill wrote:
Adding comments does not provide the same motivation as updating the
core data.
I guess it doesn't, though I think this would already be much better than a
feedback form, as far as immediacy and motivation are concerned.
The problem with expecting people to update t
> You raise important issues on this. But I take the converse position, I
> think:
> [snipped]
What he said ... and ...
A more tightly focused Gene Function Wiki (or perhaps "interwiki"...)
promises to provide specific benefits to the life science community for the
same reason that the existen
Eric,
You raise important issues on this. But I take the converse position,
I think:
My sense is that:
(a) wiki style maintenance will prove to be just as valuable for
ontologies and semantically tagged information as it has proved to
be for hypertext encyclopedia entry maintenance
(
11 matches
Mail list logo
