> "LH" == Larry Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LH> On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 11:42 +0100, Phillip Lord wrote:
>>
>> My own feeling is that the fly people got it right years
>> ago. Their gene identifiers had meaning, but not too much. So,
>> for example, sevenless is a mutant lack
On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 11:42 +0100, Phillip Lord wrote:
>
> My own feeling is that the fly people got it right years ago. Their
> gene identifiers had meaning, but not too much. So, for example,
> sevenless is a mutant lacking the 7th cell in the eye. Clear, straight
> forward and memorable. And
Hi Alan,
I meant to refer to the portion of the identifier 'GO#001' as in the
example below with respect to OWL ontologies. My understanding is that
when building an ontology using Protege/OWL, it would be best to use
GO_001 in the rdf:ID field (perhaps that is not correct?). When usi
Hi Trish,
What was the specifics of the argument for alphanumeric versus numeric
identifiers?
If you check out the go-format list I recently sent some examples that
use identifiers of the form
http://www.bioontologies.org/2006/02/obo/GO#001
Details are in
http://sourceforge.net/maila
Dear Philip,Thanks again for your thoughtful and candid comments.I'm glad you mentioned "Sonic Hedgehog." :-)I would have to disagree on the point you are making here.From the point of view of mining the literature, use of language is remarkably "messy" given the business of science.As wonderfully
AR> Could I strongly support the following. If there is one
AR> repeatedly confirmed lesson from the medical communities
AR> experience with large terminologies/ontologies/ it is to
AR> separate the "terms" from the "entities". ...
Not that I wish to disagree with Alan, of course, but
y 08, 2006 11:57 AM
> To: William Bug
> Cc: Miller, Michael D (Rosetta); Tim Clark; w3c semweb hcls;
> SWAN Team; Trish Whetzel; chris mungall
> Subject: Re: ontology specs for self-publishing experiment
>
>
>
> On 6 Jul 2006, at 19:22, William Bug wrote:
>
> >
>
On 10 Jul 2006, at 11:42, Phillip Lord wrote:
"AR" == Alan Rector <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AR> All
AR> Just catching up.
AR> Could I strongly support the following. If there is one
AR> repeatedly confirmed lesson from the medical communities
AR> experience with large term
> "AR" == Alan Rector <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AR> All
AR> Just catching up.
AR> Could I strongly support the following. If there is one
AR> repeatedly confirmed lesson from the medical communities
AR> experience with large terminologies/ontologies/ it is to
AR> separate t
> "cm" == chris mungall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Converting between one syntax and another is fairly simple, and
>> there are some reasonably tools for it. XSLT would work for
>> converting XML into RDF. I wouldn't like to use it for converting
>> the other way (actually I would
All
Just catching up.
Could I strongly support the following. If there is one repeatedly
confirmed lesson from the medical communities experience with large
terminologies/ontologies/ it is to separate the "terms" from the
"entities". There are always linguistic artefacts, and language
On 6 Jul 2006, at 19:22, William Bug wrote:
2) Doesn't this lead down a road similar to that of MIAME, only
now you've shifted the border of incommensurateness beyond the
level for data format and into the semantic domain?
Yes, but put another way, you have refactored the problem of
On Jul 7, 2006, at 3:35 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
"TW" == Trish Whetzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TW> Hi all,
TW> As a terribly simple question, is it possible to take the actual
TW> FuGE-ML that is generated on a per instance reporting of an
TW> experiment/study/investigation and
Trish,
> Comments inline.
>
> >> Based on that work, I'd like to follow Eric N's penchant for
> >> "strawmen" and propose the following amendments to the Proposed
> >> Classes to give focus to the discussion:
> >>
> >> Project
> >> Study
> >> Hypothesis
> >> ...
> >
> > I honestly think before
> "TW" == Trish Whetzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TW> Hi all,
TW> As a terribly simple question, is it possible to take the actual
TW> FuGE-ML that is generated on a per instance reporting of an
TW> experiment/study/investigation and then convert than to RDF for
TW> use with sema
On Jul 6, 2006, at 12:55 PM, William Bug wrote:In the context of the comment above, this is being addressed by trying to establish a foundational ontology for biomedical reality and an ontology of relations ([]). I realize we went through this debate of the foundational ontology a few weeks back,
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Trish Whetzel wrote:
Hi all,
As a terribly simple question, is it possible to take the actual FuGE-ML that
is generated on a per instance reporting of an experiment/study/investigation
and then convert than to RDF for use with semantic web technologies?
Absolutely,
Comments inline.
Based on that work, I'd like to follow Eric N's penchant for
"strawmen" and propose the following amendments to the
Proposed Classes to give focus to the discussion:
Project
Study
Hypothesis
...
I honestly think before making the list, we should think about how ontology
shou
Two quick questions:
1) If two labs are doing microarray experiments and each seeks to
represent the data all the way back to the digital image acquired (so as to
enable others to reanalyze the data, and modify the pooling and/or statistics
applied in this new, shared context), if both are
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Neumann
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 6:57 AM
To: AJ Chen
Cc: w3c semweb hcls
Subject: Re: ontol
Hi Xiaoshu,I believe the issue you raise is a critical one - one, as Sean - I believe - pointed out in the call - that there heated debates continue regarding whether whether it's appropriate to ever "merge" ontologies, and - if so, how explicit and detailed must the contract be.Please see below fo
ael D (Rosetta);
Eric Neumann; AJ Chen; w3c semweb hcls; SWAN TeamSubject: Re:
ontology specs for self-publishing experiment
Dear Tim,
I think this is an excellent idea - and comes at a very propitious
time.
I would suggest including
participants on the FuGO, PaTO, and EXPO projec
> Based on that work, I'd like to follow Eric N's penchant for
> "strawmen" and propose the following amendments to the
> Proposed Classes to give focus to the discussion:
>
> Project
> Study
> Hypothesis
> ...
I honestly think before making the list, we should think about how ontology
should
ler Lead Software Developer Rosetta Biosoftware Business Unit www.rosettabio.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Eric NeumannSent: Monday, July 03, 2006 6:57 AMTo: AJ ChenCc: w3c semweb hclsSubject: Re: ontology specs for self-publishing experime
ChenCc: w3c semweb hclsSubject: Re: ontology specs for self-publishing experiment AJ,This is a great start, and thanks for taking this on! I would like to see this task force propose a conceptual framework within the two months. It does not have to be final, but I think we need to h
chael Miller Lead Software Developer Rosetta Biosoftware Business Unit www.rosettabio.com -----Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Eric NeumannSent: Monday, July 03, 2006 6:57 AMTo: AJ ChenCc: w3c semweb hclsSubject: Re: ontology specs for self-publish
AIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric
NeumannSent: Monday, July 03, 2006 6:57 AMTo: AJ
ChenCc: w3c semweb hclsSubject: Re: ontology specs for
self-publishing experiment
AJ,
This is a great start, and thanks for taking this on!
I would like to see this task force
AJ,This is a great start, and thanks for taking this on! I would like to see this task force propose a conceptual framework within the two months. It does not have to be final, but I think we need to have others on the list review the ontologies (http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/ScientificPublishingTas
28 matches
Mail list logo
