W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: Degree of acceptance of BFO

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:01:21 -0400
Message-Id: <DEDB69E3-2433-4D46-A8F3-39AFD06AC4F6@gmail.com>
Cc: "OWL developers public list" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
To: "Emanuele D'Arrigo" <manu3d@gmail.com>

Hello Manu

We've been using it as a guide in our work on the neurocommons, and  
it is used as the basis for OBI, the Ontology for Biomedical  
Investigations, and PATO, the ontology of Phenotypic qualities. There  
are quite active email lists discussing issues in its development,  
much spurred, currently, by issues arising from OBI development.  
Recent discussion have been trying to understand patterns, which came  
from a discussion of how to represent information. Although BFO  
currently has very few axioms in the OWL rendering, I've been working  
on improving that situation. Within OBI we are currently discussing  
issues of how to handle multiple levels of granularity typical in  
biomedical ontologies, as a BFO ontology is specified at a single  
granularity currently.

Other ontologies in the OBO foundry are designed with BFO in mind,  
and I expect that many will migrate in that direction over the next  
few years.

The BFO mailing list is http://groups.google.com/group/bfo-discuss
The google project is http://code.google.com/p/bfo/
OBI is http://obi.sourceforge.net/
The various OBI lists are at http://sourceforge.net/mail/? 
PATO is at http://obofoundry.org/cgi-bin/detail.cgi?quality
The Relations Ontology is at http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/
The OBO Foundry is at http://www.obofoundry.org/
The Neurocommons http://sw.neurocommons.org/

Hope this helps.
Feel free to follow up off list if you want to discuss this further.


On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote:

> Hi everybody,
> while reading the 132 pages PDF manual of BFO
> (http://www.ifomis.uni-saarland.de/projects/bfo/manual/)
> I've been wondering how widely used/accepted such
> recommendation is, as the basis of any ontology.
> Is it a proposal, a de-facto standard, a good starting
> point?
> Ciao!
> Manu
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 15:01:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:15 UTC