W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > October 2004

Re: BioPAX-discuss / "processing" RDF

From: Jeremy Zucker <zucker@research.dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:58:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4161AB5B.4050006@research.dfci.harvard.edu>
To: biopax-discuss@biopax.org
CC: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org

Hello Peter,

  At ISMB this year,there was an interesting talk on
BioSigNet: "A knowledge-based approach for representing and reasoning
about signalling networks"

http://bioinformatics.oupjournals.org/cgi/screenpdf/20/suppl_1/i15

In this paper, Baral et al. give some nontrivial examples of 
automatically generated explanation for signalling pathways.

Take care,

Jeremy Zucker
Bioinformatics Specialist
Research Computing Department
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
http://research.dfci.harvard.edu



Maya Kolpa wrote:

> Peter --
>
> Yes indeed, some of the early expert system shells had explanation 
> capabilities.  And EMYCIN was supposed to be somewhat application 
> independent.
>
> There has been progress since then.  For example, there is a theory 
> base for our system [1], and it automatically generates and runs SQL 
> over networked databases.
>
> Of course, (E)MYCIN could not have had a browser interface, as 
> browsers were not yet available (:-)
>
>                             Cheers,  -- Adrian
>
>
> [1]  /Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Me thod that 
> is Simple Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete. 
> <http://profiles.yahoo.com/milfmomsupskirts1> Journal of Automated 
> Reasoning, 11:1-22/
>
> Peter Mork wrote:
>
>> I believe that MYCIN, an expert system for diagnosing blood diseases, 
>> includes (included?) a feature for explaining the conclusion it 
>> reached.  It has been several years since I have seen MYCIN, but a 
>> quick Google search suggests that such a feature is (was?) present.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Peter Mork
>>
>>  
>>
>>On the other hand, if we represent the knowledge that is needed as English-like inference rules, one can just ask for an explanation/proof that the conclusion follows from the knowledge and the data.  The inference above is a step in such an automatically generated explanation,
>>
>>
>>
>>Does anyone on the list know of other work in this direction?
>>
>>
>>
>>                                           Cheers,  -- Adrian Walker
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>
>
> -- 
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup 
> <http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/payment/adtracking.cgi?bannercode=adsfreejump01>
>
Received on Monday, 4 October 2004 20:07:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:40 GMT