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

Offensive Link Spoofed into a Recent Posting

From: Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 18:44:54 -0700
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20041004183855.02387030@pop.snet.net>
To: biopax-discuss@biopax.org
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org

Hi All --

I want to apologize for an offensive link that has somehow been 'spoofed' 
into the posting (below) that you all received.

Please do NOT click on the link.   I did not place it there, and I have no 
idea who did.

Who knows why people do these things...  Sigh....

                                 -- Adrian


                                        INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC (R)

                                              www.reengineeringllc.com

Dr. Adrian Walker
Reengineering LLC
PO Box 1412
Bristol
CT 06011-1412 USA

Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell:    USA  860 830 2085
Fax:    USA  860 314 1029




At 03:58 PM 10/4/2004 -0400, you wrote:

>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 22:42:35 GMT

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