W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > August 2006

Re: Clarity in naming genes (Was RE: A precedent suggesting ...)

From: kei cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:54:50 -0400
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
Cc: drew.mcdermott@yale.edu, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Message-id: <44E2268A.70905@yale.edu>

Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:

>>From: kei cheung
>>. . .
>>I agree that gene names are interesting use cases for URI/LSID. In 
>>addition to synonyms (different terms may be used to refer to 
>>the same 
>>concept), we need to deal with homonyms (the same term may mean 
>>different things). As discussed in the BioRDF call yesterday, 
>>I promised 
>>to come up with some neuroscience examples for URI/LSID, here is one 
>>such example for looking up the definition of "spine" in wikipedia. 
>>Notice that this term has different meanings in different contexts 
>>(biological vs. anatomical). It looks like we might want to 
>>think about 
>>the possibility of providing such a context in LSID for 
>Shouldn't they just be different URIs, just as they are in wikipedia?
>Why would one want to use the same URI for two different concepts just
>because the same English word happens to be used for both?
>David Booth, Ph.D.
>HP Software
>Phone: +1 617 629 8881
Hi David et al,

Yes, they should be different URI/LSID's, but should we standardize on 
how to express these different URI/LSID's? For example, the wikipedia 
URI's include the domain-context (e.g., biology or anatomy) in 
parentheses. I think this is one standard way of using different URI's 
for referencing homonymous terms.



Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 19:55:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:27 UTC