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

Re: [HCLS] Bridging Ontology...An Automated Approach?

From: William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:10:59 -0400
Message-Id: <FE31A645-69B9-4442-90AA-EF060A7FF2E4@DrexelMed.edu>
Cc: <donald.doherty@brainstage.com>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Yes - but only for NeuronDB and CocoDat.

That is - unless the inherent lexicons used by these two resources  
begin to evolve into something closer to a community-wide, shared  
ontology for the domains they cover - which may very well be in the  
offing.

There is nothing about this particularly mapping that would make it  
so, however.

There are a very large number of additional neuroscientific data  
repositories, tool sets, and services in existence now.  Check out  
the following for a snapshot of the current state of affairs:
	The Neuroscience Information Framework Catalog (http:// 
neurogateway.org/catalog/browse.do?catEnt=urn:bml/ 
brainml.org:internal/Protocols/ 
3,nsci_resource_informal&catField=full_name)
	The Neuroscience Database Gateway (http://big.sfn.org/NDG/site/)
	The Internet Analysis Tools Registry (http://www.cma.mgh.harvard.edu/ 
iatr/display.php?spec=all) - many are tools used in neuroimaging- 
based research
	The Neuroinformatics Portal Pilot (http://www.neuroinf.de/)

These will all continue to evolve and new ones will be added.

I would stand by my last email and re-iterate - I strongly agree with  
the BOTH the ideas brought up by Chemizie & Matthias, as well as  
those you mentioned Vipul in response to Don - statistical and  
network analysis of semantically formal categorizations - the latter  
as means to improve the efficacy and accuracy of the underlying  
ontological network to encapsulate our accumulating knowledge base.   
The shared formal representation (such as RDF, OWL, etc.), as well as  
shared formal definitions of entities will need to work hand-in-hand.

I still see this as commensurate with the what I've seen referred to  
on this list as Jim Hendler's principle of "A little SemWebTech goes  
a long way." (pardon the paraphrase - please correct any  
misinterpretation).

Of course it's a given, having a robust and ubiquitous URI  
implementation is also a critical factor here, but I won't go down  
that road here...	;-)

Cheers,
Bill


On Aug 22, 2006, at 7:42 AM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:

>
>> Creating explicit connections between all similar and/or identical  
>> entries
>> in two schemas is an arduous task that is impractical to do manually.
>
> [VK] Will mapping each of these schemas to an ontology and then  
> using the
> ontology to mediate further queries help alleviate the problem?
>
> ---Vipul

Bill Bug
Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer

Laboratory for Bioimaging  & Anatomical Informatics
www.neuroterrain.org
Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy
Drexel University College of Medicine
2900 Queen Lane
Philadelphia, PA    19129
215 991 8430 (ph)
610 457 0443 (mobile)
215 843 9367 (fax)


Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu







This email and any accompanying attachments are confidential. 
This information is intended solely for the use of the individual 
to whom it is addressed. Any review, disclosure, copying, 
distribution, or use of this email communication by others is strictly 
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us 
immediately by returning this message to the sender and delete 
all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 12:12:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:44 GMT