- From: John Wilbanks <wilbanks@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:32:59 -0400
- To: wilbanks@creativecommons.org
- CC: William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>, kei cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
(to be clear, when i say hotel, i mean the rental of a meeting room in a
hotel, not the costs of hotel rooms!)
John Wilbanks wrote:
>
> OK. I will be traveling most of the rest of the month for
> non-Neurocommons related work. But I'll return to this end of June and
> start gathering some forces. I'll also get in touch with Karen Skinner.
>
> I'd been thinking about early December as a time frame and Boston as a
> location. I'll need to shift the planning up a notch, since if we're
> going to have a bigger group I can't host it at MIT as planned.
>
> The meeting will be free as in beer and free as in speech but I won't be
> able to cover travel costs - just the hotel and the lunches. If we're
> going to get a group like this together, I'd also like to have some
> hacking. The Neurocommons RDF draft release will be out before the
> meeting and I'd like to have at least a piece of the time be focused
> around getting the users and the coders wired together on some problems,
> use cases, and more.
>
> jtw
>
> William Bug wrote:
>
>>
>> Ditto, John!
>>
>> I'd also suggest including NCBO folks on this (specifically Daniel
>> Rubin and Barry Smith), as I see an obvious convergence of needs and
>> focus here - despite the fact some see the top-down ontological
>> approach and the bottom-up SW approach as being difficult to reconcile.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bill
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2006, at 10:24 AM, kei cheung wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John et al.,
>>>
>>> I think it's a great idea. Do you have some more information (e.g.,
>>> meeting location and draft meeting agenda) about the Neurocommons
>>> meeting you mentioned which Bill and I (and possibly others) can
>>> share with the neurosceintists we're working (have worked) with to
>>> see what they think?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> -Kei
>>>
>>> John Wilbanks wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> I've been following the discussion here with interest the last two
>>>> weeks - with the Neurocommons project, Science Commons is taking on
>>>> both issues of intellectual property (on ontologies and databases)
>>>> and the semantic web in neuroscience. We're text mining the open
>>>> content and indexing with public ontologies with a focus on autism
>>>> and epilepsy; draft RDF release is planned in the november time frame.
>>>>
>>>> For what it's worth...we were planning on holding a Neurocommons
>>>> meeting in the late fall / early winter and I'd be happy to expand
>>>> that meeting to more of a global "meeting of the minds" between
>>>> SWeb and Neuro, if that's of use. Let me know...
>>>>
>>>> jtw
>>>>
>>>> kc28 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your passionate response. When I said "outreach", I did
>>>>> imply to establish a mutually beneficial relationship between the
>>>>> semantic web and neuroscience communities. I agree with you that
>>>>> such a relationship would help bring scientific/techological
>>>>> advances to both communities. I also agree that it's an excellent
>>>>> idea to have a face-to-face meeting with the neuroscientists you
>>>>> listed. However, it could be a challenge to get all of them agree
>>>>> to come and show up at the same meeting. I don't mean we shouldn't
>>>>> try. I think we should try even if we can only get some but not
>>>>> all of them. Also, I think we should also invite folks from NCBO
>>>>> and MGED to join if possible. In addition to the face- to-face
>>>>> meeting, I think we can still try to invite these neuroscientists
>>>>> (as well as some of the NCBO/MGED folks) to participate in some of
>>>>> future telconf's to establish an ongoing interaction. For your
>>>>> suggestions on the BioRDF wiki pages (I think they are very good
>>>>> suggestions), I suggest that we set it as one of the agenda items
>>>>> to discuss in our BioRDF telconf call. Other folks may also have
>>>>> other suggestions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> -Kei
>>>>>
>>>>> William Bug wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do run on, sometimes, don't I, Kei?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I emphatically agree with the general tenor of your suggestion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would word it a bit differently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't call this outreach so much as going to the "customer"
>>>>>> and asking them to help us - the technology experts - to define
>>>>>> their user requirements. I would word it this way to the
>>>>>> technologists, at least. The Neuroscientists should be pitched
>>>>>> using "civilian" colloquialisms, but the point is I believe the
>>>>>> onus is on those developing and applying the technology to stay
>>>>>> in sync with the needs of the neuroscientists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I realize many of us on this list are in fact trained biomedical
>>>>>> and/ or computer science researchers. I myself was originally
>>>>>> trained as a molecular biophysicist studying neuromodulation of
>>>>>> presynaptic, Voltage-dependent, Ca++-channels using single-
>>>>>> channel and whole-cell electrophysiological techniques. That
>>>>>> places us at the extremely valuable nexus where we possess
>>>>>> specific insight into the information needs of broader community
>>>>>> of neuroscientists we hope will benefit from the technological
>>>>>> resources we develop, while also possessing the technological
>>>>>> insight required to determine what is practical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My sense is it's important to develop credibility on both sides
>>>>>> of this equation - the technology developers need to clearly
>>>>>> demonstrate they're sensitive the needs of "bleeding edge"
>>>>>> researchers. They are developing tools to revolutionize a
>>>>>> scientist's ability to perform their research tasks effectively
>>>>>> and efficiently - transform them from 19th century cottage
>>>>>> scientists where all knowledge mining must be done laboriously
>>>>>> and with very limited scope by their lonely brain into 21st
>>>>>> century informaticists where large scale, data/knowledge mining
>>>>>> against the evolving "World Brain" (H.G. Wells term - http://
>>>>>> sherlock.berkeley.edu/wells/world_brain.html) is a routine practice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The scientists also need to demonstrate they recognize the value
>>>>>> provided by the technologists. This will again derive from
>>>>>> clear demonstrations of the value the technological solutions
>>>>>> can provide to the researcher. This latter issue is often a
>>>>>> hard one to get across, but its lack of such recognition/trust
>>>>>> that can lead the technologists to go at it on their own out of
>>>>>> frustration (Kei, Don, and others who attended the Human Brain
>>>>>> Project meeting in April can attest to the fact that I am just
>>>>>> as subject to this frustration as any other bioinformatics
>>>>>> developer - :-) ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Along these lines, I'd suggest:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Presentations by neuroscientists who have done seminal work
>>>>>> in neuroinformatics:
>>>>>> I think Kei's suggestion is an excellent. However, I'd
>>>>>> suggest a F2F meeting, where these folks are invited as
>>>>>> speakers. It will be hard to get the full effect of what they
>>>>>> have to say on a phone or video conference. They are likely to
>>>>>> take a talk at a meeting more seriously and a greater level of
>>>>>> commitment is likely to derive from it.
>>>>>> I would suggest there be a session of neuroinformatics
>>>>>> presentations by neuroscientists, and also a session of semantic
>>>>>> web technology presentations by participants of this group. The
>>>>>> focus should be on neuroinformatics projects using semantic web
>>>>>> technology with one intro talk on semantic web technology
>>>>>> applied to biomedical informatics to provide a context for those
>>>>>> neuroscientists who've not yet got the take home message.
>>>>>> My suggestion for neuroscientists would be - in no particular
>>>>>> order of importance:
>>>>>> 1) Gordon Shepherd (SenseLab) - integration of various
>>>>>> modalities of neuro-data with a focus on the olfactory system
>>>>>> 2) Doug Bowden (NeuroNames) - unified, mammalian
>>>>>> neuroanatomical lexicon
>>>>>> 3) Maryann Martone (CCDB, SMART Atlas, & BIRN) /Mark
>>>>>> Ellisman (BIRN)/ Jeff Grethe (BIRN infrastructure) - broad-
>>>>>> field, neuroimaging- centric neuroinformatics infrastructure
>>>>>> 4) Rolf Kütter (CoCoMac) - literature informatics
>>>>>> ("bibliomics") system with a focus on neuro-connectivity
>>>>>> 5) Rob Williams (GeneNetwork/WebQTL/Mouse Brain Library)
>>>>>> - genetic variability and brain phenotypes from molecules
>>>>>> through anatomy and behavior
>>>>>> 6) Peter Hunter (CellML and parametric spatial modeling
>>>>>> of the brain)
>>>>>> 6) Dan Gardner (BrainML) - XML schema for neuroscience data
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are other folks, but I believe this core of people cut
>>>>>> across a variety of neuroscientific sub-domains and levels of
>>>>>> technical complexity. I'd also recommend someone from the field
>>>>>> of 3D digital brain atlasing (atlas data set/computer vision
>>>>>> algorithm/atlas tool development), but as I'm in this field
>>>>>> myself, I don't feel it's appropriate for me to suggest which of
>>>>>> the several researchers would be the most appropriate. I would
>>>>>> only say it's important to recognize the distinction between
>>>>>> spatially-based, neuroscience data sets (GENSAT, Allen Brain
>>>>>> Atlas, Desmond Smith's "voxelized" microarray data sets) and the
>>>>>> use of brain atlases to provide a canonical coordinate space and
>>>>>> algorithmic tool set via which one can perform large-scale
>>>>>> integration & atlas mapping of spatially-based, neuroscience
>>>>>> data sets. This task - integration of spatially-mapped
>>>>>> neuroscience data sets - is obviously one for which semantic web
>>>>>> technologies will be a critical catalytic factor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) The BioRDF Wiki page:
>>>>>> I'd suggest this focus on semantic web applications in the
>>>>>> neuroscience. There is already a link to a list of projects
>>>>>> (e.g., SWAN, Semantic Synapse, NeuroCommons). Rather than place
>>>>>> substantive info on these 3 projects 3 clicks away, I'd suggest
>>>>>> you list them right there on main BioRDF Wiki along with a 1 - 2
>>>>>> sentence summary of each project. This will guarantee the
>>>>>> widest possible recognition/ visibility for these efforts.
>>>>>> I'd also suggest that in listing of "other" neuroscience
>>>>>> resources on the web, rather than creating an ad hoc collection
>>>>>> of a few projects (which can effect general credibility - e.g.,
>>>>>> "Where are all those neuroscience resources I think are
>>>>>> important - why just BrainML & GENSAT?" - I'd point to the
>>>>>> several consortia and/or registries/"yellow pages" already
>>>>>> compiled - e.g., the Society for Neuroscience's Neuroscience
>>>>>> Database Gateway (http://big.sfn.org/NDG/ site/), David Kennedy's
>>>>>> Internet Analysis Tools Registry (mainly neuroscience tools,
>>>>>> though this scope is expanding - http://
>>>>>> www.cma.mgh.harvard.edu/iatr/display.php?spec=all), fMRI Tools
>>>>>> (http://www.fmritools.org/), The Neuroinformatics Portal Pilot
>>>>>> (http://www.neuroinf.de/), etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) Licensing:
>>>>>> To say one final thing about licensing, I completely agree with
>>>>>> Don that it is a hideous, unworkable mess. Go back to the
>>>>>> single statement in Article 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and you
>>>>>> clearly get the sense of what was originally intended by
>>>>>> establishing copyright and patent law as a legal entities
>>>>>> (http://www.archives.gov/national- archives-experience/charters/
>>>>>> constitution_transcript.html):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of
>>>>>> Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to
>>>>>> Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
>>>>>> Writings and Discoveries;"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was recognized even 200 years ago the creative commons is of
>>>>>> great value to society. For this value to be realized, these
>>>>>> resources must be a part of the commons and available to all -
>>>>>> including latter day inventors, artists, and scientists seeking
>>>>>> to build on what came before. This need, however, must be
>>>>>> balanced again the desire of the artist, scientists, inventor to
>>>>>> make a productive living from the fruits of their labor
>>>>>> (otherwise, the creation stops).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd guess most folks on this list would certainly agree with the
>>>>>> need to establish this right. Where the founders went wrong was
>>>>>> in the statement "The Congress shall have Power To...", as this
>>>>>> left the door wide open for Congress to redefine what copyright
>>>>>> was all about. As most of you probably know, the balance began
>>>>>> to shift from the "...Authors and Inventors (and scientists)..."
>>>>>> to publishers (those solely in business to make $$$ off the
>>>>>> efforts of the creative persons) starting in the late 19th
>>>>>> Century with the proliferation of pirated sheet music. This
>>>>>> trend worsened through the last century, but really took a
>>>>>> significant, qualitative leap away from the original intentions
>>>>>> as outlined in Article 8 above with the DMCA. Given how
>>>>>> significant a driver IP is for the engines of the economy (and
>>>>>> greed), I'm still uncertain how we can over turn this trend and
>>>>>> get back to the original principles. The work sponsored by the
>>>>>> CreativeCommons - and specifically The ScienceCommons - will
>>>>>> certainly help to get us there**. This is the case despite the
>>>>>> extremely clear detriment the current trend has toward society as
>>>>>> a whole*** and to the communication amongst scientists in
>>>>>> particular.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Though still problematic, I actually endorse the use of licensing
>>>>>> by the NeuroNames folks (as you might have been able to gather
>>>>>> already), as I see their application going right back to that
>>>>>> original statement in the U.S. Constitution. It's one thing to
>>>>>> bulk download sequence records and "cleanse" their semantic
>>>>>> content in order to promote powerful knowledge mining efforts.
>>>>>> When it comes to highly curated, knowledge resources, the onus
>>>>>> is on the user to be careful both to clearly understand the
>>>>>> original intentions and limitations of the resource, as well as
>>>>>> to work to protect the integrity of the resource. It does none
>>>>>> of us any good to create a "better" or more "open" NeuroNames,
>>>>>> if that just becomes another version of NeuroNames. If we are
>>>>>> not ALL using the same NeuroNames (or at least using compatible
>>>>>> and consistent versions), then we defeat the purpose of using
>>>>>> NeuroNames for large-scale data integration and semantic mining.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is needed is for there to be an established authority to
>>>>>> arbitrate when issues of curation and usage of a knowledge
>>>>>> resources come into conflict. Here again, I'd suggest going to
>>>>>> NCBO for help. Not that they have an infinite supply of
>>>>>> resources and can solve all the problems, but at least they
>>>>>> understand this complex issue from both sides - that of the
>>>>>> curation authority and of the biomedical informatics scientist
>>>>>> trying to make productive use of the resource - and have some
>>>>>> resources and authority to grease the wheels of science in this
>>>>>> domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again - just my $0.02. I hope this helps to clarify what I've
>>>>>> been trying to communicate in this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** I expect it's a bit superfluous to mention here, but I'd
>>>>>> suggest checking out the SC info resources, if you've not
>>>>>> already at http:// sciencecommons.org/resources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***see the excellent article by Richard Nelson posted by John
>>>>>> Wilbanks on the Science Commons weblog a few months back [http://
>>>>>> sciencecommons.org/weblog/archive/2006/02/15/richard-
>>>>>> nelson-on-the- scientific-commons] for an excellent treatment of
>>>>>> how this directly impedes the pursuit and accumulation of
>>>>>> scientific knowledge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2006, at 7:42 PM, kc28 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You really can write faster than I can read :-). Actually, we
>>>>>>> have discussed in a previous telconf about how to outreach to
>>>>>>> the neuroscience community. I think this represents a good
>>>>>>> opportunity to try to get people like Doug Bowden involved, as
>>>>>>> we are interested in converting Neuronames into RDF/OWL. I
>>>>>>> wonder if it's possible to invite neuroscientists like Doug
>>>>>>> Bowden and Gordon Shepherd (and possibly more) to talk about
>>>>>>> their work in our future BioRDF/Ontology telconf. This will
>>>>>>> foster more interaction between the semantic web community and
>>>>>>> neuroscience community. I wonder how this sounds to other
>>>>>>> semantic web folks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Kei
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> William Bug wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Matthias,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would strongly recommend you contact Doug Bowden and
>>>>>>>> colleagues at NeuroNames before you undertake this task - or
>>>>>>>> at least take a look at the NeuroNames specifics I list in my
>>>>>>>> previous email. I'd be glad to answer any questions you may
>>>>>>>> have about statements I made. Doug and his collaborators are
>>>>>>>> extremely collegial and make a very sincere effort to work
>>>>>>>> with those interested in making effective - or novel - use of
>>>>>>>> NN.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The other person you should contact is Daniel Rubin at NCBO,
>>>>>>>> who, for all I know, is lurking on this thread. Others in
>>>>>>>> the thread appeared to be addressing Daniel. This is a topic
>>>>>>>> actively under investigation both by NCBO and by the BIRN.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I mentioned in my post to this thread, Doug & colleagues
>>>>>>>> have been working for the last year with Jack Park of SRI to
>>>>>>>> express NN in XTM format. A lot of effort needs to go into
>>>>>>>> vetting this "remapping" to make certain none of the
>>>>>>>> assertions in the hierarchy - explicit or implicit - are
>>>>>>>> invalidated - as well as ensuring no new assertions are
>>>>>>>> unwittingly introduced. You may want to work from this
>>>>>>>> version of NN to create an RDF/OWL version. As I mentioned
>>>>>>>> in the previous post, there has been some substantive effort
>>>>>>>> to examine the differences and similarities between XTM & RDF
>>>>>>>> - and there may even be translators or XSL instances that can
>>>>>>>> get you most of the way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doug also distributes the entirety of NN on CD with all of the
>>>>>>>> latest work they've done in the past year to incorporate rat
>>>>>>>> & mouse neuroanatomical terminologies - an added dimension
>>>>>>>> absolutely critical to those of us interested in collating
>>>>>>>> microarray, in situ & IHC expression studies in mouse brain
>>>>>>>> with neuroimaging data sets and 3D digital brain atlases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is definitely a need for an open source, RDF/OWL version
>>>>>>>> of NeuroNames (and the neuroanatomical portion of RadLex for
>>>>>>>> that matter - http://www.rsna.org/RadLex/ - if you are
>>>>>>>> interested in human, radiological imaging of the brain).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe we must do our best to work with the curators/
>>>>>>>> developers on these various knowledge resource projects,
>>>>>>>> given the biological complexity embedded in these resources.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as the licensing goes, Doug realizes this is a thorny
>>>>>>>> issue. The initial license was merely put in place to avoid
>>>>>>>> others downloading this highly curated knowledge resource,
>>>>>>>> modifying it, then repackaging it as "NeuroNames." As I
>>>>>>>> mentioned, this was not a paranoid fear. The license was
>>>>>>>> imposed in response to someone actually having done this with
>>>>>>>> NN. Knowledge resources like this - even when they are just
>>>>>>>> terminologies - require careful curation, and uncontrolled
>>>>>>>> dissemination and modification can ultimately degrade the
>>>>>>>> usefulness of the resource.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, closed, proprietary licensing can also degrade its
>>>>>>>> usefulness, so there is a delicate balance that must be struck.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is an issue I believe NCBO can help us all to resolve.
>>>>>>>> They won't have all the answers, but may be able to sponsor a
>>>>>>>> means to derive an effective solution to this problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My recommendation is a statement be sent by the W3CSW HCLSIG -
>>>>>>>> maybe the BioRDF & BIOONT groups collectively - informing Doug
>>>>>>>> of the need as they see it. He will not be surprised by the
>>>>>>>> nature of your request, but will be very surprised and
>>>>>>>> pleased to see this need emerging from the semantic web
>>>>>>>> community. I don't believe he reads this list. I know he
>>>>>>>> will be happy to work with participants on the W3CSW HCLSIG
>>>>>>>> to get us what we have all identified as essential - an open
>>>>>>>> source, unified neuroanatomical terminological (and in
>>>>>>>> association with FMA - as Neuro-FMA - ontological) resource
>>>>>>>> all formal annotation efforts can make shared and productive
>>>>>>>> use of.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just my $0.02 on the topic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Matthias Samwald wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Kei,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am under the impression that the neuronames ontology
>>>>>>>>> available on their website (as an Excel file...) is
>>>>>>>>> different from the version that is licensed as part of the
>>>>>>>>> UMLS. I guess the version that is online is a newer version
>>>>>>>>> of the one incorporated in UMLS. However, this might be seen
>>>>>>>>> as a derivative work, so it might still be restricted. In
>>>>>>>>> that case, it would seem like people of the neuronames group
>>>>>>>>> are violating the licence restrictions themselves (by making
>>>>>>>>> it available on the internet). I will write them and ask
>>>>>>>>> about that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> kind regards,
>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for doing that, but do we still have the licensing
>>>>>>>>>> issue as
>>>>>>>>>> stated by Olivier?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Kei
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Samwald wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I will convert the neuronames - ontology to SKOS (an OWL
>>>>>>>>>>> ontology
>>>>>>>>>>> used for the representation of taxonomies / theasauri). It
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> be added to the extension of the bio-zen ontologies framework
>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. I will keep you updated.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Samwald
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://neuroscientific.net/index.php?id=download
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:17:55 -0400, kc28 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For more up-to-date information about neuronames and related
>>>>>>>>>>>> tools, please visit: http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/.
>>>>>>>>>>>> While building our own open neural anatomy is one option,
>>>>>>>>>>>> getting the neuroscientist (e.g., braininfo people)
>>>>>>>>>>>> involved if
>>>>>>>>>>>> possible may be another option (outreach to the neuroscience
>>>>>>>>>>>> community?).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Bug
>>>>>>>> Senior 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 accompany 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Bug
>>>>>> Senior 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 accompany 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Bill Bug
>> Senior 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 accompany 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.
>>
>
--
..................................................................
John Wilbanks
Executive Director
Science Commons
http://sciencecommons.org
wilbanks@creativecommons.org
..................................................................
Received on Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:33:07 UTC