- From: Steve Chervitz <Steve_Chervitz@affymetrix.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:23:28 -0700
- To: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, Mark Musen <musen@stanford.edu>
- CC: AJ Chen <canovaj@gmail.com>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk> on Mon, 12 Jun 2006: > >>>>>> "MM" == Mark Musen <musen@stanford.edu> writes: > > MM> A colleague just pointed me to this (rather vacuous) article. > MM> Does anyone know more about this work? > MM> http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn9288-translator-lets- > MM> computers-understand-experiments-.html > > It's a middle ontology for describing experiments--hypothesis, > conclusions that sort of thing. Larisa Soldatova and Ross King have > been working on this for a couple of years. As some one else > mentioned, it fits in with Ross' earlier work on a robot scientist > which was really very nice. > > They also wrote an interesting paper on the state of bio-ontologies. > > Nature Biotechnology 23, 1095 - 1098 (2005) > doi:10.1038/nbt0905-1095 > Are the current ontologies in biology good ontologies? > > Larisa N Soldatova & Ross D King Also worth seeing: The MGED ontologies folks wrote a response to this article that comments on the bio-ontology development process, and addresses some statements Soldatova and King make about MO which the MO folks feel are inaccurate or misleading: Stoeckert C et al. Nature Biotechnology 24, 21 - 22 (2006) doi:10.1038/nbt0106-21b Wrestling with SUMO and bio-ontologies http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n1/full/nbt0106-21b.html The reliance on and choice of upper level ontology seems to be a big bone of contention. Are there any good reviews on these discussing things like why there are so many of them and why can't they be combined? Seems like the current trend is to accept their existence and work towards making them interoperable: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit Steve
Received on Monday, 12 June 2006 20:23:22 UTC