W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > June 2007

RE: Evidence

From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:18:55 -0400
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D1244287D7@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: <samwald@gmx.at>, "Matt Williams" <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Cc: "Daniel Rubin" <rubin@med.stanford.edu>, <ogbujic@ccf.org>

> > inferences probably shouldn't be called evidence, but they are the
> > reason that some data are considered evidence, and others not,

[VK] Yes, but they do need to belong as "properties" of a generic evidence class
as pointed out by Daniel Rubin, at least that's how it's used in certain
clinical contexts.

> Exactly. That is why I would suggest to replace the evidence code
> 'inferred from genomic analysis'
> with the process
> 'genomic analysis (experimental procedure)',
> and not with the process
> 'inferring from the results of a genomic analysis'.

[VK] I would proposed that "genomic analysis" itself is an inference
procedure...

Input = Genomic data
Inference Procedure = Genomic Analysis (in this case, it's a statistical
inference procedure)
Output = Some Genomic Hypotheses.

It would be great if we can figure out a way to create an approach for dealing
with evidences across HC and LS Contexts...

---Vipul





The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and properly dispose of this information.
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 15:19:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:48 GMT