W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2008

RE: RE: BioRDF Brainstorming

From: Colin Batchelor <BatchelorC@rsc.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:59:11 -0000
Message-ID: <93B41882A6FB344FA9CEB2A25EE998BD091D0536@stamp>
To: <samwald@gmx.at>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Cc: <holger.stenzhorn@deri.org>

> In what I see as the ideal scenario, each text/database entry would
> be annotated with the results


So what we would need is
(1) a tool for getting authors to indicate which bits of the article
actually are their results, and
(2) a way of representing this in RDF.  I suppose we're going to reify
the results, so we need a relationship to connect the article to the
reified result.

How do you propose we cope with hedging, that is "It is not impossible
that bananas are green", "Taken together, these results would indicate
that bananas are blue" and so forth?  This is much more common that the
unwary reader might suspect.

Best wishes,


This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening.
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2008 02:19:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:35 UTC