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

Re: BioRDF Brainstorming

From: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:06:41 +0000
Message-ID: <47B35BE1.5080305@cancer.org.uk>
To: Colin Batchelor <BatchelorC@rsc.org>, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

I'd agree - I suspect that simply matching terms doesn't help that much 
- we'd need to know the context of it, but then it all gets very sticky.

There is some work on mining the Chemistry literature from Cambridge 
(UK) - using ? OSCAR/ Sci-ML I think....

We've done a little work in the clinical domain using structured 
abstracts as a guide to help extract info automatically/ 
semi-automatically. Looks promising, but noting concrete yet.

Matt

Colin Batchelor wrote:
>> I also think that the machine-readable representation of facts about
>> biology
>> should have a higher priortiy than the description of experimental
> setups
>> and procedures (which is the major goal of OBI and EXPO). People only
> have
>> limited time and motivation to create machine-readable annotations,
> and it
>> is much more useful when they spend that time on describing the
> RESULTS
>> (biological facts). Of course, descriptions of experiments are also
>> valuable, when there are sufficient resources left for creating them.
> 
> Good point.  What I was sort of driving at (and failing) was the context
> in which the facts are mentioned---are they the aim of the paper,
> background information, mentioned as results and so forth?
> 
> Currently in our (Project Prospect) RSS feeds we connect the OBO terms
> to the article with the content module of RSS, which I feel is
> unsatisfactory.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Colin.
> 

-- 
http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
http://adhominem.blogsome.com/
+44 (0)7834 899570
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2008 21:07:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:51 GMT