- From: Helen Parkinson <parkinso@ebi.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:12:10 +0100
- To: Kei Cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu>
- CC: Nigam Shah <nigam@stanford.edu>, HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "tomasz.adamusiak@gmail.com" <tomasz.adamusiak@gmail.com>, Maryann Martone <maryann@ncmir.ucsd.edu>
Having the NIFSTD in bioportal would be ideal, we will always defer to NIF for neuroscience terms, best Helen Kei Cheung wrote: > Nigam Shah wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Helen Parkinson <parkinson@ebi.ac.uk >> <mailto:parkinson@ebi.ac.uk>> wrote: >> >> The performance depends largely on how well the ontology is >> aligned with the input data, for this reason we developed our own >> ontology. >> >> This is very true. However, if there is already an existing ontology >> that matches the input data well (e.g. the NCI Thesaurus in case of >> Tissue Microarray Annotations in TMAD (http://tma.stanford.edu/) .. >> then its possible to use the annotator tool at NCBO >> (http://bioportal.bioontology.org/annotate). >> >> Regards, >> Nigam. > I notice that EFO is accessible through BioPortal. As the Neurolex > group is in the process of updating NIFSTD, perhaps the new version of > NIFSTD may also be made accessible through BioPortal when it's ready. > > Thanks, > > -Kei >
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 19:13:01 UTC