W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > November 2010

Re: [BioRDF] Comments from Christoph Grabmuller on BioRDF microarray provenance

From: Christoph Grabmuller <grabmuel@ebi.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 10:08:41 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=QtheVf_=dM0tLKJVEsDGFVRncFW69itNoLRXe@mail.gmail.com>
To: Helen Parkinson <parkinson@ebi.ac.uk>
Cc: "M. Scott Marshall" <mscottmarshall@gmail.com>, HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Helen Parkinson <parkinson@ebi.ac.uk> wrote:
> EFO only uses namespaces from a subset of ontologies, mostly those which are
> either OBO foundry approved,
> or in the process of this, or where is a lack of orthogonal ontologies. For
> disease we have many terms from many different sources, and so we cross
> reference rather than use namespaces as there is no single authoritative
> source (in our opinion). We have replaced namespaces programmatically in the
> past, so we could provide this code if this is of interest, or we could
> consider a release with DO terms namespace if this is of general use, though
> this probably would not be our production release.

The DO is a OBO Foundry candidate, and there is an official OWL
release [1], so wouldn't that be the authoritative source for URIs? Of
course it's easy to replace the definition_citations, but wouldn't it
be much nicer if the user can just download two 'officially' released
OWL files and work across them directly?
Of course there are many other sources that do not define any URIs on
their own whatsoever.


[1] http://www.obofoundry.org/cgi-bin/detail.cgi?id=disease_ontology
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 11:53:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:44 UTC