- From: Luo, James (NIH/NCI) <luoja@mail.nih.gov>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:13:05 -0400
- To: "'jluciano@predmed.com'" <jluciano@predmed.com>, 'Eric Jain' <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, 'Geoff Chappell' <gchappell@intellidimension.com>
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
UniProt itself has GO IDs. You can go to UniProt site ftp://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/uniprot/knowledgebase/ The file to get for GO ids is uniprot_sprot.dat.gz James =================================================== James Luo, Ph.D. Sr. Bioinformatics Scientist / Lead Data Architect Contractor Email: luoja@mail.nih.gov Phone: 301-402-1621(o), 301-943-8856(c); Fax: 301-480-4222 National Cancer Institute Center for BioInformatics, NIH / AITC, SAIC -----Original Message----- From: Joanne Luciano [mailto:jluciano@predmed.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:22 PM To: 'Eric Jain'; 'Geoff Chappell' Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org Subject: RE: Uniprot RDF in RDF Gateway Maybe you guys know... Is there a way to link UniProt IDs and GO (Gene Ontology) IDs? Is there a database that has both? Eric, can this be done indirectly through the KEGG/RDF work you did? Thanks, Joanne > -----Original Message----- > From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Eric Jain > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 1:49 PM > To: Geoff Chappell > Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > Subject: Re: Uniprot RDF in RDF Gateway > > > Geoff Chappell wrote: > > I imagined this was probably the case. It might be worth > highlighting > > for folks on your site > > Yes, good idea. > > > > Yeah, it's unfortunate there isn't a meaningful common > superclass of > > those (since the they all describe ranges on the timeline). > I suppose > > you could make the range the union of the three types. > > We used this approach in the XML Schema for the plain XML > version of our data [http://www.uniprot.org/support/docs/uniprot.xsd]. > > Unfortunately Protege (which is used to maintain the > ontology) doesn't seem to support custom data types, and I > suspect other RDF tools may have problems, too... > > > >
Received on Friday, 13 May 2005 06:00:28 UTC