- From: Eric Neumann <eneumann@teranode.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:14:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Thanks Alan, This is certainly the kind of benefits story that has ROI potential. The pieces I would still need to collect are: 1) What was the approximate savings in time and cost by doing this using OWL vs. the more traditional way 2) What are some of the later realized costs of using error-prone databases in this area, i.e., years of using wrong answers to database queiries that delay the research I know the latter is quite context dependent, but if EcoCYC and iJR904 were used by researchers in therapeutics, the problem could be translated from time delays to dollars: e.g., ROI = delta_time_of_using_wrong_data * fraction_of_discovery_depending_on_data * dev_cost_per_drug_per_therapeutic_area + increased_cost_risk_using_incomplete_knowledge Eric Alan Ruttenberg said: > Hi Eric, > > In a discussion with Vipul, he thought the work that Jeremy Zucker and > I did: > > http://karma.med.harvard.edu/wiki/Debugging_the_bug > > might be of interest to the ROI subgroup. In that work we discuss a > data integration example implemented in OWL that exposed quite a few > errors in the source databases, many of which have now been fixed at > the source. I don't currently any time to do much more write-up, but I > can answer any questions should you be interested in documenting it as > part of your efforts. > > Regards, > Alan > Eric Neumann, PhD co-chair, W3C Healthcare and Life Sciences, and Senior Director Product Strategy Teranode Corporation 83 South King Street, Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98104 +1 (781)856-9132 www.teranode.com
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2006 13:14:38 UTC