- From: Tom Stambaugh <tms@stambaugh-inc.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 18:26:20 -0500
- To: "hclsig-pub" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
> > [Snipped] > > It's at least conceivable that Wikipedia may play an important role in > providing widely accepted identifiers for such high level classes and > instances, since the high level of usage of wikipedia would tend to keep > those high level concepts far better maintained and curated than they > would be in the backwaters of a specifically biomedical ontology. Agreed. Building on that, I would anticipate multiple "Gene Function Wiki" instances to emerge, with locally-used vocabularies and ontologies. I hope they would aggregate into an "interwiki". As those multiple small communities and ontologies emerge and mature, I anticipate the emergence of "meta"-ontologies that describe synonyms, commonalities, differences and so forth. I think Jim Hendler addressed this in a talk he gave at Harvard a few months ago -- perhaps he might want to publish (here) the slides he used. I think one clarification might be in order. "Wiki nature" is deeply about making writing as accessible as reading, in a web-based medium. Wikis come in all sorts of flavors, wikipedia being an excellent example of a (primarily) text wiki. Without intending to be provocative here, I think that whatever we do that makes the semantic web broadly accessible will also make it viable in wikis. Semantic web markup must, in my view, be accessible to a "typical" scientist who understands gene function. Many scientists, after all, are able to at least occasionally construct perl that works. Surely we can achieve that same threshold. I suggest that once we have accomplished that, the mechanics of incorporating that markup into a wiki will be straightforward. Thx... Tom
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 23:26:26 UTC