- From: William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:07:41 -0500
- To: Kei Cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu>
- Cc: Susie Stephens <susie.stephens@oracle.com>, 'public-semweb-lifesci' <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <5D976355-4C34-4A52-A06B-457B2B21558C@DrexelMed.edu>
Very much so, Kei. Thanks for bringing this up. Maryann Martone, Jeff Grethe, myself, and others involved in the Bioimaging contingent contributing to the Ontology of Biomedical Investigation (designed to cover experiment assays, equipment, reagents, etc.) have spent some time looking at OME. There have been discussions regarding what portions of their work represents data modeling syntax and what portions represent semantics. Right now, I don't believe OME makes a significant distinction between the two. Regardless - there is a considerable amount of valuable structured semantics contained within OME. Another important imaging ontology - one that can be of significant use when describing imaging experiments - is the EBI Flybase Bioimaging methods ontology (FBbi - http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ontology- lookup/ontologyList.do). This started very focussed on the sort of in situ and whole-mount imaging specific to Drosophila work but has really matured considerably in the last year. In particular, it's very good for capturing the detail associated with histological techniques used in various forms of light microscopy - an EXTREMELY important aspect that must be captured semantically, if we have any hope of integrating analyses and assertions based on separate imaging experiments. There is a need to deal more with methods associated with radiological imaging of various sorts - an issue that - as Daniel mentioned - is being address by the imaging task force in caBIG, by BIRN, and by a few other efforts. OME & FBbi both focus almost exclusively on light microscopy. Maryann Martone - co-chair of the BIRN OTF - and a neuroanatomist with extensive experience using ultrastructural imaging is also working on electron microscopy as a part of the BIRNLex framework. Ultimately, all of this need to integrate with - and/or derive from - OBI. Cheers, Bill On Jan 8, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Kei Cheung wrote: > > Hi All, > > I just wonder if the Open Microscopy Environment standard described > in the following article is applicable to semantic annotation of > neuroimages. > > http://cdp.mit.edu/pdf/Goldberg-15892875-2005.pdf > > Best, > > -Kei > > > Susie Stephens wrote: > >> >> Here's a reminder for Monday's BioRDF call. >> >> Date of Call: Monday January 8, 2007 >> Time of Call: 11:00am Eastern Time >> Dial-In #: +1.617.761.6200 (Cambridge, MA) >> Participant Access Code: 246733 ("BIORDF") >> IRC Channel: irc.w3.org port 6665 channel #BioRDF >> Duration: ~1 hour >> >> Agenda >> - Review action items. >> - Kei Cheung will provide a status update regarding the BMC >> Bioinformatics paper. >> - Daniel Rubin will highlight the use of images within scientific >> queries. >> - Bill Bug will describe some of the most appropriate use cases >> from BIRN. >> - Finalize decisions regarding the best venue for the demo. >> - AOB. >> >> >> > > > Bill Bug Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer Laboratory for Bioimaging & Anatomical Informatics www.neuroterrain.org Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy Drexel University College of Medicine 2900 Queen Lane Philadelphia, PA 19129 215 991 8430 (ph) 610 457 0443 (mobile) 215 843 9367 (fax) Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu
Received on Monday, 8 January 2007 19:08:03 UTC