- From: Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:11:24 -0500
- To: <eneumann@teranode.com>, Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>
- CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, <wangxiao@musc.edu>, Michel_Dumontier <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>, public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Mark Wilkinson <markw@illuminae.com>, Benjamin Good <goodb@interchange.ubc.ca>, Natalia Villanueva Rosales <naty.vr@gmail.com>
> Having worked directly with bench scientists for many years, they > view data and databases as "extensions" to what they are really > interested in. Uhm, probably this differentiates molecular biology from classic, organismal biology (my background). I would never make such statements. > Your example of "bank" and "bank" are disjoint and non-related; in > the case of gene and gene-data-record A gene and a gene-data-record are also disjoint. They share no greater resemblance than a 'bank' and a 'bank'. That they are often used inside the same sentence does not make them any less disjoint. > The evidence for what I point out is found everywhere: "P12345 is > expressed in some tissues"... according to Alan's points, this > would be a wrong statement. When the Semantic Web should really find widespread adoption, they would be saying something like "C12345 is expressed in some tissues", where C12345 is the identifier of a class of protein molecules (which might be described in P12345.html). Not much would change for the scientists -- it would rather seem that using identifiers to identify the proteins themselves instead of the database records is what they implicitly want. cheers, Matthias
Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 14:11:48 UTC