- From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:42:35 +0200
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
>>>>> "Alan" == Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> writes: Alan> Well, if I am restricted to using such Uniprot classes I will have Alan> trouble representing important scientific findings. If Uniprot only Alan> has one name for the two molecules, one of which has a snp that leads Alan> to a loss of function that is the initiating factor of a disease, then Alan> we have a problem, no? How do we say things about the disease related Alan> form? Make statements against "an isoform of P38228". >> >> If you create identifiers to describe proteins rather than protein >> records (like uniprot) then you have created a whole new set of IDs. When >> anyone wants to talk about a protein, they will have to look up the ID. Alan> As they will when they want to talk about a record. Of course perhaps Alan> we all will add some links of the sort that say the record is about Alan> some set of classes of proteins, and that aspects of the protein in a Alan> class can be described by pieces of the record. Alan> But at least we'll know what we are talking about. The question here is whether you will add to the confusion or decrease it. You need to put an entire infrastructure in place for providing sane, consistent, clearly defined names to proteins. I just use swissprot. Alan> But I'm open to discussing suggestions for representing these Alan> statements by only making use of the Uniprot records ids, if you have Alan> any. Well, swissprot refers to isoforms I think. Push comes to shove, just use the sequence. Phil -- Phillip Lord, Phone: +44 (0) 191 222 7827 Lecturer in Bioinformatics, Email: phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk School of Computing Science, http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/phillip.lord Claremont Tower Room 909, skype: russet_apples Newcastle University, NE1 7RU
Received on Saturday, 21 July 2007 12:45:43 UTC