- From: Gary Bader <bader@cbio.mskcc.org>
- Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:29:35 -0400
- To: wangxiao@musc.edu
- CC: Nigam Shah <nigam@stanford.edu>, satya30@uga.edu, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
Hi, BioPAX is very active. The proposal for the next level of BioPAX was sent out to the biopax-discuss mailing list last week and is open for discussion. Please join the biopax-discuss list at biopax-discuss@biopax.org if you are interested. The biopaxwiki.org wiki has current information about BioPAX. Thanks, Gary Xiaoshu Wang wrote: > > Nigam Shah wrote: >> Hi Satya, >> >> See below... >> >> >>> For example, the BioPAX ontology is a community effort to standardize >>> the representation of pathway data. But, there are serious differences >>> in the way concepts and relationships, defined in the BioPAX ontology >>> schema, are interpreted to create instances. This leads to heterogeneous >>> instance bases for the same ontology! >>> >> >> Well, BioPAX is an exchange format as of now. It gives you a >> consistent way of describing a pathway structure. It does not claim to >> provide a consistent terminology of pathway names that works across >> all sources. >> > Using RDF as an "exchange format" is just outright wrong. How do you > decide if an RDF document is in BioPAX format or not? I don't know how > active BioPAX is now (their website shows the last conference call was > more than two years ago). But such line of thought will doom (and have > perhaps already doomed) their fate. > > Xiaoshu > -- http://baderlab.org Terrence Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research University of Toronto
Received on Sunday, 9 September 2007 16:31:44 UTC