W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2008

Re: BioRDF Brainstorming

From: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:12:15 +0000
Message-ID: <47B20BAF.9030808@cancer.org.uk>
To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
CC: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, holger.stenzhorn@deri.org, p.roe@qut.edu.au, j.hogan@qut.edu.au

Dear All,

Just a note on this:

For example, article pmid:123 contains the text
 >> "We found that bananas are yellow. This is in conflict with article
 >> pmid:456, which states that bananas are pink".
 >> Article pmid:123 should only be annotated with
 >> "banana has_quality yellow .
 >> pmid:123 in_conflict_with pmid:456 ."
 >> Article pmid:456 should be annotated with
 >> "banana has_quality pink ."
 >> "banana has_quality pink" should not be re-iterated in the annotation of
 >> pmid:123.
 >> For widely-accepted and deployed biomedical annotation it really 
does not need to be more complicated than that. Trying to capture the 
whole narrative of each publication in detail in such a scenario is very 
hard and might actually make the annotation as a whole less usable, 
since it becomes harder to understand, query, integrate and maintain.

I'd agree that to capture all the publication might be hard, but to only 
capture this bit (I suspect the conclusion) wouldn't you need to find 
the conclusion, and ignore the rest? Using the abstract only might help, 
but not enough....in any case, there are other bits (e.g. which type of 
bananas they used) that you might well want to capture.

I may have missed something here, and if anyone has already done most of 
this, I'd be very interested in seeing it.



+44 (0)7834 899570
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 21:13:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:33 UTC