- From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:26:02 +1000
- To: Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
2009/4/29 Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>: > I have also started to convert SIDER into aTags, but our two conversions > will be complementary. What I am doing is mapping the information to the OBO > disease ontology and to DBpedia (for drug names), and reusing OBO and > DBpedia URIs directly. The conversion will be lossy when no matches are > found in these resources, but it will be bound more tightly to OBO and > DBpedia. I will have to investigate how aTags works more deeply. I developed my own tagging vocabulary [1] but it hasn't seen many uses so far. From a rough view, the terms:hasEvidence URI seems to map well to aTags although it might be a bit specialised. Is [2] the only place aTags are described? > The STITCH ids for chemicals seem to be equivalent to Pubchem in all cases I > checked. Are there deviations? The STITCH and SIDER notes seem to indicate that they have reused the pubchem identifiers, so owl:sameAs should be appropriate to http://bio2rdf.org/pubchem:STITCHID. > By the way, some time back I also found two other datasets about drug side > effects / pharmacovigilance data that could be used for conversions. > > Maximum Recommended Therapeutic Dose (MRTD) Database > http://www.fda.gov/Cder/Offices/OPS_IO/MRTD.htm > > Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) Statistics > http://www.fda.gov/cder/aers/extract.htm > > I will try to analyze those to see if they are worthwhile candidates for > conversion. The AERS data is a bit complicated, and converting only some of > the data might suffice. Partial rdfisations are still useful. If you release the script you used to do it someone else can improve the coverage in the future if needed. > Adverse events seem to be generally identified with terms from the MedDra > dictionary (http://www.meddramsso.com), which is proprietary. I find this a > bit irritating -- the entry barriers for institutions to create reports > about adverse events should be as low as possible, which is not really > helped by locking away the standard dictionary for codifying adverse > events... It would be interesting to see what relationships are possible between drugbank and these datasets, as drugbank is linked directly into a large number of Bio2RDF datasets so the bridge from that point is made. Cheers, Peter [1] http://bio2rdf.mquter.qut.edu.au/ns/terms [2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/aTags
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 09:26:37 UTC