- From: Chris Mungall <cjm@berkeleybop.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:11:50 -0800
- To: Kei Cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "andrea splendiani (RRes-Roth)" <andrea.splendiani@bbsrc.ac.uk>, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Maryann Martone <maryann@ncmir.ucsd.edu>
On Feb 26, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Kei Cheung wrote: > I gave the following neuroscience URI examples in my biordf talk at > C-SHALS yesterday. > > http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dopamine_receptor > http://purl.org/ycmi/senselab/ > neuron_ontology.owl#Dopaminergic_Receptor > http://purl.org/nif/ontology/NIF-Molecule.owl#nifext_5832 > > I pointed out that the last one might be a possible solution. There > might be hope. :-) Actually, I think the last one is changing to http://ontology.neuinfo.org/NIF/BiomaterialEntities/NIF-Molecule.owl#nifext_5832 There is also FMA:61811 "Dopamine receptor", and it's various translations to URIs, including http://purl.org/obo/owl/FMA#FMA_61811 PRO has various classes such as DR(1)-like, but PRO is a structural classification, whereas dopanine receptor is a functional classification. GO:0004952 "dopamine receptor activity" is the relevant functional classification. So I would suggest all the various URIs for DR state an equivalence to PRO:000000001 [protein] that has_function some GO:0004952, which will allow reasoners to determine equivalence between them all, plus you get the cognate representations of all the UniProt records for DRs for free. > > -Kei > > > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> So I count three different sets of URIs for NCBI taxonomy so far. :( >> -Alan >> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Chris Mungall >> <cjm@berkeleybop.org> wrote: >> >>> also.. >>> >>> part of the NCBI taxonomy is in NIF Organism: >>> >>> http://ontology.neuinfo.org/NIF/BiomaterialEntities/NIF-Organism.owl >>> >>> See also: >>> >>> https://wiki.neuinfo.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/NIFSTDoverview >>> http://neuinfo.org >>> >>> >>> On Feb 25, 2009, at 4:17 PM, andrea splendiani (RRes-Roth) wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> It'2 240M, but compressed is only 9. >>>> I wonder whether there is some architecture to transparently >>>> transfer >>>> compressed ontologies... >>>> >>>> Ciao, >>>> Andrea >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Chris Mungall [mailto:cjm@berkeleybop.org] >>>> Sent: 25 February 2009 20:53 >>>> To: andrea splendiani (RRes-Roth) >>>> Cc: public-semweb-lifesci hcls >>>> Subject: Re: Is there an NCBI taxonomy in OWL ? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 25, 2009, at 11:58 AM, Andrea Splendiani wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I was looking for an NCBI Taxnomoy in OWL, but I didn't find it >>>>> (or >>>>> better, could find fragment from other projects...) >>>>> >>>>> What is strange though, is that on the obo foundry website >>>>> (berkeleybop.org/ontologies) there are notes on the ncbi taxonomy >>>>> representation in owl... but not the representation itself. >>>>> >>>> Temporarily dropped from the summary page but still available at >>>> the >>>> usual URL >>>> http://purl.org/obo/owl/NCBITaxon >>>> >>>> (warning: large..) >>>> >>>> >>>>> Does anybody have some hint about where I can fin an OWL version ? >>>>> Or even an RDF version ? Even better would a sparql endpoint >>>>> containing it... >>>>> >>>>> best, >>>>> Andrea Splendiani >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 17:12:51 UTC