W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > March 2009

Re: blog: semantic dissonance in uniprot

From: Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:23:39 -0400
Message-ID: <5639badd0903300823u5bdfeceaydcd3daa7dbe699db@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C HCLSIG hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
     Hello Bijan, All,

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Bijan Parsia
<bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2009, at 16:48, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
> My first advice would be to develop a clear set of requirements,

  That is probably the most used phrase in the Semantic Web community.
We should invent a catchy acronym for it. Maybe DACSOR?

> perhaps in
> terms of the ASK/TELL paradigm,  for the role of the ontology in typical
> Systems Biology applications you are trying to support.

  I have no idea what that paradigm is.

> Classic applications of (description logic based) ontologies include
> terminology development (e.g., see the caImages site), form management (see
> Galen), and data integration and navigation (see Tambis).
> If your applications resemble these (or other standard applications) then
> it's easy to give a wealth of advice, methodologically and technically. If
> your application is radically different, then more work has to be done to
> understand the application requirements.

  An ontology should be independent of a particular application.

  But if you are interested in what type of application I am working
on check http://vcell.org/biopax

     Take care

Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
BioPAX Integration at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/biopax)
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 15:24:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:41 UTC