- From: Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:04:44 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C HCLSIG hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Hello Bijan, All,
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2009, at 16:23, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
>> That is probably the most used phrase in the Semantic Web community.
>
> And least adhered to?
Most used as an empty cliche.
> What's your problem with providing application requirements?
None, but that was not the topic.
>> I have no idea what that paradigm is.
>
> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1064.1066&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618
Still no idea.
>> An ontology should be independent of a particular application.
>
> First, there's a big difference between being tied to a particular
> application and being informed by intended applications. I sincerely doubt
> the general utility of an ontology designed without *any* thought to the
> class of applications for which it is intended to be used. Advice that is
> not at all informed by the broad characteristics of the applications for
> which the ontology shall be used is worthless.
Class of applications = Systems Biology applications
> As far as I can tell it's a format converter and visualizer. No ontologies
> needed at a first approximation.
Uses an ontology to integrate BioPAX and SBML. If you know an
alternate way, you should publish.
Take care
Oliver
--
Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
BioPAX Integration at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/biopax)
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
http://www.oliver.curiousworld.org
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 16:05:21 UTC