- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:19:29 -0500
- To: Christoph Grabmuller <grabmuel@ebi.ac.uk>
- Cc: Helen Parkinson <parkinson@ebi.ac.uk>, "M. Scott Marshall" <mscottmarshall@gmail.com>, HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
> The DO is a OBO Foundry candidate, and there is an official OWL > release [1], so wouldn't that be the authoritative source for URIs? Of > course it's easy to replace the definition_citations, but wouldn't it > be much nicer if the user can just download two 'officially' released > OWL files and work across them directly? > Of course there are many other sources that do not define any URIs on > their own whatsoever. As a point of reference, the OBO id policy is documented here (currently google docs, soon on obofoundry site) https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Acx6Blq96uycZHpwcm5td18wZGtkMmdiZ3Y&hl=en FWIW, "OBO Foundry candidate" isn't an official designation, though it is often used descriptively by projects that have asked for review. -Alan > > Christoph > > [1] http://www.obofoundry.org/cgi-bin/detail.cgi?id=disease_ontology
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:20:27 UTC