- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 04:56:27 +0200
- To: Kelvin Vieira Kredens <kredens@gmail.com>
- Cc: semantic_web@googlegroups.com, semantic-web@w3.org
Let me question the strategy of looking for "simple" ontologies, and instead offer a mapping project that would be of significant benefit to the life sciences community, even though it is "complicated". We have a real need for mapping MESH in some way to the OBO ontologies. Now this is complicated in that some might argue that MESH isn't an ontology, and that it is big, and that some of the target ontologies are big. I am working with this MESH version: http://thesauri.cs.vu.nl/eswc06/ You could take, as targets from the OBO Foundry (http:// obofoundry.org/cgi-bin/table.cgi), say, Biological Process, and Foundational Model of Anatomy If you wanted to make the problem smaller, you might try to choose similar subject branches from the two ontologies. I and others could help you do this if you were interested in giving this a try. Regards, Alan On Jun 5, 2007, at 5:42 AM, Kelvin Vieira Kredens wrote: > Hello people, > > I'm looking for some ontologies that I colud use to test my > matching algorithm. It's being hard to find some good examples of > simple ontologies. > > Any answer will be good. > > Thanks.. > > And sorry if I wrote something wrong, I'm from Brazil and don't > have a good english... > > -- > Atenciosamente, > > Kelvin Vieira Kredens > "People can't share knowledge if they don't speak a commonlanguage > " (T. Davenport)
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 02:56:34 UTC