On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Matt wrote: >> BioPAX annotatation scheme is very fragile and in practise almost >> unusable. > > How is that?
Because the annotation is free-form. I can use UniProt, uniprot, Uni-Prot etc. > That was always going to wash out in practice. I'm not sure a rule for > generating the URI is useful in the long run, especially if these > database produce their own URI scheme, then it becomes a less simple > task to match other data resources that don't use the biopax scheme to > the ones that use the originating databases scheme. I entirely agree. This is why (well, that is one of the reasons) I do not like LSIDs, and why we developed MIRIAM resources. So that everybody use the same URIs. This is explained in the MIRIAM paper. -- Nicolas LE NOVERE, Computational Neurobiology, EMBL-EBI, Wellcome-Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK Tel: +44(0)1223494521, Fax: +44(0)1223494468, Mob: +44(0)7833147074 http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~lenov, AIM: nlenovere, MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
