I'm not sure what the physiome ontology is. Currently the anatomy ontology is the one I've been working on and this has no physiological processes in it yet.
I was hoping I had been clear in my previous emails that I want the current and future author supplied keywords to help drive the ontology, not the other way around. On 6/8/07, James Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Hunter wrote: > It may be that the additional key words > > should adhere to terms from an ontology as Matt suggests and should > use the > > predictive completion facility that Andre suggests. > > Will we use the Physiome ontology for this? It will require changing the > current keywords that are defined in the metadata for many of the models > so they fit an ontology. > > Should we be using ontology terms for the major categories as well? A > quick flick through the Physiome ontology suggests that we might have > trouble finding terms in it that would fit what we want. > > > _______________________________________________ > cellml-discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion > _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
