Hi,
BioPAX is very active. The proposal for the next level of BioPAX was
sent out to the biopax-discuss mailing list last week and is open for
discussion. Please join the biopax-discuss list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] if you are interested. The biopaxwiki.org
wiki has current information about BioPAX.
Thanks,
Gary
Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
Nigam Shah wrote:
Hi Satya,
See below...
For example, the BioPAX ontology is a community effort to standardize
the representation of pathway data. But, there are serious differences
in the way concepts and relationships, defined in the BioPAX ontology
schema, are interpreted to create instances. This leads to heterogeneous
instance bases for the same ontology!
Well, BioPAX is an exchange format as of now. It gives you a
consistent way of describing a pathway structure. It does not claim to
provide a consistent terminology of pathway names that works across
all sources.
Using RDF as an "exchange format" is just outright wrong. How do you
decide if an RDF document is in BioPAX format or not? I don't know how
active BioPAX is now (their website shows the last conference call was
more than two years ago). But such line of thought will doom (and have
perhaps already doomed) their fate.
Xiaoshu
--
http://baderlab.org
Terrence Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research
University of Toronto
