That sounds positive, and I was glad to hear that Matthias is
committed to working synergistically as well.
Tim
On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Kei Cheung wrote:
Hi Matthias, Tim,
I'll be happy to work with both of you to establish synergistic
activities between BioRDF and Scientific Discourse task forces. I
think it might be better coordinated if Tim and I first discuss this.
Cheers,
-Kei
Matthias Samwald wrote:
Hi Tim,
Of course, I will take every measure to coordinate what I am doing
with the scientific discourse task, as well as the BioRDF and LODD
tasks. I am trying to participate on all of the conference calls of
these tasks, even though it can be a bit difficult sometimes. I
think having an overly strong division between the different tasks
did not work that well in the last charter of the HCLS IG (where we
started out with several tasks, which mostly converged to a single
task during the course of the two years). Therefore I try to follow
all of the task forces (with the exception of COI in the recent
months, but that might change).
BioRDF seemed like a better choice for being an official umbrella
for that work, since it involves the conversion of large amounts of
biomedical datasets into RDF/OWL, does not involve discourse
representation (but connects to it) and is not specifically focused
on drug information. I will discuss and coordinate any part of the
project that might be relevant for scientific discourse and drug
information with the Scientific Discourse and LODD task force
members in the respective conference calls.
Cheers,
Matthias Samwald
DERI Galway, Ireland
http://deri.ie/
Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution & Cognition Research, Austria
http://kli.ac.at/
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tim Clark" <twcl...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 12:14 PM
To: "Matthias Samwald" <samw...@gmx.at>
Cc: "kei cheung" <kei.che...@yale.edu>; <public-semweb-
life...@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [BioRDF] BioSIOC / aTag task
Hi Matthias,
My concern is not redundancy of content, or of technical
implementation, but of potential semantic redundancy and/or
mismatch between two formulations of the same basic idea.
This problem could arise precisely because the form in which the
content is expressed - i.e. scientific assertions - would have
different technical implementations, despite being semantically
identical at a fundamental level. Therefore I think your
proposed work should it be carefully coordinated with SWAN-SIOC
both before and during development to ensure alignment - if it is
to be part of an official HCLS task.
When you initially proposed your idea on the Scientific Discourse
call, I felt confident this coordination could occur, if and when
the work was started, because it was being done in the same task
group as the other Discourse tasks. Now that you have proposed
it again in BioRDF, I am not confident this coordination will
occur spontaneously unless we make it happen - therefore I
suggest you and Kei and I spend some time exploring the
ramifications of starting this task in another group and how to
achieve alignment. Perhaps Susie could lend a hand in this
discussion as well.
If it later turns out I am wrong and it turns out, after
discussion, that there is no need for any pre-alignment or
coordination of your work with the Discourse tasks, we will still
have had the chance to understand your ideas better, and have
shared our thinking, which is all good.
Best
Tim
On Jan 7, 2009, at 4:33 AM, Matthias Samwald wrote:
Dear Tim,
The project I have in mind is not redundant with SWAN-SIOC, both
in its technical implementation and the biomedical content that
will be represented. The statements will not have discourse
relationships among themselves, and indeed such relationships
would be better represented through the vocabulary that SWAN can
add to the basic SIOC vocabulary.
This project could also demonstrate the value of the alignment
of SWAN and SIOC, showing that information represented in basic
SIOC can be easily aligned with information represented in the
more expressive SWAN vocabulary, via the SWAN-SIOC alignment.
This is important for demonstrating the advantages gained (in
terms of interoperability) by the SWAN-SIOC alignment.
Cheers,
Matthias Samwald
Tim Clark
Director of Informatics, MassGeneral Institute for
Neurodegenerative Disease
Instructor in Neurology, Harvard Medical School
617-947-7098 (mobile)
Tim Clark
Director of Informatics, MassGeneral Institute for Neurodegenerative
Disease
Instructor in Neurology, Harvard Medical School
617-947-7098 (mobile)
