On 4/1/07, Nicolas Le Novere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I misunderstand the scope of the property isDescribedBy. I also don't
think reverse engineering URIs to obtain meaning is a good practice.
But ... you do not reverse engineer anything.
Though you have to pull apart the URI
On 4/3/07, Nicolas Le Novere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You will always need to pull apart the 'URI' (table2 MIRIAM document)
to retrieve the datatype and identifier.
Well, yes you have to recognise what belongs to the data-type and what
belong to the identifier. But you do that all the time
Hi Nicolas. Thanks for the in-depth reply.
On 3/31/07, Nicolas Le Novere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I misunderstand the scope of the property isDescribedBy. I also don't
think reverse engineering URIs to obtain meaning is a good practice.
But ... you do not reverse engineer anything.
Though
I misunderstand the scope of the property isDescribedBy. I also don't
think reverse engineering URIs to obtain meaning is a good practice.
But ... you do not reverse engineer anything. The URI IS the meaning. In
the English dictionary, there is a word publication, with a definition.
Well, in
By all means, step in as much as possible.
Can you explain in more detail or point to explanations of
bqmodel:isDescribedBy?
Specifically:
- what is its intended meaning?
- when more than one of these is defined on a resource, how is this
interpreted? For example: is there some precedence
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
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Matt wrote:
Can you explain in more detail or point to explanations of
bqmodel:isDescribedBy?
You can find some explanations at:
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/compneur-srv/miriam-main/mdb?section=qualifiers
Note tha qualifiers are optional to be MIRIAM-compliant. I personaly
On 3/29/07, Nicolas Le Novere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Matt wrote:
Can you explain in more detail or point to explanations of
bqmodel:isDescribedBy?
You can find some explanations at:
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/compneur-srv/miriam-main/mdb?section=qualifiers
So there
I don't think this is a good idea.
- I think bioentity should be depreciated, it has not intrinsic semantic value.
- If it is used currently, it should be left as its current minimum
specification which is to label and point to other bioinformatics
database IDs.
- The problem is not 'biologically
Melanie!
Thanks for your thoughts. You are right about the mess mapping to
different ontologies and vocabs produces. We have been working on
trying to integrate explicitly with biopax (http://www.biopax.org/
states and generics proposal - level 2 was too limiting) in the hope
that other databases
10 matches
Mail list logo
