Hinxton, tuesday June 5th 2007.
Dear colleagues,
We are pleased to announce the eigth release of BioModels Database, in
memoriam Reinhart Heinrich.
(A summary of Reinhart Heinrich contribution to Systems Biology can be
found at the end of this announcement).
This new release sees the the
Thanks for the biomodels updates, they are very welcome.
I would like to make one comment on the paragraph on Heinrich and MCA. The
paragraph suggests breakthroughs in MCA in the late 1980s. Perhaps the
paragraph is referring to work done by Heinrich in the late 1980s? Significant
take up of
Hi folks,
Tommy is currently working on a sorting function for the main model list
of the PMR. Peter is looking for some ideas on what categories people
think should be included (with respect to biology, not curation - that
will be separate, coming soon!) The old repository obviously has models
Some of those are subsets of others. You might want to generalise a
bit more and then fit some of the useful specifics into that. I would
be interested to see what you come up with.
cheers
Matt
On 6/6/07, James Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks,
Tommy is currently working on a sorting
Would I be correct in assuming that these terms will be key words added
to the model metadata and that the division into categories on the main
repository page will be assembled from queries on each of these
predefined key words? And if so, I'm gonna further assume that there are
no issues
Hi
I agree with David, 'Multiscale' looks out of place because it is a
description of what kind of model it is, rather than what aspect of
biology/physiology is being modelled.
Edmund
David Nickerson wrote:
Would I be correct in assuming that these terms will be key words added
to the
David Nickerson wrote:
Would I be correct in assuming that these terms will be key words added
to the model metadata and that the division into categories on the main
repository page will be assembled from queries on each of these
predefined key words?
Well potentially, there could be
James Lawson wrote:
David Nickerson wrote:
Would I be correct in assuming that these terms will be key words added
to the model metadata and that the division into categories on the main
repository page will be assembled from queries on each of these
predefined key words?
Well
On 6/6/07, David Nickerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would I be correct in assuming that these terms will be key words added
to the model metadata and that the division into categories on the main
repository page will be assembled from queries on each of these
predefined key words?
I would
And what are the consequences for a model not fitting into any of these
categories?
It has to fit somewhere, I don't think the list is easily determined
from the top down like this. I would prefer that keywords were added
for each model and then we look at the accumulation of terms post
Just had a discussion with Peter, Randall and James about this.
The keywords are in the metadata for the models, and there is no limit to what
can go in there. The concern about that is the list could get too big (for
minor categories), or variations in the name (electrophysiology vs
I think you need to re-read my last email.
Ontologies are blessed lists at the most simple interpretation.
I don't care too much about different terms for the same thing at the
moment, the impetous should be to retrieve all the current keywords,
then 'bless the list and update the keywords and
One thing I have found useful in other taxonomy/keyword type web
interfaces (e.g., see drupal) is that when entering such keywords the
interface dynamically completes the terms and/or presents alternatives
based on what the user enters. I'd imagine such an interface would work
well at pulling
13 matches
Mail list logo
