From: Phillip L. <phi...@ne...> - 2007-04-13 11:49:56
|
Doesn't the biomoby namespace ontology cover this ground? It seems to have standard representations for Swissprot, various bits of NCBI and GOC. In this case, they are represented as URIs, but it would be easy to map these to standard abbreviations. It has 300+ databases in now. Doesn't make it complete, but it's got to be some of the way there. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what people are after. Phil >>>>> "SL" == Suzanna Lewis <su...@be...> writes: SL> Yes, this is an agreement being negotiated between the GOC, SL> SwissProt (Rolf), and NCBI (Jim O) to converge on a common set SL> of databases "identifiers" (I use this word with some SL> trepidation). Michael Ashburner has created a merge of these SL> 3. The good news is that almost everything is overlapping. It SL> shouldn't be too much more work to resolve the outliers. They SL> are also coming up with some general rules for these. SL> -S SL> On Apr 10, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Trish Whetzel wrote: >> I heard on a different mailing list that there is some discussion >> to work on developing a common list of terms to reference >> databases. Can someone provide some more information on this? |