From: Colin B. <Bat...@rs...> - 2010-05-14 10:04:52
|
Alan Ruttenberg writes: > The problem is that this isn't the case. Only the ontologies that have > passed reviews are the ones that we want to flag in this way. Compare > to a journal. PLOS doesn't post the manuscripts that have been > submitted for review, only the ones that have passed review. There is surely all the difference in the world between candidate ontologies, ontologies that have a user community and are actively maintained by people who actually take part in OBO discussions and Foundry meetings and ontologies that haven't been touched in years and years? I think this serves OBI and the FMA, in particular, rather poorly. I could perhaps understand your proposal if Foundrification had been a swift and clear-cut process, but it was long and drawn-out, involved plenty of disagreement between coordinators and no ontology actually met all of the original criteria. Best wishes, Colin. DISCLAIMER: This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening. |