From: Warren K. <wa...@no...> - 2007-12-31 15:56:10
|
Hi everyone; I like Judy's sentences a lot, as they encapsulate the mission of the =20= OBO Foundry (as I understand it at least) quite succinctly. I would =20 like to see the statement as presenting the OBO Foundry as the source =20= for reference ontologies a little more strongly, if that is =20 appropriate. How about the following change: Within the larger effort that is the Open Biomedical Ontologies =20 (OBO), the objective of the OBO Foundry is to present (publish?) a family of publicly available ontologies =20 that have met agreed standards for representation of biological domains. The OBO Foundry, then, serves as the (clearing =20= house?? resource??) for reviewed ontologies that may be available through community sites such as the NCBO BIoPortal (ref) or caBIG=99 =20 (ref). I would suggest the following URLs for caBIG=99caDSR and vocabulary =20 browser. http://ncicb.nci.nih.gov/infrastructure/cacore_overview/cadsr http://ncicb.nci.nih.gov/infrastructure/cacore_overview/cadsr/curation http://umlmodelbrowser.nci.nih.gov/umlmodelbrowser/ Warren On Dec 31, 2007, at 8:54 AM, Judith Blake wrote: > Here's a sentence and other comments below. >> >> Would you send me a sentence Judy? > Within the larger effort that is the Open Biomedical Ontologies =20 > (OBO), the objective of the OBO Foundry > is to collect a family of publicly available ontologies which =20 > themselves met agreed standards for representation > of biological domains. The OBO Foundry, then, serves as the =20 > resource for ontologies as might be available > through community sites such as the NCBO BIoPortal (ref) or the =20 > caBIG (ref). > > >> (Alan I don't think your sentence >> really addresses Judy's point). Here is more info. >> >> The stuff on the NCBO pages is way out of date. The idea of having a >> librarian with has pretty much been dropped. The bioportal will =20 >> simply >> be a compendium of ontologies with minimal curation/editorializing >> (i.e. it will take everything). We (NCBO hat) are already sweeping up >> the OBO ontologies on a regular basis, and this satisfies that one- >> stop kiosk element of the original OBO (foundry) effort (i.e. the >> comprehensive list of bio-ontologies). >> >> As far as CaBIG goes there is more commonality in approach, since =20 >> both >> have criteria that must be met. I think/hope that these efforts will >> inform one another (as we have been). >> > The reference to 'librarian' is from a recent ppt from caBIG via the > VCDE group that I am part of. The ppt addressed terminology metadata > issues. > > >>>> 3. I had to read the second sentence several times to get the >>>> context of 'use'. I would suggest changing that sentence to read >>>> "...and good practive in ontology development and implementation >>>> (sssxxx). >>>> >>> I think the sense of "use" - "principles of use" was to address how >>> the ontology is used after it has been developed, things like what =20= >>> an >>> annotation means and how to annotate consistently so that =20 >>> annotations >>> can be meaningfully shared, or how to make true statements using an >>> ontology. So 2 questions: 1) (to the other drafters) Do I have that >>> right? 2) (to Judy) Is this what you mean by implement? >>> >> >> Correct again Alan. How about replacing with the word "application"? >> >> > Application would work. Otherwise, drop the url to a footnote. It is > the issue of 'use' (what use is that?) vs. 'use' (I use the spoon). > Since I read it as the second one, the thought seemed to stop mid-=20 > sentence. > > Judy > > > = ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Obo-discuss mailing list > Obo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/obo-discuss > |