Search Mailing List Archives

Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[bioontology-support] OBO Foundry group

Barry Smith phismith at
Tue Nov 17 15:53:24 PST 2009

I think, for the reasons set forth by Melanie, below, a URI involving is the best choice for those ontologies which are (1) 
already part of what has been called the OBO Library hithero, (2) new 
ontologies who want to become part of this library, and including (3) 
new ontologies who want to become part of the OBO Foundry.  Barry

At 05:54 PM 11/17/2009, Melanie Courtot wrote:
>To expand a bit more on my original question:
>It is in reference to the page 
> , where one can browse 
>the whole set of ontologies. One of my
>collaborators just did a search on BioPortal, selecting the "OBO
>Foundry" subset, and assumed that all these ontologies were Foundry
>As far as I know there is no Foundry ontology as of today, there are
>only candidates. All of those ontologies are however part of the OBO
>I was just wondering if others find that potentially confusing too,
>and if yes if we shall we consider updating the label. I should have
>added these details in my original enquiry, apologies for the
>On 17-Nov-09, at 2:48 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Natasha Noy <noy at> wrote:
>>>Is there a description somewhere on what "OBO library" is?
>>>Our agreement with OBO Foundry has always been that the OBO Foundry
>>>maintains the listing of OBO Foundry candidates -- the ones that
>>>agree to
>>>try and conform to the principles and remove orthogonality, etc.
>>>That site
>>>will not be an alternative general library site for biomedical
>>>ontologies --
>>>lest the user community gets confused any more than it already is.
>>>Has there
>>>been a change in policy?
>>I am unaware of such a policy.
>>>It seems quite confusing for users to understand the difference
>>>"NCBO library" and "OBO library". With the NCBO renewal due in less
>>>than two
>>>months, it would be helpful to understand the difference and the
>>The OBO library consists of ontologies that are, minimally, openly
>>licensed and which have asked to be listed on the web site. The
>>current obofoundry site has pointers to ontologies and is not a
>>repository in the NCBO sense.
>>There are many things that are confusing, even if NCBO stands alone. I
>>have tried, in my email to you and the various lists, to point those
>>out and will continue to do so, though I have no illusions that all
>>confusions will be eliminated.

More information about the bioontology-support mailing list