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] concept service in BP

Trish Whetzel whetzel at
Tue Mar 16 23:28:27 PDT 2010

Ok, I was not aware of this. Do you have any suggestions on some  
programatic QA to check for these kind of changes?


On Mar 16, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Tania Tudorache wrote:

> No, the concept service is not the same. A new tag "instances" was  
> introduced. Here is an example:
> <classBean>
> <id>420984000</id>
> <fullId>420984000</fullId>
> <label>Structure of first web space of foot</label>
> <type>Class</type>
>> <relations>
>> <entry>
> <string>ChildCount</string>
> <int>3</int>
> </entry>
> </relations>
> <instances/>
> </classBean>
> Unfortunately this broke the import in iCAT.
> Tania
> On 03/16/2010 09:35 PM, Trish Whetzel wrote:
>> Does this mean that the tag <type>, now has an additional value of  
>> 'Individual'? There is a new, separate Instance service, but the  
>> old Concept/Term service was left the same AFAIK.
>> Trish
>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Tania Tudorache wrote:
>>> The concept service has changed signature (added an "instances"  
>>> tag) and I did not know about it, so iCAT does not import from BP  
>>> again :(
>>> And this is right when several ICD editors try to create mappings  
>>> to Snomed.. They'll have to wait until I upgrade the code to match  
>>> the new signature..
>>> Sorry if I've missed the announcement... I was watching all the  
>>> announcements, but I did not see anything about the concept service.
>>> Unrelated: I am not sure whether including all instances in the  
>>> class bean is a very good idea. Fortunately not many OWL  
>>> ontologies have instances, but the "real" ones that use instances,  
>>> they usually have thousands of them.
>>> Tania

More information about the bioontology-support mailing list