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] suggestion: bioportal_page annotation property

Alan Ruttenberg alanruttenberg at gmail.com
Thu Mar 25 16:35:34 PDT 2010


looks good now.
-A

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Natasha Noy <noy at stanford.edu> wrote:
> oops, sorry -- doing too many things at once. It should be:
>
>  <owl:imports
> rdf:resource="http://purl.bioontology.org/ontology/bioportal/bioportal.owl"/>
>
> Natasha
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>> Hmm. At that address I get:
>>
>> <html>
>>        <body>
>>                Gone, Daddy, Gone!
>>        </body>
>> </html>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Natasha Noy <noy at stanford.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> ok, done: you can now use
>>>  <owl:imports
>>> rdf:resource="http://purl.bioontology.org/ontology/bioportal.owl"/>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the suggestion!
>>>
>>> Natasha
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 24, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course I hand edited the file before sending it, and made a mistake
>>>> :(
>>>> Attached is one that works.
>>>> -Alan
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Alan Ruttenberg
>>>> <alanruttenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There will be many cases in which people will want to include a link
>>>>> to the bioportal visualization of a term. I suggest that Bioportal
>>>>> make a small ontology available, initially containing a single
>>>>> annotation property: bioportal:page, spiritually a subproperty of
>>>>> foaf:page.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would document this appropriately, and indicate that user MAY wish
>>>>> to declare foaf:page an annotation property, and make this an
>>>>> annotation subproperty of foaf:page, but not do so in the ontology, as
>>>>> this may represent a commitment that the user may not wish to make (as
>>>>> foaf does not declare foaf:page to be an annotation property, just an
>>>>> rdf:property).
>>>>>
>>>>> I would be happy to review other suggestion for inclusion in the
>>>>> ontology, which I suggest be kept small and with attention to not
>>>>> introducing unnecessary ontological commitments.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have attached a suggested start.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alan
>>>>>
>>>> <bioportal.owl>_______________________________________________
>>>> bioontology-support mailing list
>>>> bioontology-support at lists.stanford.edu
>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/bioontology-support
>>>
>>>
>
>



More information about the bioontology-support mailing list