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] Feedback

Vempati, Uma UVempati at
Thu Mar 17 06:32:19 PDT 2011

Hello Trish,
As you know, the imported GO and NCBI Taxon terms are being displayed by their ID. In BAO, GO terms are under "Bioassay component/meta target/biological process". NCBI Taxon terms are under "Bioassay component/meta target/organism". Please see the attached screenshot. Hope this helps.


-----Original Message-----
From: Trish Whetzel [mailto:whetzel at] 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 12:50 AM
To: Stephan Schurer PhD
Cc: Saminda Abeyruwan; Vempati, Uma; support at Support
Subject: Re: [bioontology-support] Feedback

- I removed the Explore link from BioPortal production, leaving the BAO file available for download
- BioPortal uses Protege 3.4.5 in the backend, and in comparing BAO in Protege 3.4.5 versus Protege 4.1 the hierarchy errors appear to be due to differences between these versions of Protege. I have submitted a bug on this for the developers to investigate further
- Can you send a few examples of imported / linked external classes from GO and NCBO that are shown by ID, and not the label?


On Mar 16, 2011, at 9:26 PM, Stephan Schurer PhD wrote:

> This is a question for Trish. I also checked the consistency with the
> reasoners. I guess Trish is already looking into this.
> Trish, let us know if we can check anything on our side or if there
> are debugging tools at NCBO. Also, is there some testing site to
> upload. With this we can just try a few things / versions w/o having
> to show it publicly. It is strange that just this class was messed up.
> It would be relevant to check if this behavior is reproducible or not.
> Thanks,
> Stephan
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Saminda Abeyruwan <samindaa at> wrote:
>> BAO ontology reasoned with all consistencies checked through Pellet / Pellet
>> (incremental) and Hermit 1.3.x. This implies that the DL is consistent with
>> the models.
>> Is there a way to get debug/loading etc information from NCBO folks.
>> Sam
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Vempati, Uma <UVempati at>
>> wrote:
>>> Stephan,
>>> I see the same problems that you pointed out. Sam can you comment if the
>>> display of BAO at NCBO BioPortal
>>> ( has anything to do with
>>> the modeling of BAO? Or is it an error generated during parsing?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Uma
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Stephan Schurer PhD [stephan.schurer at]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 5:10 PM
>>> To: Trish Whetzel
>>> Cc: support at; Vempati, Uma; Saminda Abeyruwan
>>> Subject: Re: [bioontology-support] Feedback
>>> Hallo Trish - thank you. But there is an error in the visualization.
>>> If you download the ontology and open it in Protege it is correct.
>>> Specifically the class 'percent viability' must not be at the root,
>>> but under 'bioassay component' > endpoint > response.
>>> And the class bioassay in missing from the root.
>>> Another issue is that the imported / linked external classes from GO
>>> and NCBO are shown by ID, and not the label. Again in Protege I see
>>> the label, which would be much easier to users.
>>> I can re-upload the file, but not sure if this will change anything.
>>> I also see a root level class for all disjoint classes and
>>> individuals, but this is not wrong.
>>> I ask Uma to look for other potential errors.
>>> Do you know what is going on; can you please help. I include the
>>> uploaded file here, but even if you download the file from NCBO and
>>> open in protege it is shown correct.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Stephan
>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Trish Whetzel <whetzel at>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Sure, the owl/xml uploaded entry is removed and the new upload of BAO
>>>> has finished parsing and can now be explored.
>>>> Trish
>>>> On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Stephan Schurer PhD wrote:
>>>>> Hallo Trish,
>>>>> Just uploaded rdf/xml. It is the same ontology version, but there is
>>>>> now a duplicate entry for BAO:
>>>>> Can you remove the one where the explore link gives an error.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Stephan
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Trish Whetzel <whetzel at>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes rdf/xml.
>>>>>> Trish
>>>>>> On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:01 AM, support at wrote:
>>>>>>> Name : Stephan Schurer
>>>>>>> Email : sschurer at
>>>>>>> Comment:
>>>>>>> BioAssay Ontology Cannot be explored, i.e. gives an error message.
>>>>>>> I uploaded as owl / xml. Should I re-up load as rdf / xml?
>>>>>>> Please advise.
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Stephan
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> bioontology-support mailing list
>>>>>>> bioontology-support at

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ID display in BAO.png
Type: image/png
Size: 184235 bytes
Desc: ID display in BAO.png
URL: <>

More information about the bioontology-support mailing list