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] SNOMED-CT ontology status

Chris Wroe chris.j.wroe at gmail.com
Wed Oct 16 05:28:08 PDT 2013


Ray,

It's working fine now. Thanks for looking into it.

Chris


On 11 October 2013 22:56, Ray Fergerson <ray.fergerson at stanford.edu> wrote:

> Chris,****
>
> ** **
>
> This should work now. The most recent version of SNOMED did not load
> correctly into the old version of BioPortal, causing this problem. I simply
> deleted this last failed attempt so the Protégé plugin should now work.
> Will talk to the protégé people here about updating the plugin to use the
> new BioPortal instance.****
>
> ** **
>
> Ray****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* bioontology-support-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:
> bioontology-support-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] *On Behalf Of *Chris Wroe
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2013 5:05 AM
> *To:* Bioportal support
> *Subject:* [bioontology-support] SNOMED-CT ontology status****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi,****
>
> ** **
>
> When I do the ontologies REST call with the old API (
> http://rest.bioontology.org/bioportal/ontologies) SNOMED-CT has a status
> of 4.****
>
> ** **
>
> This means it doesn't appear as an ontology to use in the Bioportal
> Protege 3.5 plugin. It only lets you choose an ontology with a status of 3.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> I was wondering what status 4 meant.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> ** **
>
> Chris****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/bioontology-support/attachments/20131016/1f1433d7/attachment.html>


More information about the bioontology-support mailing list