Really thank you for your help and your precious details about the
conversation you had, this helps my work very much.
I hope to find similar informations about the other systems I've mentioned. (01)
Claudio (02)
Wacek Kusnierczyk ha scritto: (03)
>>In these days I'm trying to understand which information integration
>>systems (ontology-based) are currently available. In many papers I've
>>read about TAMBIS, but since the 2000 up to now I can't understand
>>what's happened: no official papers, no updated website, no mentions
>>among the past projects of the Manchester University
>>(http://img.cs.man.ac.uk/). This article
>>(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/6383/17062/00787647.pdf)
>>says that it's available at http://img.cs.man.ac.uk/tambis, but nothing
>>is there.
>>
>>
>
>I have recently asked Robert Stevens about TAMBIS; here are some
>excerpts from our communication (cc:-ing both Carole and Robert for
>further comments if needed, and for the record):
>
>[WK] I have a historical question: has the TAMBIS system ever been used
>in a practical setup -- has it been accessed and used for scientific
>purposes by people outside of the development team?
>
>
>Carole Goble wrote:
> > no
> > there is a commercial version and a new version as part of ComparaGrid
>
>
>Robert Stevens wrote:
>I think there are a whole range of reasons why TAMBIS only really ever
>worked at the level of research prototype:
>
> 1. We could ask good questions, but the underlying resources
>couldn’t answer them. The ontological model we used enabled us to ask
>precise, well formed queries where only ones biological valid according
>to our model were able to be constructred. The resources simply were not
>able to answer them. Things are not a whole lot better now in many
>respects. At least a translation in to something nasty like RDF would
>enable me to use some kind of query language and this would be an
>improvement.
> 2. Our ontological model could have been a lot better. We know more
>now…. We conflated descriptions of biology and descriptions of
>bioinformatics. Similar discussions are going on in the HCLS at the
>moment. I’m not sure that a cleaner model would have made any practical
>difference to questions, but maintenance, extension, etc. would have
>been easier.
> 3. We modelled too close to the resources. A little more distance
>from the resource would have allowed easier extension etc.
> 4. Starting now, we’d use pre-existing ontologies. The main part of
>the TAMBIS ontology were SequenceComponent, biologcalFunction,
>biologicalProcess, CellularComponent, Species and some stuff on protein
>structure. Sound familiar? Today, I’d just import the GO, So, and
>others. This would give me access to many resources marked up with
>ontologies and thus better querying.
> 5. web services would have been lovely. We wrapped and scraped Web
>pages. WS would have given more solid programmatic acess and again made
>querying easier.
> 6. Choice of middleware and target for query re-writing is also
>more interesting these days. One can of course think of RDF and
>re-writing to an RDF query language. I’ve also thought of re-writing to
>Taverna workflows.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (05)
|