- From: j.lawson at auckland.ac.nz (James Lawson)
- Subject: [cellml-discussion] PMR categories
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:24:29 +1200
Peter Hunter wrote:
It may be that the additional key words
>
should adhere to terms from an ontology as Matt suggests and should
use the
>
predictive completion facility that Andre suggests.
Will we use the Physiome ontology for this? It will require changing the
current keywords that are defined in the metadata for many of the models
so they fit an ontology.
Should we be using ontology terms for the major categories as well? A
quick flick through the Physiome ontology suggests that we might have
trouble finding terms in it that would fit what we want.
- [cellml-discussion] PMR categories, (continued)
- [cellml-discussion] PMR categories, James Lawson, 06/06/2007
- [cellml-discussion] PMR categories, David Nickerson, 06/06/2007
- [cellml-discussion] PMR categories, Matt , 06/06/2007
- [cellml-discussion] PMR categories, Tommy Yu, 06/06/2007
- [cellml-discussion] PMR categories, Matt , 06/06/2007
- [cellml-discussion] PMR categories, David Nickerson, 06/06/2007
- [cellml-discussion] PMR categories, Matt , 06/08/2007
- [cellml-discussion] PMR categories, James Lawson, 06/08/2007
- [cellml-discussion] PMR categories, Matt , 06/08/2007
- [cellml-discussion] PMR categories, Tommy Yu, 06/08/2007
[cellml-discussion] PMR categories, Matt , 06/06/2007
[cellml-discussion] PMR categories, Randall Britten, 06/08/2007
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.