No subject

surmise that the NCBI taxonomy, presumably with a bias toward human<br>
and model organisms, as well as its adoption by Uniprot, should be the<br>
preferred choice for expressing taxon info in the context of<br>
biomedical knowledge?<br>
<br>
Next question (thinking that I know the answer) is how to integrate<br>
datasets that use one of each: NCBI and Darwin? Of course, we can<br>
shelve this and come back to it some other year, if we want to dig<br>
into something more specifically biomedical. The issue will eventually<br>
come back to haunt us in any case. For example, with chemical<br>
identifiers..<br>
<br>
Also, is taxon out of scope for Identifier.org ?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Scott<br><br>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>[Jerven]<br>Hi All,<br>
<br>
Don&#39;t wish to spam the mailing list about which taxonomy to use. Howeve=
r
 if you actually look at the darwin and uniprot taxonomy &quot;schema&quot;=
 then=20
they are very similar. And even in the taxonomy world it doesn&#39;t have=
=20
that many controversies.<br>
<br>
Its the instances that get hairy.<br>
i.e. is it<br>
<br>
Dugu is a rodentia<br>
&lt;<a href=3D"http://purl.uniprot.org/taxonomy/10160" target=3D"_blank">pu=
rl.uniprot.org/taxonomy/10160</a>&gt; rdfs:subClassOf &lt;<a href=3D"http:/=
/purl.uniprot.org/taxonomy/9989" target=3D"_blank">purl.uniprot.org/taxonom=
y/9989</a>&gt;<br>

or<br>
Dugu is a Caviomorpha<br>
&lt;<a href=3D"http://purl.uniprot.org/taxonomy/10160" target=3D"_blank">pu=
rl.uniprot.org/taxonomy/10160</a>&gt; rdfs:subClassOf &lt;<a href=3D"http:/=
/dbpedia.org/resource/Caviomorpha" target=3D"_blank">http://dbpedia.org/res=
ource/Caviomorpha</a>&gt;<br>

<br>
Which gets taxonomist all exited :)<br>
<br>
Mapping schemas is easy to do here. Its mapping instances that get the feud=
s started :D<br>
<br>
Regards,<br><font color=3D"#888888">
Jerven</font><br><br>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D<br>PMR comment - this isn&#39;t spam, it&#39;s science!<br>=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>PMR - thanks for this. If =
we can make progress on identifiers it makes *me* happy!<br>
-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Cen=
tre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-122=
3-763069<br>

--0015173ff2d4dc66c304b31f8b60--