[Obi-instrument-branch] relations submitted from instrument branch

[Melanie Courtot]

Dear instrument-ers :)

Would it be possible to spend some time during the next call to
examine the list of relations we submitted to the relations branch a
while ago and check if those are still relevant?
List available here: https://wiki.cbil.upenn.edu/obiwiki/index.php/ListOfRelationships

Cheers,
Melanie

---
Mélanie Courtot
TFL- BCCRC
675 West 10th Avenue
Vancouver, BC
V5Z 1L3, Canada

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Obi-instrument-branch mailing list
Obi-instru...@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/obi-instrument-branch

[Daniel Schober]

Yes, we can do that at next weeks call.
 I guess the most important and currently unresolved question is, whether we link to instrument parameter settings from a protocol application, or associate instrument parameters and their settings to instruments directly.  I would think that at the same time this ability of instruments to get configured via parameter settings is a N&S condition for the instrument class definition: This is the differrentia that will allow classification of instruments from device into instrument.
The n&s conditions for instrument are not complete yet. It is easy to come up with instruments that are not currently classified under instrument, e.g. a centrifuge does not synthesize nor measure.

Other issues:
the range of 'has function' could be the same as for 'realizes process step'
runs OS/software  could be seen as a subrelation of parameter setting

Cheers, Daniel Schober.

-- 
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Daniel Schober

NET Project - Ontologist

The European Bioinformatics Institute   email:  sch...@ebi.ac.uk
EMBL Outstation - Hinxton               direct: +44 (0)1223 494410
Wellcome Trust Genome Campus            fax: +44 (0)1223 494 468
Cambridge CB10 1SD, UK                 	Room: A3-141 (extension building)

Project page: www.ebi.ac.uk/net-project

Personal page:    http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Information/Staff/person_maint.php?s_person_id=734
Former home page: http://www.bioinf.mdc-berlin.de/%7Eschober/

[Ryan Brinkman]

I like this idea of parameter settings differentiating between device and instrument. I guess parameter settings should then only refer to settings that alter the analysis of samples, to make sure we don't classify something like a scale that can have a parameter setting that selects between a display in kilograms or pounds.  I'm mobile at the moment and can't check that this is what we have for scope of parameter setting (sorry), but if this is the case then I think this should work out great.

Ryan


Daniel Schober wrote:

Yes, we can do that at next weeks call.
 I guess the most important and currently unresolved question is, whether we link to instrument parameter settings from a protocol application, or associate instrument parameters and their settings to instruments directly.  I would think that at the same time this ability of instruments to get configured via parameter settings is a N&S condition for the instrument class definition: This is the differrentia that will allow classification of instruments from device into instrument.
The n&s conditions for instrument are not complete yet. It is easy to come up with instruments that are not currently classified under instrument, e.g. a centrifuge does not synthesize nor measure.

Other issues:
the range of 'has function' could be the same as for 'realizes process step'
runs OS/software  could be seen as a subrelation of parameter setting

Cheers, Daniel Schober.


Melanie Courtot wrote: