From: Ben Goertzel (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Dec 31 2001 - 12:58:48 MST
> And btw, while we're being naive: let's assume
> that you *can*
> extract such useful information from summaries. Why do you
> believe that this
> won't just cause pharma, etc. to clam up and not reveal *any* information?
> I.e., even if the technology is feasible, to the extent that it's
> available it
> will just trigger additional competitive concerns and restrict
> open publication
If any one pharma suddenly stopped letting their scientists publish, the
scientists would quit
and work elsewhere, because publication helps them build their careers.
However, I agree
that a slow industrywide move toward greater secrecy could happen.
> > I still believe that information extraction from
> > NL text will be an important part of the toolkit too.
> No doubt. My concern isn't that this isn't important, it's that
> having it as a
> sole --- or even primary, ahead of the other things --- focus is
> less useful at
> best, dangerous at worst.
Well I don't think it *is* the primary focus in bioinformatics or any
other domain I'm aware of, so no worries, mate..
> > http://www.geneontology.org/
> Yeah, yeah. We'll see how widely used it becomes.
I think it will take off in the yeast genetics community, which is mainly
If it works really well there, maybe that will be enough motivation for the
commercial human-genomics community to adopt something similar, who knows...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT