Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bionet!net.bio.net!kristoff From: kristoff@NET.BIO.NET (Dave Kristofferson) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.bio-matrix Subject: Re: Computerizing the literature (and other topics!) Message-ID: Date: 25 May 89 22:58:10 GMT Sender: daemon@NET.BIO.NET Lines: 39 > We are not just > after a big bag of data, we want to explain how things work. At a > minimum, the Bio-Matrix is a tool to facilitate discovery of biological > principles. > ... > Some of the important issues are: > > How do we enter the last couple centuries of information? Chris, If I read these two statements correctly you do not want to go after a "big bag of data" which is what entering the last couple of centuries of information would produce. On the other hand, being selective in what was entered would presuppose some higher order knowledge about what was "correct" in biology. If the Matrix project hopes to discover new knowledge by drawing analogies between disparate databases one runs the chance here of throwing the baby out with the bathwater by being "selective" during the entry process. I still think the Matrix goals are stated in a fashion that makes them unachievable by mere mortals, although later in your message you acknowledge the need for looking at "subdomains" in biological knowledge which is indeed reasonable. . . No immediate solutions to the monumental problems deleted here 8-)! . > One place almost everyone agrees we should start is by integrating > existing databases. The ISIS project, which has integrated 6 or 7 > molecular biology database into a monolithic whole, is one such > approach to this problem. What are other approaches to integrating > multiple, heterogeneous databases? More details about ISIS might be of interest to the general readership. Dave Kristofferson