playing with pil ontology

Hi all, 

Reiterating a bit on what was addressed today  in the telco, I
downloaded the ontology from mercurial and tried to use it with my use
case. 

I am using the use cases published in [1] and demoed with SPARQL at
http://biordfmicroarray.googlecode.com/hg/sparql_endpoint.html

 

Here is my input so far: 

 

1.       Agent could have dataProperty "label" and "description"; it
would help the implementer describe what type of agent does he/she
intend to describe. Is the ontology here being confused with the query
model?

2.       ProvenanceContainer is not useful, or its description is not
clear; what should be an instance of provenanceContainer?

3.       I want to create an instance of a "untransformed" entity (in my
case, a dataset) and a "transformed" entity. Is the model going to give
me that granularity/expressivity or do we expect each implementer to
come up with their own way of defining these?

4.       ProcessExecution needs more expressivity, I think. Not sure how
to solve this in a domain independent way, but here's my problem:

a.       An investigator (agent) performs an experiment

b.      That experiment has several input parameters, some of which are
entities (e.g. samples), other are not (e.g. temperature). 

c.       Resulting from the experiment are several output parameters
(entities)

 

Have not completed my "experiment" yet, but will provide more feedback
soon J

 

Best Regards,

Helena F. Deus

Post-doctoral Researcher
Digital Enterprise Research Institute

National University of Ireland, Galway

http://lenadeus.info