W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2006

RE: [BIORDF] Re: Unstructured vs. Structured (was: HL7 and patient records in RDF/OWL?)

From: Mork, Peter D.S. <pmork@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:55:48 -0500
Message-ID: <224FBC6B814DBD4E9B9E293BE33A10DCA2E835@IMCSRV5.MITRE.ORG>
To: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

>Using RDF, one obvious graph model is to make each cell a bnode of
some
>type (e.g., "gene expression measurement"), and link it to one column
node
>and one row node. The result is not directly a list of lists, but a
unique
>projection mapping of two ordinate nodes: a web of cells to be exact.
>
>In effect, each cell "knows" that it belongs to a row and a column
>identifier. This structure has the added advantage that any algorithm
that
>processes cell values, can also evaluate the set of values linked to
from
>each row and column identifier (e.f., GO, pathways, annotations,
tissue
>states). Most clustering tools currently use non-standard ways of
accessing
>such info; using RDF it could be standardized. For obvious reasons
I've
>called these Hypersheets...
>

I agree that representing a table as a collection of cell-objects with
row and column properties is the most natural representation.  We have
been developing an integration workbench to assist in mapping
schemata/ontologies.  A natural data structure for this task is a
similarity matrix, which we represent as a collection of cells that
'know' to which row and column they belong.

Peter
Received on Monday, 20 February 2006 13:56:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:42 GMT