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

Re: ontology specs for self-publishing experiment

From: Trish Whetzel <whetzel@pcbi.upenn.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:13:02 -0400 (EDT)
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
cc: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>, w3c semweb hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0607110751290.1836@hera.pcbi.upenn.edu>

Hi Alan,

I meant to refer to the portion of the identifier 'GO#0000001' as in the 
example below with respect to OWL ontologies. My understanding is that 
when building an ontology using Protege/OWL, it would be best to use 
GO_0000001 in the rdf:ID field (perhaps that is not correct?). When using 
OBO-Edit, the idspace can be set separately and the unique numeric 
identifiers are generated with code built into the editor. There is a 
plugin to generate unique identifiers for Protege/OWL that was obtained 
in response to a post to the Protege/OWL list and has since been modified 
to allow one to set the idspace as well as part of the identifier that is 
in the rdf:ID field. Since reading your post to the obo-format list I'll 
check this out with SWOOP.

Trish

> What was the specifics of the argument for alphanumeric versus numeric 
> identifiers?
>
> If you check out the go-format list I recently sent some examples that 
> use identifiers of the form
>
> http://www.bioontologies.org/2006/02/obo/GO#0000001
>
> Details are in 
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=24431577
>
> BTW, all of them are alphanumeric in the sense that they are URIs. But a 
> little care needs to be taken because of qnames, etc. used in xml. 
> Nothing that can't be worked around in a reasonable manner.
Received on Tuesday, 11 July 2006 12:13:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:44 GMT