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

RE: proposal for standard NCBI database URI

From: Samir Tartir <startir@uga.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 17:42:04 -0400 (EDT)
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060511174204.ATV04791@punts4.cc.uga.edu>

Hi all,

It all depends on the application. If the application needs each gene to be a 
separate entity, then there is no other way around it. If it is enough for the 
application to group genes according to some properties (e.g. type), then that 
is enough.


---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:58:37 -0400
>From: "Xiaoshu Wang" <wangxiao@musc.edu>  
>Subject: RE: proposal for standard NCBI database URI  
>To: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
>> Genes should have their own URIs? That's some 10^16 or so 
>> URIs just for the volume of space that I'm occupying right now.
>So what is the problem?  There are more concepts exist in the world than
>each of us know. Does it limit ourself from living or learning or working?
>The number of URI is unlimited, what is the big deal?  The issue is not
>about space (by the way, how much space is a reasonable space anyway), the
>issue is the design and management.    
>> More useful would be a URI for gene types - eg a URI for the 
>> type "Homo sapiens p53 gene" (or an allele thereof).
>Ontologies should exist in any granuality and on any scale, saying one type
>of ontology is more useful than another is arbitrary.  A pacifier is very
>useful to my 10-month old son but completely useless to me.  Vice versa is
>my laptop to him.
>Having 10^16 or even 10^16000 genes doesn't matter. What matters is how we
>can carefully modulizes the URIs so that we don't have to import those
>irrelevant concepts.
Received on Friday, 12 May 2006 20:33:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:26 UTC