W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > September 2007

Re: [hcls] User interfaces for writing / querying RDF: Leeet

From: Kei Cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:59:13 -0400
To: Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>
Cc: Chris Mungall <cjm@fruitfly.org>, public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-id: <46E95E51.60206@yale.edu>

As part of my class teaching, here is a Yahoo Pipes example I created 
and shared with the public:

http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/search?q=neurospora_assembly_pipe&x=0&y=0

It demonstrates how to use Yahoo Pipes to fetch a csv dataset, filter 
it, replace patterns in the query results, and rename certain elements 
to make them recognizable as rss feed elements.

Cheers,

-Kei

Kei Cheung wrote:
>
> Since we are talking about user interface, another thing we might want 
> to consider is the possible intersection of web 2.0 and semantic web 
> (some people call it web 3.0 :-) )  in terms of semantic mashup of 
> scientific data and tools. Current web 2.0 technologies (e.g., flickr, 
> myspace, ...) provide great ways of mashing things up over the web 
> because of its ease of use and its leverage of existing web 
> technologies. I think it would be great if we can somehow combine the 
> ease of use and semantic richness provided by web 2.0 and semantic 
> technologies, respectively to build useful applications for scientific 
> users (killer apps?!). To this end, I'm thinking yahoo pipes as an 
> example. One can use yahoo pipes to create workflow (integrating data 
> and tools) graphically. It works for url, csv (comma separated 
> values), feeds, atoms, xml, etc, but not rdfs, owl, ontologies, lsid, 
> etc.  Wouldn't it be nice if we can merge something like yahoo pipes 
> with semantic web?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Kei
>
> Matthias Samwald wrote:
>>  
>>> Note that it's impossible to answer the intended query above 
>>> without  SPARQL-DL - and the most intuitive syntax for this kind of 
>>> query in  SPARQL-DL may not be triple-based, cosmeticised or not. 
>>> E.g. "ALL  astrocyte develops_from SOME ?"
>>>
>>> I am heavily biased towards TBox queries - for ABox queries, a  
>>> syntactic patina over SPARQL may be very welcome.
>>>     
>>
>> At the moment I am thinking about ways of expressing subsets of OWL DL
>> in a way that is more easily mapped to the RDF triple model. I simply
>> cannot accept how complicated and sometimes unintuitive the
>> representation of certain OWL constructs in RDF is, although I really
>> tried to. For example, we could have a convention that the triple
>> "Class1 property1 Class2" could be interpreted as as 'some values from'
>> restriction. Of course, not all of OWL could be represented in such a
>> simplified RDF format (e.g., how would we represent 'all values from'?).
>>
>> Yes, I know that we can create OWL APIs and dedicated OWL query
>> languages to make it work. However, I think that technologies should
>> have a certain 'elegance' to find widespread adoption. If we look at
>> some of our HCLS ontologies, we are seeing a XML document that
>> represents a RDF graph in an unnecessarily complicated and error-prone
>> way. And if we look at the RDF graph we see that it represents an OWL
>> ontology in an unnecessarily complicated and error-prone way. A
>> developer that is new to all these technologies might get the impression
>> that the Semantic Web layer cake [1] is just a heap of bad compromises
>> and failed attempts of creating compatibility.
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W3c-semantic-web-layers.svg
>>
>> cheers,
>> Matthias Samwald
>>
>>
>>   
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:59:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 December 2014 20:09:36 UTC