W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > May 2013

Fwd: RDF, Linked Data, Semantic Web, SPARQL, OWL, etc.

From: Suzanna Lewis <suzi@berkeleybop.org>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 17:47:22 -0400
Message-Id: <921791E8-473D-4A87-8298-20048F88977D@berkeleybop.org>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org, Chris Mungall <cjm@berkeleybop.org>
To: Todd DeLuca <todddeluca@gmail.com>


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov>
> Subject: Re: RDF, Linked Data, Semantic Web, SPARQL, OWL, etc.
> Date: May 12, 2013 1:31:25 PM EDT
> To: Todd DeLuca <todddeluca@gmail.com>
> Cc: Suzanna Lewis <suzi@berkeleybop.org>
> 
> Hi Todd,
> 
> See my email below for some answers to your questions.
> 
> Suzi, can you forward the message to the list? I will try and re-sub with my other address (sigh...)
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@google.com>
>> Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
>> Date: May 9, 2013 11:02:25 PM PDT
>> To: cjmungall@lbl.gov
>> 
>> Hello cjmungall@lbl.gov,
>> 
>> We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact (orthologs) may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages to the group. A few more details on why you weren't able to post:
>> 
>> * You might have spelled or formatted the group name incorrectly.
>> * The owner of the group may have removed this group.
>> * You may need to join the group before receiving permission to post.
>> * This group may not be open to posting.
>> 
>> If you have questions related to this or any other Google group, visit the Help Centre at http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en-GB_GB.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Google Groups
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original message -----
>> 
>> X-Received: by 10.66.8.69 with SMTP id p5mr3416293paa.46.1368165745247;
>>       Thu, 09 May 2013 23:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
>> Return-Path: <cjmungall@lbl.gov>
>> Received: from fe1.lbl.gov (fe1.lbl.gov. [128.3.41.133])
>>       by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id xb6si182327pab.0.2013.05.09.23.02.25
>>       for <orthologs@googlegroups.com>;
>>       Thu, 09 May 2013 23:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
>> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of cjmungall@lbl.gov designates 128.3.41.133 as permitted sender) client-ip=128.3.41.133;
>> Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;
>>      spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of cjmungall@lbl.gov designates 128.3.41.133 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=cjmungall@lbl.gov
>> X-Ironport-SBRS: 4.8
>> X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
>> X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AocGAB6MjFHRVd+zlGdsb2JhbABSgz6DM4EnI4EgqAmJM4ZegVV/Fg4BAQEBBwsLCRIqgh8BAQQBThoKBwULC0YxAwEFAQsRDgcEARwEh2UGDKBXnSCCU4sTEIEuBAeCdGEDiRqKQ4R1jio/glqBe06BBA
>> X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,646,1363158000"; 
>>  d="scan'208,217";a="17240453"
>> Received: from mail-ie0-f179.google.com ([209.85.223.179])
>> by fe1.lbl.gov with ESMTP; 09 May 2013 23:02:24 -0700
>> Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id c13so7226694ieb.38
>>       for <orthologs@googlegroups.com>; Thu, 09 May 2013 23:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
>> X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
>>       d=google.com; s=20120113;
>>       h=x-received:x-received:subject:mime-version:content-type:from
>>        :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to:x-mailer
>>        :x-gm-message-state;
>>       bh=xD6N7OO/tnCDv7esqnNdhP9pZFe0C9gcBY8YYN4LOYE=;
>>       b=RGoCcRo9wzu6ZOSjG2UVZy5/Aq4YP2+MzWyH+fY+dMnuTzLm1dSvziGWv7669cvERM
>>        r/AOjeWQ35V1hzRDd3IXih/Z7ohckj/SCniEWoKiDT8P2zbIbcN27o0fyepjIMIyCnpJ
>>        TuRi6CRLByo+bDU8pEKlxXIhub4sYZ5rqoH6RNCS/Qe/zv9LHoqgploorjlF8hdnyje6
>>        1pAFCvJGSSw2eoLY5cpFY4fV2X49S44Bq+N9D6Gz57oywWqpHAfMY3aHD8FAbg0wCshW
>>        qIqd9qec2DQVUh+fxiG2mmQ0rguMg4VXO1R4GWA8mD9hzLHJNB9n4tT+gCGb/0oD4A1i
>>        eR4Q==
>> X-Received: by 10.42.48.7 with SMTP id q7mr6498878icf.35.1368165743926;
>>       Thu, 09 May 2013 23:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
>> X-Received: by 10.42.48.7 with SMTP id q7mr6498869icf.35.1368165743636;
>>       Thu, 09 May 2013 23:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
>> Return-Path: <cjmungall@lbl.gov>
>> Received: from wireless-207-192.uchicago.edu (wireless-207-192.uchicago.edu. [128.135.207.192])
>>       by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c2sm2331225igv.1.2013.05.09.23.02.19
>>       for <multiple recipients>
>>       (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
>>       Thu, 09 May 2013 23:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
>> Subject: Re: RDF, Linked Data, Semantic Web, SPARQL, OWL, etc.
>> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BD3D3132-4F08-47D7-8FF1-1E07F141248A"
>> From: Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov>
>> In-Reply-To: <45283db6-3229-4679-89ce-29525ea3bb39@googlegroups.com>
>> Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 23:02:18 -0700
>> Cc: Frederic Bastian <frederic.bastian@unil.ch>,
>> Jerven Bolleman <jerven.bolleman@isb-sib.ch>
>> Message-Id: <C3E34E75-85EC-42A9-B6E3-8753BEE55B04@lbl.gov>
>> References: <45283db6-3229-4679-89ce-29525ea3bb39@googlegroups.com>
>> To: orthologs@googlegroups.com
>> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
>> X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnHxLotfGZOED1uVRtzO90IbJ+0y4vSYyyrZMqqJXTcerOx97vg+zQiKcsVpgOhYbT4RpO/Jt78iU65w24LjJVlxnf9gEoQlpDxoO++KnGryGgXrx1zTZZl6Tq7uzE9WmylJILE4W35NgtUHi57Ka0M7lz/IQ==
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Todd,
>> 
>> I'll answer your questions out of order.
>> 
>> * Which ontologies already exist?
>> 
>> See the publication "An Ontology to clarify homology-related concepts" by Roux and Robinson-Rechavi, and its associated ontology:
>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2009.12.012
>> 
>> This is a broad treatment covering both gross anatomical structures and molecules.
>> 
>> So has a "homology" attribute
>> http://ols.wordvis.com/q=SO:0000857
>> 
>> CDAO may be of interest
>> https://www.nescent.org/wg_evoinfo/CDAO
>> it has "homologous to" ( http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CDAO_0000181 ) but no sub-relations.
>> 
>> It wasn't clear to me how to download OGO, it looks like it has a fairly basic notion of orthology.
>> 
>> As far as I can tell, there isn't really an ontology or vocabulary that enumerates the various subtypes of homology, including for example in and out paralogs (together with precise formal definitions). But I'm sure this could be added to an ontology like HOM.
>> 
>> In my view, a truly satisfying representatin would be based on phylogeny, with the ability to infer orthology/paralogy using reasoners (somewhat outside the scope of OWL, but possible with some extensions).
>> 
>> You may have more luck with this question on the obo-discuss list.
>> 
>> * is there an OrthoOWL equivalent to OrthoXML
>> 
>> OrthoXML covers more than just homology relations. E.g. genes, blast scores, taxa. One of the advantages of RDF is that it's easier to mix and match different vocabularies, and that is what I would do here. Use parts of CDAO, HOM, SO, the ontologization of the NCBITaxon ontology, etc.
>> 
>> * Value of representing orthologs as RDF
>> 
>> Compared to what? There are certain benefits, such as easier integration with (some) other data resources, resuing parts of other vocabularies (see above). You may get more religious answers from others.
>> 
>> There are certain unique modeling questions. E.g. do you represent homology relations as predicates (and use reification to record provenance), or turn the predicate into a node in its own right? Fairly geeky stuff I'd be
> 


Received on Sunday, 12 May 2013 21:48:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:44 UTC