- From: Bonnie MacKellar <mackellb@stjohns.edu>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:27:13 -0400
- To: Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-lod@w3 org (public-lod@w3.org)" <public-lod@w3.org>
Yes, in fact, I have been using a dump from that site for most of my preliminary work. But there is no working SPARQL endpoint, and there is often a big gap between dumps. Plus, there are other datasets I want to use as well. I am trying to understand the benefits of using these platforms that bring everything together. Bonnie MacKellar mackellb@stjohns.edu -----Original Message----- From: Luca Matteis [mailto:lmatteis@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 5:24 PM To: Bonnie MacKellar Cc: public-lod@w3 org (public-lod@w3.org) Subject: Re: Bio2RDF vs Linked Life Data Have you looked at this: http://linkedct.org/ ? There seem to be lots of different URIs for the same resource define by Bio2RDF, LLD and LinkedCT so I'd choose the provider with most up-to-date results. On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Bonnie MacKellar <mackellb@stjohns.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I notice that several datasets I am interested in appear both on the > Bio2RDF and Linked Life Data platforms. I want to integrate some of > the data contained in these data sets for an application. Is there an > advantage to using one platform over the other? Do they both provide > dumps of the triples? Are they up to date (for example, both contain > clinical trial data, which should be up to date to be useful).? I > have spent some amount of time searching for written comparisons and > am coming up with nothing. Sorry if this is an elementary question, but I am just digging into this right now. > > > > Thanks, > > Bonnie MacKellar > > mackellb@stjohns.edu > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2014 21:28:23 UTC