- From: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:24:44 -0400
- To: <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Cc: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On Sep 29, 2005, at 11:33 PM, wangxiao wrote: > > - Greg, > > >> The data model that UniProt uses is record based, each >> protein has a unique LSID identifier, where as the Reactome >> data uses bnodes for protein identifiers. The protein >> resources in BioPAX have cross reference properties but these >> point to literal UniProt identifiers not LSID UniProt >> identifiers. That means I have no way of knowing that the >> resource identified by 'urn:lsid:UniProt.org:UniProt:Q96LC9' >> in the UniProt data is the same as the resource identified by >> 'UniProt_Q96LC9_BMF_protein' in the reactome data (besides >> the fact that bnodes are not globally unique). >> > > So, the problem is a social problem. All "standardization" problem > is. > That is not the problem of SW per se. SW is a framework, it offers > a bed of > possibilities. How we can make out of the possibilities is up to the > practioner not designer, right? If two ontologies don't use the > same URI to > refer to the same resource, there is no other way around except manual > mapping. This is why we need standardization. Manual mapping per se is not bad. What is bad is when this mapping is not able to be reused outside of application it was intended for. The notion of "as needed" data integration / mapping is an important one. If one does realize these resources are the same, using the Semantic Web, they can and write this "mapping" back into the web for the next person / application to benefit from. In essence, recording their knowledge of how things connect in a way that others can reuse. If communities can come up with common naming conventions for identifying resources thats great, they should! But this is not a requirement. What is, is a common framework for expressing this information that can be used by everyone. Again, this reduces to what works best for any particular community which (again) reduces to a social problem. Getting folks around the table to contribute to the discussion and find out what works and what doesn't is a huge step to addressing this problem. That said, from my perspective, this step is being taken and thats an important indicator of success. -- eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/ semantic web activity lead http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ w3c world wide web consortium http://www.w3.org/
Received on Friday, 30 September 2005 13:24:50 UTC