Re: Immunity of SW statements to changes in location - data integration use case

M. Scott Marshall wrote:
>  From the recent threads, I get the impression that we are trying to do 
> combine two functions into the URI:
> 1) the unambiguous *identification* of a given concept in our own RDF
> 2) retrieve associated data records from the same URI
> Although 2) seems like a nice convenience feature, we have the problem 
> of ambiguity that Alan pointed out: It should be possible to distinguish 
> statements about a particular data record associated with a concept from 
> statements about the concept.

What kinds of statements would you want to make about the "data record" 
(not tied to any specific representation) that do not apply to the 
"concept" (not tied to any specific representation, either)?

> See, for example, 
> . "Which data record for P53 did you mean?"

This is one abstraction level above UniProt, we consider P53 a "protein 
unfortunately we don't have unique identifiers for those, at the moment.

But you'll find various domain and family databases that talk about P53, 
e.g. InterProt [].

Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 14:34:37 UTC