- From: Eric Neumann <eneumann@teranode.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:01:17 -0400
- To: "William Bug" <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
- cc: jbarkley@nist.gov, "Chris Mungall" <cjm@fruitfly.org>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
- Message-ID: <A3970D83EC72E84B8D2C2400CD6F0B9F025430CA@MI8NYCMAIL16.Mi8.com>
Bill, Could Protege show a simplifed (reduced for non-CS, human understanding) map of no more than 6 or so items? I'm thinking more of a powerpoint graph than an acurrate portrayal... Eric -----Original Message----- From: William Bug [mailto:William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu] Sent: Wed 3/28/2007 6:56 PM To: Eric Neumann Cc: jbarkley@nist.gov; Chris Mungall; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org Subject: Re: updated updated bams model Hi Eric, For any OWL ontology you open in Protege-OWL, you can represent it using either OWLViz or Jamabalaya. There are also many customized GUI graph viewers for the specific terminologies/ontologies. For GO, there is both: - EBI QuickGO (see this link for tyrosine 3-monooxygenase activity - http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ego/DisplayGoTerm?id=GO:0004511) - you can also just open ANY OBO ontology in OBO-Edit and use the Graph Viewer Plugin I find the QuickGO & OWLViz options the easiest to work with. WIth either OWLViz or Jamabalaya, you can save any sub-graph in a standard graphic file format (JPG, PNG, etc.) to attach to a Wiki page. Cheers, Bill On Mar 28, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Eric Neumann wrote: > > Looking at this discussion, I was wondering if anyone had some sort > of "concept map" visual for these kinds of ontologies, i.e., BAMS, > GO, MESH, etc...? > > Shouldn't be too complicated, and would be useful as a back drop > for the demo, as to how the "data pieces" fit together. Anyone > willing to do it? > > Eric > > > On Mar 28, 2007, at 5:20 PM, William Bug wrote: > > > Absolutely, John. I completely agree. > > Just stash that feedback on the page for now. > > Getting a working OWL version of BAMS that best reflects > the suggestions Alan, Kei, Luis, Mihail and others have made - one > particularly suited to catalyzing an RDF-driven integration of the > various BioRDF data sets is definitely the priority. > > Many thanks for all the work you are doing. I know this > will be an important resource not only for the HCLS demo but also > for the community at-large. > > Cheers, > Bill > > On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:45 PM, jbarkley@nist.gov wrote: > > > > hi bill, > > Thanks very much for your suggestions. I'm deep > into doing the conversion of > BAMS. I want to make significant enough progress > with this before attempting > to deal with changing the section. > > jb > > > Quoting William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>: > > > Hi John, > > I agree - I think it's important to keep > things simple and clear, > though I do also agree I believe Chris's > comments are actually very > helpful in achieving this goal. > > A few thoughts that came to mind when > reading Chris's comments: > > 1) XML as a database language > Chris is correct. XML qua XML is primarily > a markup language > designed for the task of providing an > "extensible" data exchange mark > up formalism. When I read what you say on > the page, I thought you > might have been referring to XML databases > - e.g., RDBMS frameworks > that actually store XML internally OR use > XML-based disk files as > their serialization format. If that is > what you meant, it might be > useful to state that explicitly. > > 2) RDBMS syntax & semantics > It is important to be clear RDBMS > architectures are based on > > very > > formal and explicit syntax designed > specifically to express a set > theoretic view of how data sets inter- > relate. As you say, its best > to keep things clear and simple but given > the what you are trying to > explain, I do agree with Chris it is > important to be clear RDBMS > systems are based on very formal > representations - they just are > representations devoid of any explicit > semantic entailments beyond > the most abstract "set X relates to set Y > via relation A". > I believe its also important to the > argument you are making to > > be > > clear we recognize there are long-standing > RDBMS approaches that do > attempt to take semantics into account - > i.e., "Semantic Data > Models" (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm? > id=509264). These do > provide a means of defining a local, > application-specific semantic > description of the data held in a > relational data model, but they do > not provide an explicit externalized > semantics expressed in a common, > standard formalism such as what is provided > by RDF & OWL. > > 3) SQL "standard" > It would be useful to simply list "SQL 92", > "SQL 99", "SQL > > 2003", > > if that is what you mean. You could also > mention there is > considerable variation in the ways in which > a given RDBMS framework - > e.g., Oracle, PostgreSQL, Ingres, DB2, etc. > - implements the > "optional" portions of these specs and > extends the available calculus > beyond the SQL standard. This means that > in addition to their being > not explicit statement of semantic-to- > syntactic mapping, there is > also considerable variation at the > implementation level even in the > syntax. > As Chris says, the underlying relational > algebra on which all > > of > > these systems are based does provide a > solid, formal basis for each > implementation, but in the context of the > point you are making on > this page, this does not provide an > explicit and shared formalism for > representing the underlying semantics - AND > - the variety in formal > syntactic implementations adds to the cost > and the ultimate > "brittleness" of trying to provide such > semantic mapping as an > adjunct to the underlying relational syntax. > > 4) Documentation > I suppose what Chris is asking on this > front is simply to be > > clear > > it's not the fact that "documentation" is > required to support the > applications one constructs whether you are > using XML, an RDBMS, or > SemWeb tools to build your application. > The point I believe you are > trying to make here is with XML & RDBMS > approaches, the documentation > describing the semantic "mapping" is an > absolute pre-requisite to > fully describing the semantic content of > the information and this is > essentially opaque to the algorithms one > creates to parse the > information - therefore, the algorithms > have no direct access to the > semantic assertions and entailments. > > 5) Qualified Relations > To some extent, what you are trying to > express regarding the > > use of > > Domain & Range when defining RDF predicate > relations can be expressed > in a RDBMS idiom - especially if one > includes Object-Relational > systems in this category. In an ORDBMS, > the table "class" containing > the PK becomes the domain for a relation, > and the set of all tables > (and their sub-classes) whose tuples > include the corresponding FK is > equivalent to the range for the relation. > Of course, the underlying > formalism provides no explicit support for > algorithmically > manipulation or interpretation of semantic > entailments of such > relation(s). This is where the model- > theoretic underpinnings of OWL > certainly provide considerably more support > for this activity. Even > outside the ORBMS frameworks, one can > provide SQL DDL models where > relations are "qualified". Without such > modeling patterns, it would > be impossible to represent the full > expressiveness of MeSH or UMLS in > a RDBMS backend. These implementations in > an RDBMS framework, > however, tend to get very complex and > brittle and require specialized > RDBMS skills to implement effectively. > They can also be MUCH more > complicated to access and manipulate when > using a particular language > to access the data stored in such models. > I do think one can argue > the standard tools growing up around RDF & > OWL provide a much more > powerful, less fragile, and ultimately less > complicated (at least > measured in lines of code) means to > manipulate the semantic > assertions & entailments expressed in the > underlying data relations. > There is also the issue of "directionality" > that you bring > > up, > > which to my mind is explicitly defined both > for XML graphs and > relational systems, but I think you mean to > capture more than simply > the directionality of a semantic entailment > in this argument re: use > of domain & range. > > 6) RDFS and/or OWL compared to XML Schema & > SQL DDL > Chris is definitely correct here. Even if > you don't go into > > the > > details, these are the correct, more > specific comparisons to be > making in terms of the inherent ability of > these formalisms to > explicit represent semantic assertions and > entailments. > It would also be useful to be more explicit > regarding both > > the > > expressivity and computability of semantic > assertions encoded using > XML Schema, RDBMS formalisms, ORBMS > formalisms, and systems that > convolve XML & RDBMS together. When > compared with the formalism and > tools provided for performing these same > tasks with RDF & OWL, one > would hope the result of such a comparison > would strongly indicate > RDF & OWL provide a significant advantage > when representing real- > world entities in a semantic meaningful way. > > Sorry - I've only had a brief moment to > capture some of these > thoughts. The idea is to follow-up on > Chris's suggestion there is a > need to do more to define "the strength of > the OWL/RDF approach > (over) a traditional XML or SQL approach". > XML "databases", ORBMS, > Semantic Data Models - these are all tools > likely to be cited as > addressing some of the requirements to > handling semantically > qualified data, and it's worth placing them > in these arguments > somewhere. > > Hope this helps a little - and doesn't make > things worse. > > Cheers, > Bill > > > > On Mar 27, 2007, at 8:19 AM, John Barkley > wrote: > > > > chris, > > I appreciate your comments, and I > agree that if the demo is to show > the superiority of the semantic web > approach, then that section > should be more carefully worded. I > was trying to create something > that would be (reasonably) readable > by RDB and XML practitioners > who are likely not to appreciate > subtleties of differences. I will > try to redo the section. > > jb > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: > "Chris Mungall" <cjm@fruitfly.org> > To: <jbarkley@nist.gov> > Cc: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org> > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 11:06 AM > Subject: Re: updated updated bams > model > > > > > > I have some comments on: > http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/ > > HCLSIG_DemoHomePage_HCLSIG_Demo#head-50710462ea5aac416fd063dce8621ce0 > 354 d2d5a > > > Formal Definition of Semantics > > OWL and RDF have a formal > definition for the semantics of an OWL/ > RDF knowledge base, i.e., > given a knowledge base, associated > semantics are primarily > provided explicitly within the knowledge > base itself. Commonly used > database languages, e.g., XML and > relational database (RDB), > have at most a semi-formal definition. > > > XML is a way of > standardising syntax, not semantics. XML isn't a > database language, I'm not > sure why it's classified as such here. > > It's not quite correct to > state that an RDB (which is not a > database language either) > has only a semi-formal definition. The > strength of the relational > model is precisely the formal > definition - either as > relational algebra or relational calculus. > How much more formal do > you want? > > Of course, existing > databases use various extensions to the > relational model, and, > regrettably, departures from it. But this > may well be the case for > practical OWL/RDF implementations. I > think it's a fairly minor > point, and not something you want to > base your argument on. > > > XML is a grammar writing > system with no defined relationship > between a given schema and > its semantic meaning. An XML schema > is simply a grammar. Any > semantics represented by that schema > and its associated > documents are specified external to those > representations, e.g., in > documentation. > > RDB has more than one semi- > formal definition, e.g., the ISO > Standard SQL [sql]. > > > You state there is >1 > formal definition, give the SQL standard as > an example of one - can you > give an example of another? Perhaps > you mean successive > iterations of the SQL standard? Again, > variations from this are > relatively minor. Relational algebra > precedes the ISO SQL > standard and forms the basis for all > relational databases. > > > Thus, given an RDB schema > and repository, it is not possible to > know from those which > definition of semantics, if any, was used. > In common use, a given RDB > database and repository may make use > of no semi-formal > definition of semantics or borrow from > several different ones. > > > What is a repository in > this context? > > > Like XML, other means, such > as, documentation, external to the > schema and repository > describes the semantics. > > > So OWL/RDF dispenses with > documentation? > > > For example, consider how a > relation between two sets would be > represented in OWL/RDF, > XML, and RDB. In OWL/RDF, the semantics > of a relation is formally > defined similar to the mathematical > definition, i.e., as a > subset of the cross product of the domain > and range. Because the > relation is a cross product, it has a > direction. An element of > the domain is related to an element of > the range, but not > necessarily the other way around. In an XML > schema, there are many > different ways of representing a relation > using elements, > subelements, and attributes. Similarly, in an > RDB schema, depending on > which semi-formal definition of RDB > semantics is used, there > are multiple ways to represent a > relation. How a relation > is represented in an XML or RDB schema/ > repository can only be > known external to the schema/repository > itself. > > > I'm afraid I can't make > head nor tail of this. > > "In OWL/RDF, the > semantics of a relation is formally defined > similar to the mathematical > definition, i.e., as a subset of the > cross product of the domain > and range." > > Actually, I think you are > talking about mathematical functions, > not relations. As OWL/RDF > is restricted to binary relations the > terminology of functions > makes sense (ie we can call the first > argument domain the domain, > and the second the range) > > So you seem to be stating a > strength of OWL/RDF is that you can > state the domain and range > of a relation? Note that in the > relational model you can > of course state the domain of every > argument of the relation. > > "Because the relation is > a cross product, it has a direction. An > element of the domain is > related to an element of the range, but > not necessarily the other > way around" > > Can you elaborate on this? > I don't understand this at all. > > "in an RDB schema, > depending on which semi-formal definition of > RDB semantics is used, > there are multiple ways to represent a > relation" > > ?? > > Are we talking about > mathematical relations? As far as I > understand this, this is > simply false. Using the relational model > you would represent a > relation using, ummm, a relation. A > relation is the cross- > product of the domains of each argument. It > would seem that an RDB > relation is much closer to a mathematical > relation than the OWL/RDF > equivalent. (For one thing, there is no > restriction to binary > relations forcing use of n-ary patterns). > This is true for all RDBs, > even ones that fall short of the ideal > relational model. Can you > give an example of two different > definitions of RDB > semantics that would give different answers here? > > > If this demo is to convince > people of the strength of the OWL/RDF > approach as opposed to a > traditional XML or SQL approach, then > this section needs some work. > > I would not lump XML in > with the relational model - the > relational model has more > in common with logic-based approaches > than with XML (it's > unfortunate for both camps they do not yet > have more in common) > > I think it would be more > appropriate to compare and contrast the > expressivity of, say, XML > Schema with OWL than, say, XML with OWL/ > RDF. Make sure you are > comparing like with like. Similarly, I > would compare the > expressivity of standard SQL DDL with OWL, > perhaps using an example - > e.g. a simple one with class > subsumption. If you're > going to use the term semantics, give a > definition. Note that both > relational algebra and OWL's model > theoretic semantics are > rock-solid and formal (I'll leave others > to comment on the semantics > of OWL layered on RDF/RDFS). > > I think the point you want > to make is that OWL (arguably) provides > a more expressive (and > perhaps agile?) framework for > representations of real- > world entities. Although you > simultaneously seem to be > making the case for RDF too, which > makes your task harder. > > Cheers > Chris > > > > > > > Bill Bug > Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer > > Laboratory for Bioimaging & Anatomical > Informatics > www.neuroterrain.org > Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy > Drexel University College of Medicine > 2900 Queen Lane > Philadelphia, PA 19129 > 215 991 8430 (ph) > 610 457 0443 (mobile) > 215 843 9367 (fax) > > > Please Note: I now have a new email - > William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu > > > > > > > > > > Bill Bug > Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer > > Laboratory for Bioimaging & Anatomical Informatics > www.neuroterrain.org > Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy > Drexel University College of Medicine > 2900 Queen Lane > Philadelphia, PA 19129 > 215 991 8430 (ph) > 610 457 0443 (mobile) > 215 843 9367 (fax) > > > Please Note: I now have a new email - > William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu > > > > > > > > Bill Bug Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer Laboratory for Bioimaging & Anatomical Informatics www.neuroterrain.org Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy Drexel University College of Medicine 2900 Queen Lane Philadelphia, PA 19129 215 991 8430 (ph) 610 457 0443 (mobile) 215 843 9367 (fax) Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 00:03:01 UTC