W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Advancing translational research with the Semantic Web

From: Mark Montgomery <markm@kyield.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 11:41:48 -0700
Message-ID: <00c501c797e9$dd05afa0$a100a8c0@Inspiron>
To: "Nigam Shah" <nigam@stanford.edu>
Cc: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

Nigam,

We have long considered this issue, and came to the conclusion that it could 
only be done well within a holistic system design. A more intelligent web 
dependent upon increasingly well informed people participating requires a 
balanced structure of incentives that are properly aligned. And of course it 
must be easy for the user to do, which means a great deal of prep work. This 
is one of the right questions- one that all others depend upon to a certain 
degree. - MM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nigam Shah" <nigam@stanford.edu>
To: <samwald@gmx.at>; "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>; 
<phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>; <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: Advancing translational research with the Semantic Web



Interesting thread. From the user perspective we still need a way to
create these kinds of annotations (either on the statements/triples or
on the model/graph). Rolling one's own reification mechanism or using
named graphs (which don't have support in RDF) is a technical decision
point, but what about the question of "how do we get users to provide
either of them?"

-Nigam.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org [mailto:public-semweb-
>lifesci-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of samwald@gmx.at
>Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:40 AM
>To: Pat Hayes; phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk
>Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch
>Subject: Re: Advancing translational research with the Semantic Web
>
>
>
>
>> I really would suggest the named graphs would be a better
>> underpinning. Unlike reification, they do have a full semantics and
a
>> clear deployment model, and they follow in a long tradition of
naming
>> document-like semantic entities. And unlike RDF reification, they
are
>> not widely loathed, and they are fairly widely supported.
>
>Well, they are not supported by RDF/XML, which (unfortunately) is the
>main serialization format of RDF. Named graphs ARE supported by most
>triplestores, but they are mostly already reserved for other uses,
like
>the representation of provenance based on the RDF files that the
triples
>were loaded from. I think we are also lacking a standard vocabulary
for
>graph - subgraph relations, which would be needed if we want to
>represent graphs within graphs.
>
>-- Matthias
>
>
>
>
>.
>--
>Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
>Der kanns mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2007 18:42:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:26 UTC