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

Re: Advancing translational research with the Semantic Web

From: Tim Clark <twclark@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 15:13:15 -0400
Message-Id: <887F7DA4-B3C0-4312-8948-B161988B8328@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Cc: <samwald@gmx.at>, "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>, <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
To: "Nigam Shah" <nigam@stanford.edu>

We spent a lot of time in SWAN working through this issue.  We would  
be happy to give a talk on it at an upcoming HCLS, preferably when  
Paolo returns from Italy.

Tim

On WednesdayMay 16, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Nigam Shah wrote:

>
> 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 19:13:42 UTC

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