- From: Kei Cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:59:13 -0400
- To: Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>
- Cc: Chris Mungall <cjm@fruitfly.org>, public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
As part of my class teaching, here is a Yahoo Pipes example I created and shared with the public: http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/search?q=neurospora_assembly_pipe&x=0&y=0 It demonstrates how to use Yahoo Pipes to fetch a csv dataset, filter it, replace patterns in the query results, and rename certain elements to make them recognizable as rss feed elements. Cheers, -Kei Kei Cheung wrote: > > Since we are talking about user interface, another thing we might want > to consider is the possible intersection of web 2.0 and semantic web > (some people call it web 3.0 :-) ) in terms of semantic mashup of > scientific data and tools. Current web 2.0 technologies (e.g., flickr, > myspace, ...) provide great ways of mashing things up over the web > because of its ease of use and its leverage of existing web > technologies. I think it would be great if we can somehow combine the > ease of use and semantic richness provided by web 2.0 and semantic > technologies, respectively to build useful applications for scientific > users (killer apps?!). To this end, I'm thinking yahoo pipes as an > example. One can use yahoo pipes to create workflow (integrating data > and tools) graphically. It works for url, csv (comma separated > values), feeds, atoms, xml, etc, but not rdfs, owl, ontologies, lsid, > etc. Wouldn't it be nice if we can merge something like yahoo pipes > with semantic web? > > Cheers, > > -Kei > > Matthias Samwald wrote: >> >>> Note that it's impossible to answer the intended query above >>> without SPARQL-DL - and the most intuitive syntax for this kind of >>> query in SPARQL-DL may not be triple-based, cosmeticised or not. >>> E.g. "ALL astrocyte develops_from SOME ?" >>> >>> I am heavily biased towards TBox queries - for ABox queries, a >>> syntactic patina over SPARQL may be very welcome. >>> >> >> At the moment I am thinking about ways of expressing subsets of OWL DL >> in a way that is more easily mapped to the RDF triple model. I simply >> cannot accept how complicated and sometimes unintuitive the >> representation of certain OWL constructs in RDF is, although I really >> tried to. For example, we could have a convention that the triple >> "Class1 property1 Class2" could be interpreted as as 'some values from' >> restriction. Of course, not all of OWL could be represented in such a >> simplified RDF format (e.g., how would we represent 'all values from'?). >> >> Yes, I know that we can create OWL APIs and dedicated OWL query >> languages to make it work. However, I think that technologies should >> have a certain 'elegance' to find widespread adoption. If we look at >> some of our HCLS ontologies, we are seeing a XML document that >> represents a RDF graph in an unnecessarily complicated and error-prone >> way. And if we look at the RDF graph we see that it represents an OWL >> ontology in an unnecessarily complicated and error-prone way. A >> developer that is new to all these technologies might get the impression >> that the Semantic Web layer cake [1] is just a heap of bad compromises >> and failed attempts of creating compatibility. >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W3c-semantic-web-layers.svg >> >> cheers, >> Matthias Samwald >> >> >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2007 15:59:32 UTC