- From: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@bbsrc.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:44:27 +0000
- To: Kei Cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Chris Mungall <cjm@berkeleybop.org>, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Maryann Martone <maryann@ncmir.ucsd.edu>
One thing that I think would be very useful, though it poses some semantic problem... is the possibility to assert equivalence in rdf. At the moment equivalence can be asserted only in owl (and this implies a distinction between individuals, properties, classes...). But that is a lower level statement we can make about URI. For instance, I can say that: > http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dopamine_receptor is the same uri as: > http://dbpedia.org/resource/DopamineReceptor And I want to say this independently from the interpretation associated to this URI, as my knowledge about the identity is a-priori: if this leads to inconsistency, then this is because what is expressed is inconsistent, not because of this equivalence. Is there a way to express this in RDF ? Don't think so... ciao, Andrea Il giorno 27/feb/09, alle ore 03:03, Kei Cheung ha scritto: > I gave the following neuroscience URI examples in my biordf talk at > C-SHALS yesterday. > > http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dopamine_receptor > http://purl.org/ycmi/senselab/ > neuron_ontology.owl#Dopaminergic_Receptor > http://purl.org/nif/ontology/NIF-Molecule.owl#nifext_5832 > > I pointed out that the last one might be a possible solution. There > might be hope. :-) > > -Kei > > > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> So I count three different sets of URIs for NCBI taxonomy so far. :( >> -Alan >> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Chris Mungall >> <cjm@berkeleybop.org> wrote: >> >>> also.. >>> >>> part of the NCBI taxonomy is in NIF Organism: >>> >>> http://ontology.neuinfo.org/NIF/BiomaterialEntities/NIF-Organism.owl >>> >>> See also: >>> >>> https://wiki.neuinfo.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/NIFSTDoverview >>> http://neuinfo.org >>> >>> >>> On Feb 25, 2009, at 4:17 PM, andrea splendiani (RRes-Roth) wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> It'2 240M, but compressed is only 9. >>>> I wonder whether there is some architecture to transparently >>>> transfer >>>> compressed ontologies... >>>> >>>> Ciao, >>>> Andrea >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Chris Mungall [mailto:cjm@berkeleybop.org] >>>> Sent: 25 February 2009 20:53 >>>> To: andrea splendiani (RRes-Roth) >>>> Cc: public-semweb-lifesci hcls >>>> Subject: Re: Is there an NCBI taxonomy in OWL ? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 25, 2009, at 11:58 AM, Andrea Splendiani wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I was looking for an NCBI Taxnomoy in OWL, but I didn't find it >>>>> (or >>>>> better, could find fragment from other projects...) >>>>> >>>>> What is strange though, is that on the obo foundry website >>>>> (berkeleybop.org/ontologies) there are notes on the ncbi taxonomy >>>>> representation in owl... but not the representation itself. >>>>> >>>> Temporarily dropped from the summary page but still available at >>>> the >>>> usual URL >>>> http://purl.org/obo/owl/NCBITaxon >>>> >>>> (warning: large..) >>>> >>>> >>>>> Does anybody have some hint about where I can fin an OWL version ? >>>>> Or even an RDF version ? Even better would a sparql endpoint >>>>> containing it... >>>>> >>>>> best, >>>>> Andrea Splendiani >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 16:45:12 UTC