- From: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@bbsrc.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 22:52:41 +0000
- To: wangxiao@musc.edu
- Cc: Kei Cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu>, 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>
Hi, I'm not following you 100%. I'm talking about the identity of the URI as a symbol. And I was thinking about a declarative approach, rather than procedural one (or did I misunderstood ?). Up in this thread, I've got an interesting answer by David Booth. ciao, Andrea Il giorno 02/mar/09, alle ore 22:43, Xiaoshu Wang ha scritto: > > > Andrea Splendiani wrote: >> 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... >> > I am not sure exactly what you intend. Do you mean that you want to > assert the equivalence of the URI as the symbols or you want to > assert that the referent of the two URIs are the same? If your > intension is the latter, I don't think RDF offers this kind of > vocabulary. But you can always mint your own terms just as with all > other concepts that is not in RDF, right? > > If you want to assert the equivalence of two URI, but not the > resource that they references. There isn't a straight-forward > answer but there can be work-around. > > For instance, you can design a class, say URI, which has a string > property that confirms to URI spec. Of course, if you want, you can > also make it several properties according to the URI spec. Then, > you can create instance of this URI class, which URI can be either a > b-node or you can designate another URI to it. This would allow > you to make assertions on URI rather than its referent.. > > Such an inconvenience of describing URI is due to the incomplete > syntax of URI. Among the three essential things of the Web, URI, > Representation, and Resource, only Resource is "conveniently* in > URI's referential realm. I have suggested a solution in [1] to > offer some syntactic sugar. In that proposal, > > "http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dopamine_receptor?" would by definition > denote the URI. This would greatly simplify the task. > > Xiaoshu > 1. http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/tr/uri-issues >> 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 Monday, 2 March 2009 22:53:27 UTC