- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:15:44 +0000
- To: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@bbsrc.ac.uk>
- 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>
Andrea Splendiani wrote: > 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. > I am a bit of unsure too. :-) Let's use the following convention, lower case letter represent URI and upper case Resource the URI denotes. Hence, a denotes A and b denotes B. Is your intension to assert something between (1) a and b? Or (2) A and B? I thought your message seems to suggest case (1) ? Is this correct? Xiaoshu > 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 23:16:29 UTC