- From: Kei Cheung <kei.cheung@yale.edu>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:37:04 -0400
- To: Egon Willighagen <egon.willighagen@gmail.com>
- Cc: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, bio2rdf@googlegroups.com, w3c semweb hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, Paul Roe <p.roe@qut.edu.au>, James Hogan <j.hogan@qut.edu.au>, Lawrence Buckingham <l.buckingham@qut.edu.au>
As part of the biordf query federation task, we are currently exploring a federation scenario involving integration of neuroreceptor-related information. For example, IUPHAR provides information for different classes of receptors. For example, in the table shown at http://www.iuphar-db.org/GPCR/ReceptorListForward?class=class%20A, ligands are provided for receptors but not InChI codes ... -Kei One types of Egon Willighagen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2009/3/22 Egon Willighagen <egon.willighagen@gmail.com>: >> >>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Do you also provide InChIKey resolution? >>>> >>> No. That requires look up, so only works against an existing database. >>> Chemspider is doing this, but is not a general solution. InChIKey's >>> are not unique, though clashes rare, and not observed so far. >>> >> I didn't think it required a lookup to derive an InChIKey given an >> InChI. >> > > Ah, sorry. InChIKey can be computed, but I thought you meant resolving > what structure has a given InChIKey... going from InChIKey to > structure does require lookup, generation from InChIKey from structure > (or InChI) does not. > > >> I realise that clashes are rare but possible, just wondering >> whether it would be supported. Leaving them out altogether just seems >> like missing possibly extra information. >> > > I'll add them where missing. > > >>>> [1] It is just that InChI's >>>> can get pretty long for complex molecules and it makes it harder for >>>> people to accurately copy and paste them around when needed. >>>> >>> Indeed. However, InChIKey is less precise. RDF allowing us to be do >>> things in an exact manner, I rather use InChI. >>> >>> >>>> InChiKey's might be better for general use in RDF because they have a >>>> guaranteed identifier length and therefore won't become cumbersome for >>>> complex molecules. >>>> >>> But can never be used for owl:sameAs like relations. >>> >> Having them as properties could give someone a quick clue as to >> whether they are looking at the same molecule. Humans do interact with >> RDF (inevitably), and having short hash values can still be valuable. >> Given that hashes are usually designed to amplify small changes, it is >> easier than reading a 10 line InChiKey to determine whether there was >> a difference. >> > > Agreed. > > >>>> Currently all of the InChI's that I have seen have been as Literals, >>>> but it would be relatively easy to also provide them as URI's to >>>> provide the link since you have a resolver for them set up. >>>> >>> That was precisely the reason why I started the service. >>> >> Good work. >> > > Thanx for the feedback! > > Egon > >
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 14:37:51 UTC