- From: eric neumann <ekneumann@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:59:43 -0400
- To: Michel_Dumontier <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>
- Cc: W3C HCLSIG hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <92e86c7d0903260859n6b1f2f98od859dfdf0684c50e@mail.gmail.com>
Michel's point resonate with my experiences also, though I hesitate trying to push the definition of 'ProteinAggregate' to the rest of the bio world... but it's in the right spirit. : ) -Eric On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Michel_Dumontier < Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca> wrote: > Pursuant to my email, and in light of several other comments, if our > goal is to now rectify what Uniprot:Protein _actually_ means in our > domain, and how it can be semantically mapped to other bio-ontologies, > then I might also suggest that instances of Uniprot:Protein are > aggregates of proteins (err... :ProteinAggregate anyone?), possibly > separated by both space and time, having a similar (base sequence + > mutations / ptms) composition, sharing certain characteristics (e.g. > functionality, domains) and observed to participate in biological > processes. Clearly not a type of protein of the single molecule form, > but again, certainly not a Record. > > -=Michel=- > > > > > > > If however, what we've been talking about is that identifiers like > > http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/Q16665 > > > > are actually database records, and not molecular entities, then we can > > settle this quickly: > > > > Uniprot RDF file: http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/Q16665.rdf > > (is this what people were referring to as a Record???) > > > > Contains: > > > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/Q16665"> > > <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://purl.uniprot.org/core/Protein" /> > > > > > > It's clear that the entity denoted by :Q16665 is rdf:type :Protein and > > is the subject of statements that are biological in nature such as > > being > > located in sub-cellular compartments or being involved in biochemical > > reactions. It is clearly not a Record. This is generally the case for > > nearly all entries in biomolecular databases. > > > > Cheers, > > > > -=Michel=- > > > > Anxiously waiting see if this clears up things or generates > controversy > > .. it's hard to predict! > > > > > > > > > If nobody ever wants to use the same property to talk about the > > > database > > > record as was used to talk about the molecule, and nobody ever makes > > an > > > assertion that implies that the class of database records is > disjoint > > > from the class of molecules, then I don't see any harm in using the > > > same > > > URI to ambiguously denote both. But if one is trying to design > data > > > to > > > be reusable by others in unforeseen ways, there clearly *is* a risk > > > that > > > someone will want to make such assertions in conjunction with the > > data, > > > and if that happens there is a clear harm. This risk is easy to > > avoid > > > by using separate URIs. > > > > > > There *are* trade-offs. Minting two URIs instead of one *does* add > > > some > > > complexity, though as I pointed out that additional complexity can > be > > > mitigated to the point that it is a *very* low cost. Still, > > different > > > people will weigh these trade-offs differently, and what's best for > > one > > > situation may not be best for another, as I indicated in my original > > > post. > > > > > > Furthermore, even if one does use the same URI to ambiguously denote > > > both a database record and a molecule, that is not the end of the > > world > > > either. It is possible (though more difficult) to later separate > out > > > and relate the different senses of an ambiguous URI, as I have > > > described: > > > http://dbooth.org/2007/splitting/ > > > Ambiguity is inescapable, and ambiguity between a thing and a page > > that > > > describes that thing is not fundamentally different from other kinds > > of > > > ambiguity (except perhaps that we are aware of it in advance and it > > can > > > be easily avoided), as explained here: > > > http://dbooth.org/2007/splitting/#httpRange-14 > > > > > > Finally, although it is flattering that you have named this > > suggestion > > > after me, I cannot take credit. As I pointed out in my original > > post, > > > the suggestion to differentiate between a molecule and the database > > > record that describes that molecule originates with the Architecture > > of > > > the World Wide Web: > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision > > > and best practices for implementing this distinction are described > in > > > Cool URIs for the Semantic Web: > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris > > > > > > David Booth > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 16:00:21 UTC