Re: Identifiers (was Notes from today's meeting)

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com
> wrote:

> The point here is simple. if you provide a URI uniprot:1.2.3.4, i would
> like to know that this is incorrect.
>
> m.
>
Yes, but the model needs to be good enough to tell you that. The model
discussed yesterday with
data item identifer regex pattern is not strong enough to do so. The void
uriRegexPattern might be good enough.

:x a void:Dataset ;
   void:uriRegexPattern "ec:[1-6].\d.\d.\d" , "uniprot:P\d{5}" .

But I am thinking that we can have stronger validation patterns if we think
a bit more.
e.g. can we think of something that can prevent.

uniprot:P12345 a up:Sequence .
sequence:P12345 a up:Protein .

And is a dataset description the right place for this validation data?

Regards,
Jerven

>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Joachim Baran <joachim.baran@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4 June 2013 08:56, Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu> wrote:
>>
>>> uniprot:P12345 a up:Protein ;
>>>
>>>>                         up:enzyme ec:1.2.3.4 .
>>>>> ec:1.2.3.4 a up:Enzyme .
>>>>> What if my data is
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> uniprot:1.2.3.4 a up:Protein ;
>>>                        up:enzyme ec:P12345 .
>>> ec:P12345 a up:Enzyme .
>>>
>>   I do not understand the new example. You just switched the identifiers?
>>
>>
>>> What if I don't have a regular expression for one of the sets?
>>>
>>   I suggest it implies the set of all URIs, i.e. the regexp: .*
>>
>>
>>> Or two very similar ones?
>>> e.g. mgi and pubmed?
>>>
>>   Take the union regexp.
>>
>> Joachim
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Michel Dumontier
> Associate Professor of Bioinformatics, Carleton University
> Chair, W3C Semantic Web for Health Care and the Life Sciences Interest
> Group
> http://dumontierlab.com
>



-- 
Jerven Bolleman
me@jerven.eu