W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > August 2014

RE: hcls dataset description comments--Dataset Descriptions vs. PROV

From: Michael Miller <Michael.Miller@systemsbiology.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2014 10:15:24 -0700
Message-ID: <656682eb2d97cafd15354c0e1e09690c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joachim Baran <joachim.baran@gmail.com>
Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, w3c semweb hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
hi kim,

i've made decent progress and expect to have something mid-week, if all goes
well (as a pull request, tho no guarantee on the formatting!)

cheers,
michael

Michael Miller
Software Engineer
Institute for Systems Biology

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joachim Baran [mailto:joachim.baran@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 6:46 PM
> To: Michael Miller
> Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes; w3c semweb hcls
> Subject: Re: hcls dataset description comments--Dataset Descriptions vs.
> PROV
>
> Hello,
>
>   Has there been an update to this? Preferably a pull request?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kim
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 2014, at 8:13 AM, Michael Miller
> <Michael.Miller@systemsbiology.org> wrote:
> >
> > hi stian,
> >
> > thanks much, very useful!
> >
> > cheers,
> > michael
> >
> > Michael Miller
> > Software Engineer
> > Institute for Systems Biology
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: stian@mygrid.org.uk [mailto:stian@mygrid.org.uk] On Behalf Of
> Stian
> >> Soiland-Reyes
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 5:38 AM
> >> To: Michael Miller
> >> Cc: Joachim Baran; w3c semweb hcls
> >> Subject: Re: hcls dataset description comments--Dataset Descriptions
> >> vs.
> >> PROV
> >>
> >> Just some inputs:
> >>
> >>
> >> PROV defines prov:wasDerivedFrom which in broad sense describes such
> a
> >> relationset between datasets. However you do not know anything more
> >> about what kind of derivation we are talking about.
> >>
> >>
> >> In PAV we found the need to specialize three types of derivation:
> >>
> >> pav:retrievedFrom -
> >> http://purl.org/pav/html#http://purl.org/pav/retrievedFrom
> >> .. a byte-for-byte download
> >>
> >> pav:importedFrom -
> >> http://purl.org/pav/html#http://purl.org/pav/importedFrom
> >> .. a somewhat equivalent form of the source, but after some kind of
> >> transformation or selection (e.g. CSV -> XML)
> >>
> >> pav:derivedFrom -
> >> http://purl.org/pav/html#http://purl.org/pav/derivedFrom
> >> .. when the new resource has been further refined or modified
> >> (somewhat adding additional knowledge)
> >>
> >>
> >> If you are simply concatenating several dataset, then multiple
> >> pav:importedFrom statements would make sense. If further knowledge is
> >> added, say by reasoning or calculation, then pav:derivedFrom would
> >> make sense.
> >>
> >>
> >> Now if you want to detail exactly how those datasets have been
> >> combined, I think you are right that would make sense to break down
> >> the derivation using PROV statements, e.g. a series of activities,
> >> generation and usage. How to describe these activities (e.g.
> >> subclasses and properties) will be specific to each case.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If the process you generated the dataset with somewhat resembles a
> >> dataflow, you might be interested in the wfprov and wfdesc ontologies
> >> that specialize PROV to define a WorkflowRun of steps of ProcessRuns,
> >> which can be related to a common workflow description (e.g. a
> >> prov:Plan):
> >>
> >> http://purl.org/wf4ever/model#wfprov
> >>
> >> OPMW is a similar approach:
> >> http://www.opmw.org/model/OPMW/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4 August 2014 17:44, Michael Miller
> >> <Michael.Miller@systemsbiology.org> wrote:
> >>> hi all,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> as you are all undoubtedly aware, a major, if not the major TCGA
> >>> dataset
> >> use
> >>> cases revolve around taking the 3rd level data from the TCGA dcc
> >> repository
> >>> and doing analysis, producing 4th level data such as clusters, pca,
> >>> etc.
> >>> one of the things we do here at ISB is produce an intermediate data
> >>> step
> >>> that combines the different platforms (mRNA, miRNA, RPPA, METH,
> etc.)
> >> into
> >>> one feature matrix so that the analysis can use all the platforms
> >>> together.
> >>> the Broad firehose pipeline also has this as one of its outputs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> as some of my comments allude to, it doesn't seem that Dataset
> >> Descriptions
> >>> deal with the use case of describing a dataset that is specifically
> >>> derived
> >>> from other datasets, which is what we are looking at ways we might
> >> describe
> >>> our data when we publish it.  i took a look at PROV and, i've got a
> >>> bit
> >>> more
> >>> mapping to do, but it seems like PROV provides the terms we need.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> but this has lead me to ask the question of what is the relation of
> >>> Dataset
> >>> Descriptions and PROV and how should they/should they be used
> >> together?  i
> >>> think the above use case is quite common for datasets being published
> so
> >>> might deserve a discussion in the Dataset Descriptions note
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> cheers,
> >>>
> >>> michael
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Michael Miller
> >>>
> >>> Software Engineer
> >>>
> >>> Institute for Systems Biology
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Joachim Baran [mailto:joachim.baran@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:43 PM
> >>> To: Michael Miller
> >>> Cc: w3c semweb hcls
> >>> Subject: Re: hcls dataset description comments
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  I will ponder about your edit suggestion of your first bullet point.
> >>> I
> >>> am
> >>> not sure at the moment if it would have wider implications.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  You are right that the use cases were written by the groups
> >>> themselves. I
> >>> do not know how to improve the use cases without rewriting them,
> which
> >> might
> >>> not be agreeable to all parties involved. C'est la vie.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  The role of Data Catalogs should then be discussed during out next
> >>> conf
> >>> call. Thanks for highlighting that this might be unclear to readers.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kim
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 30 July 2014 10:41, Michael Miller
> >>> <Michael.Miller@systemsbiology.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> hi kim,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 'For other edits, please fork the repository and create a pull request
> >>> with
> >>> your changes'
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> of the four general comments, the first is really the only 'edit', i
> >>> didn't
> >>> put it in the minor edits because it had some implications that the
> >>> group
> >>> might not agree with.  if the change makes sense, it might be easier
> >>> for
> >>> you
> >>> to make the edit.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> the other three are general comments and i'm not sure what the
> solution
> >>> might be, they were mainly points, as a reader, that weren't clear or
> >>> were a
> >>> bit confusing.  these were all from the use case section so were
> >>> probably
> >>> written by the groups themselves?  if i have permission, i can
> >>> certainly
> >>> add
> >>> them as issues.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> cheers,
> >>>
> >>> michael
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Michael Miller
> >>>
> >>> Software Engineer
> >>>
> >>> Institute for Systems Biology
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Joachim Baran [mailto:joachim.baran@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:56 AM
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To: Michael Miller
> >>> Cc: w3c semweb hcls
> >>> Subject: Re: hcls dataset description comments
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  Thanks for the suggestions. I have incorporated your minor edits.
> >>> Unbelievable how those slipped through after so many re-readings
> >>> still.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  For other edits, please fork the repository and create a pull request
> >>> with
> >>> your changes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kim
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 23 July 2014 08:53, Michael Miller
> >>> <Michael.Miller@systemsbiology.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> hi kim,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> thanks for the pointer, i've updated my comments based on this newer
> >> draft
> >>> below.  many fewer and i especially like the complete example in 10.1!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> cheers,
> >>>
> >>> michael
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Michael Miller
> >>>
> >>> Software Engineer
> >>>
> >>> Institute for Systems Biology
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> general comments:
> >>>
> >>> ·         s4.4 'Dataset Linking': might mention also that datasets are
> >>> derived from other datasets?
> >>> 'A dataset may incorporate, or link to, data in other datasets, e.g.
> >>> in
> >>> the
> >>> creation of a data mashup ' --> 'A dataset may incorporate, be derived
> >> from,
> >>> or link to, data in other datasets, e.g. in the analysis of original
> >>> datasets or in the creation of a data mashup '
> >>>
> >>> ·         s8: odd that some of the top sections (8.1-8.3,8.5-8.7) are
> >>> individual organizations but three (8.4, 8.8, 8.9) have subsections
> >>> for
> >>> different organizations.  maybe organize so all top level sections
> >>> define a
> >>> type of organization with subsections beneath or make all top-level?
> >>>
> >>> ·         s8: some of the use cases could be more focused on how this
> >>> note
> >>> will help them (8.5-8.7)
> >>>
> >>> ·         s8.9: how do Data Catalogs fit into this note?  wasn't clear
> >>> to me
> >>> how this note is relevant to them
> >>>
> >>> our use case questions:
> >>>
> >>> ·         how to reference 3rd party datasets that aren't described by
> >>> this
> >>> standard, i.e. TCGA data from the DCC, simply use 'pav:retrievedFrom'
> >>> with
> >>> the IRI being the URL into the repository?
> >>>
> >>> ·         we have a lot of intermediary files that we won't publish,
> >>> the
> >>> software specified in creating our published datasets from its sources
> >>> form
> >>> a (branching) workflow with the input being from the previous step(s)
> >>> in
> >> the
> >>> workflow.  how best to represent this?  this note doesn't seem to
> >>> cover
> >> how
> >>> the dataset is created so any recommendations?
> >>>
> >>> minor edits:
> >>>
> >>> ·         there are two s6.2.3 sections
> >>>
> >>> ·         s8.8.1: '... what period it is updated. To know when to...'
> >>> should
> >>> be '...what period it is updated to know when to...'?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Joachim Baran [mailto:joachim.baran@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 3:43 PM
> >>> To: Michael Miller
> >>> Cc: w3c semweb hcls
> >>> Subject: Re: hcls dataset description comments
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  I believe you were looking at an old document. There is currently
> >>> only
> >>> one
> >>> Figure in the note.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  Please check the actual draft at:
> >>
> http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/joejimbo/HCLSDatasetDescriptions/blob/master/Overview.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kim
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 22 July 2014 15:36, Michael Miller
> >>> <Michael.Miller@systemsbiology.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> hi all,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> tremendous work, very clear and well-written.  my group at ISB, the
> >>> Shmulevich lab is looking to provide provenance for the analysis
> >>> datasets
> >> we
> >>> are producing for TCGA.  we're not sure if we'll be able to 'go all
> >>> the
> >>> way'
> >>> but we want to make sure we have at hand all the information that we
> >> could,
> >>> at least in theory, be compliant.  as long as i was reading the
> >>> document,
> >>> below are some notes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> general comments:
> >>>
> >>> ·         s4.4 'Dataset Linking': might mention also that datasets are
> >>> derived from other datasets?
> >>> 'A dataset may incorporate, or link to, data in other datasets, e.g.
> >>> in
> >>> the
> >>> creation of a data mashup ' --> 'A dataset may incorporate, be derived
> >> from,
> >>> or link to, data in other datasets, e.g. in the analysis of original
> >>> datasets or in the creation of a data mashup '
> >>>
> >>> ·         the chembl example in s5 is not compliant to the property
> >>> table
> >>> below, it probably is only supposed to show the relationship of the
> >>> three
> >>> terms but that could be clarified
> >>>
> >>> ·         s6.2.12 could use the example filled in
> >>>
> >>> ·         6.3.2: not sure what an 'X level description' is
> >>>
> >>> ·         s8: odd that some of the top sections (8.1-8.3,8.5-8.7) are
> >>> individual organizations but three (8.4, 8.8, 8.9) have subsections
> >>> for
> >>> different organizations.  maybe organize so all top level sections
> >>> define a
> >>> type of organization with subsections beneath or make all top-level?
> >>>
> >>> ·         s8: many of the use cases could be more focused on how this
> >>> note
> >>> will help them
> >>>
> >>> ·         s8.9: how do Data Catalogs fit into this note?  wasn't clear
> >>> to me
> >>> how this note is relevant to them
> >>>
> >>> ·         would be nice to have a 'complete' example p[put together,
> >>> maybe
> >>> based on chembl?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> our use case questions:
> >>>
> >>> ·         how to reference 3rd party datasets that aren't described by
> >>> this
> >>> standard, i.e. TCGA data from the DCC, simply use 'pav:retrievedFrom'
> >>> with
> >>> the IRI being the URL into the repository?
> >>>
> >>> ·         we have a lot of intermediary files that we won't publish,
> >>> the
> >>> software specified in creating our published datasets from its sources
> >>> form
> >>> a (branching) workflow with the input being from the previous step(s)
> >>> in
> >> the
> >>> workflow.  how best to represent this?  this note doesn't seem to
> >>> cover
> >> how
> >>> the dataset is created so any recommendations?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> text issues:
> >>>
> >>> ·         Figure 1: 'Overview of dataset description level metadata
> >>> profiles
> >>> and their relationships': reference not resolved, image doesn't show
> >>>
> >>> ·         Figure 2: 'Improve diagram. Multiple appearance of
> >>> concepts/description levels unclear.': reference not resolved, image
> >> doesn't
> >>> show.  add actual label
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> minor edits:
> >>>
> >>> ·         bottom of s.3: 'placeholde' should be 'placeholder'
> >>>
> >>> ·         use straight quotes rather than slant quotes in s6.2.2
> >>> example
> >>> (and elsewhere)?
> >>>
> >>> ·         the text runs out of the box in s6.2.3 'Description'
> >>>
> >>> ·         s6.2.3: 'Dates of Creation and Issuance': 'state the date
> >>> the
> >>> dataset was generated using dct:created and/or the date the dataset
> was
> >> made
> >>> public using dct:created' should be 'state the date the dataset was
> >>> generated using dct:created and/or the date the dataset was made
> public
> >>> using dct:issued'?
> >>>
> >>> ·         there are two s6.2.3 sections
> >>>
> >>> ·         s6.2.4: 'Creation: ... The date of authorship' should be
> >>> '...The
> >>> date of creation' and 'Curation:... The date of authorship' should be
> >>> '...The date of curation'?
> >>>
> >>> ·         s8.5: the author list has end parenthesis without beginning
> >>> parenthesis
> >>>
> >>> ·         s8.8.1: '... what period it is updated. To know when to...'
> >>> should
> >>> be '...what period it is updated to know when to...'
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> cheers,
> >>>
> >>> michael
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Michael Miller
> >>>
> >>> Software Engineer
> >>>
> >>> Institute for Systems Biology
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> >> School of Computer Science
> >> The University of Manchester
> >> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-
> 9718
Received on Saturday, 9 August 2014 17:15:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:21:41 UTC