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

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

From: Gray, Alasdair J G <A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 14:52:17 +0000
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@CS.MANCHESTER.AC.UK>
CC: Michael Miller <Michael.Miller@systemsbiology.org>, Joachim Baran <joachim.baran@gmail.com>, "public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6241D281-EF7B-47D8-9147-1F42683F8FA5@hw.ac.uk>
Hi Stian,

On 5 Aug 2014, at 13:37, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@CS.MANCHESTER.AC.UK<mailto:soiland-reyes@CS.MANCHESTER.AC.UK>> wrote:

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.

Are you sure about this? I thought that pav:importedFrom meant that the derived dataset was essentially the same data as the original modulo data format, i.e. it is a 1:1 relationship (as near as possible). To my mind, this would mean that you could not have more than one pav:importedFrom statement for a dataset.

Alasdair



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


Alasdair J G Gray
Lecturer in Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, UK.
Email: A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk<mailto:A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk>
Web: http://www.alasdairjggray.co.uk<http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~ajg33>
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5711-4872
Telephone: +44 131 451 3429
Twitter: @gray_alasdair







----- 
Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year 2011-2013
Top in the UK for student experience
Fourth university in the UK and top in Scotland (National Student Survey 2012)

We invite research leaders and ambitious early career researchers to 
join us in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes. 
Please see www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders for further information and how
to apply.

Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity
registered under charity number SC000278.
Received on Monday, 11 August 2014 14:53:22 UTC

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