Re: dataset descriptions

Hi

I am trying to catch up with what has been going on in the last week or so.

On the issue of versions, from what I see in the diagrams you are proposing
a change of predicate from one that states that we are describing a version
of a resource to a more general there is some resource that is a subset. I
think this would be a loss of clarity in the meaning of the relationships,
which is the power of having descriptive predicates.

I don't understand from your diagrams what you are aiming to achieve with
the second proposal. Perhaps you can explain it a bit more?

Alasdair



On 10 February 2014 20:34, Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi all,
>   on today's call we got some feedback from Chris Mungall, Melissa
> Haendel, and Harry Hochheiser. Chris asked whether (and how), we could make
> arbitrary collections, for instance, chembl-rdf as a dataset (without
> necessarily specifying the version). i wondered if perhaps we could
> generalize our "version level" to a "subset level", which could very well
> include version subsets.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/136kVhd2ffx8qauyT2qMJKgKcWu7O-uvZ2tuH6DejCQ4/edit
>
> I also wondered whether this subset level description could point to the
> distribution level descriptions as sources used in creating it, as more
> abstract than our previous distribution-to-distribution case.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1qCG2Gl2ZtwuAO2clcya5q067FxPFs7UAHiIk18xzEcY/edit
>
>  what do you think?
>
> m.
>
>
> Michel Dumontier
> Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics), Stanford
> University
> Chair, W3C Semantic Web for Health Care and the Life Sciences Interest
> Group
> http://dumontierlab.com
>