I may be completely missing the point of this discussion, but I don't see
the point of this discussion :-)
What is represented by a URI is not defined by any convention or standard,
and we shouldn't be trying to define it in this group. rdfs:type can tell
us what the situation is at the moment we need to know it... and
hoepefully the range of the rdfs:type is controlled by an ontology in
which we specify whether we are talking about a gene instance (i.e. the
gene in a particular patient) or a gene instance (a particular DNA
sequence) or a gene instance (a functional unit of heredity) or a gene
instance (a set of letters and numbers representing a functinal unit of
heredity), etc etc etc... What constitutes an "instance" is in the eye of
the beholder, surely...??
Excuse me if I am speaking out-of-turn, or simply missing the point
entirely... it would't be the first time!
Cheers all!
M
On Thu, 11 May 2006 18:57:01 -0700, Xiaoshu Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm, the 10^16 genes instantiated in the volume of space
occupied by me are neither irrelevant (to me anyway), nor are
they concepts. They are very real instances of physical
material objects - at least under one definition of gene.
My point is: the existence of an URI doesn't imply that you have to use
them. Of course, gene type is important, but under certain circumstances,
there will be need of URIs for individual genes. For example, if you
were a
structure biologiest who wants to compare the 3D structure of the a
protein
under different physilogical condition, gene type won't be sufficient.
Or,
if you were a anatomist, you probably won't be interested in any
gene-related concepts at all. There should not be any "rules" to
"govern"
or "discriminate" concepts in terms of URIs. It will be largely
determined
the application context. Of course, the more general a concept or (URI)
is,
the more sharable it will be. But on the other hand, the less specific
action it will drive an application.
in your example I presume the ID gene/123 was intended to be an ID for
a gene type rather than an instance - or perhaps not?
In that particular case, what the URI represent is irrelevant. The
point I
wanted to make in the original message is try to say that we shouldn't
use
the URI of an electronic record to represent the "resource" that is
described by the record.
Cheers,
Xiaoshu
