Hi Jim,
Thanks this is useful. I have worked on both OBI and IAO and my issue
with "is_about" has always been that is very generic, that is,
everything that has a relationship between something else is somehow
"about" it (gene-protein, eye-colour, liver-liver cancer). I do accept
information is hard though. In your paper you use it for measurement
data and samples I see; it is this sort of thing I have specifically in
mind actually for our ArrayExpress gene expression data as most of it is
measurement related. It is good food for thought for me though, thanks
for your response.
Cheers,
James
On 04/05/2011 17:04, Jim McCusker wrote:
The group I work in at Yale has published a paper on models like this,
we try to re-use predicates when possible, and is_about is a core
property we use:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1648
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:42 AM, James Malone<mal...@ebi.ac.uk> wrote:
Hi Scott, All,
I was wondering what the general take is on predicates in RDF
representations used by the HCLS group. I've been looking at our RDF model
for Gene Expression Atlas at EBI and presently I'm using the same "is_about"
relation for a lot of the predicates as this is the lowest level of
constraint from the OBO Foundry folks for some of these information
relations. Alan Ruttenberg tells me that empirical evidence suggests that
using a larger number of relationships correlates to poorer ontologies.
However, I've also been told from various RDF advocates that having more
granular level predicates is useful for querying. Are there any thoughts
from the group on this? I have no preconceptions here (I have no reason to
disbelieve Alan or the RDF folks) so open to thoughts and suggestions.
Cheers,
James
--
European Bioinformatics Institute,
Wellcome Trust Genome Campus,
Cambridge, CB10 1SD,
United Kingdom
Tel: + 44 (0) 1223 494 676
Fax: + 44 (0) 1223 494 468
--
European Bioinformatics Institute,
Wellcome Trust Genome Campus,
Cambridge, CB10 1SD,
United Kingdom
Tel: + 44 (0) 1223 494 676
Fax: + 44 (0) 1223 494 468
