Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-19 Thread Suzanna Lewis
rt/AMIPU/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc "w3c semweb hcls" , public-semweb- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal This is a very good.point; permanent URIs is a reasonable requirement we will aim to provide. Though I am intrigued with your use case about cli

RE: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-17 Thread Daniel Rubin
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/01/2007 04:43 To Dirk Colaert/AMIPU/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc "w3c semweb hcls" , [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal This is a very good.point; permanent URIs is a reasonable requirement we will aim to provide. Though I am intri

RE: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-17 Thread Kashyap, Vipul
MAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Rubin Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: w3c semweb hcls; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal We will be adding terminologies such as ICD and SNOMED into BioPortal and creating URIs fo

Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-17 Thread Daniel Rubin
To Dirk Colaert/AMIPU/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc "w3c semweb hcls" , [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal This is a very good.point; permanent URIs is a reasonable requirement we will aim to provide. Though I am intrigued with your use case about c

Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-17 Thread dirk . colaert
aniel Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/01/2007 04:43 To Dirk Colaert/AMIPU/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc "w3c semweb hcls" , [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal This is a very good.point; permanent URIs is a reasonable requirement we will aim to prov

RE: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-11 Thread Nigam Haresh Shah
> I too, am not clear about the use case for instance versioning? So if > "Tom" > is an instance of the class "Person", what does it mean to have multiple > versions of Tom? Maybe there are some use cases that make sense in the > lifesciences context? > > ---Vipul Have an example for this one: If

RE: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-11 Thread Kashyap, Vipul
I think this is a very important thread of discussion and we should probably discuss this at some length. Even before we discuss implementation mechanisms, we need to understand this issue at the level of functional requirements. Some issues that arise are: 1. Everytime a new version of a conce

Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-10 Thread Trish Whetzel
Hi Bill, Is the work that you mention below part of that for BIRN and is there a pointer to a policy? Also, have you found it necessary to be able to re-create the graph within the same version of the ontology on a day-to-day basis or is a version-to-version basis acceptable? Trish As to

Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-10 Thread Trish Whetzel
Are we talking about versioning at a very high granularity level (e.g., a URI that points to an entire ontology)? Should we also consider versioning at finer granularity levels such as the levels of concepts or terms and their relationships within an ontology? Some of these concepts, terms and

Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-10 Thread kc28
William Bug wrote: Here, here. I also would join Chimezie in saying I don't want to ruffle feathers on this issue, but if either NCBO and/or NLM/NCBI would start experimenting with a more broadly deployed LSID Registry & Resolution Service (NCBO for ontologies and NLM/NCBI for BioRDF data s

Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-10 Thread Daniel Rubin
This is a very good.point; permanent URIs is a reasonable requirement we will aim to provide. Though I am intrigued with your use case about clinical systems referring to a URI. Are you aware of any commercial system that is contemplating referring to entities on the semantic Web via URI? We'd c

Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-10 Thread William Bug
And the metadata (AnnotationProperties) I mentioned previously are designed to support the ability manage versioning at the level of nodes and edges. Again - it's just a proposal at this point, but its in recognition of this need you stated more eloquently than I in your previous post on t

Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-10 Thread William Bug
Here, here. I also would join Chimezie in saying I don't want to ruffle feathers on this issue, but if either NCBO and/or NLM/NCBI would start experimenting with a more broadly deployed LSID Registry & Resolution Service (NCBO for ontologies and NLM/NCBI for BioRDF data sets and/or data s

Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-10 Thread kc28
Hi, Are we talking about versioning at a very high granularity level (e.g., a URI that points to an entire ontology)? Should we also consider versioning at finer granularity levels such as the levels of concepts or terms and their relationships within an ontology? Some of these concepts, ter

RE: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-10 Thread Daniel Rubin
On the format of URI (slash vs hash), it would be worth hearing from the as much of the W3C community as possible, as there could be differences of opinion. At this point, we are collecting the requirements. In terms of synchronization, BioPortal will serve up the "current version" as defined

Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-10 Thread Tim Clark
LSID not dirty. LSID nice. :-) TC On WednesdayJan 10, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Mark Wilkinson wrote: H... sounds like a job for LSID's... oops! Said a dirty word! ;-) Cheers all! M On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:53:49 -0800, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One comment on versioning issues (quest

Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-10 Thread Alan Ruttenberg
How will LSIDs help? -Alan On Jan 10, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Mark Wilkinson wrote: H... sounds like a job for LSID's... oops! Said a dirty word! ;-) Cheers all! M On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:53:49 -0800, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One comment on versioning issues (question2) . The matter

Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-10 Thread Alan Ruttenberg
I guess what I'm trolling for is some more careful description of the desired behavior. Some examples would be helpful, etc. My feeling is the technical management of how to arrange a uri/lsid is much easier than specifying and agreeing upon what the versioning behavior should be. For in

Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-10 Thread Chimezie Ogbuji
Well, (not to open up a can of worms) ontology versioning can be handled as a mechanism 'built-in' to the protocol (as is the case with LSID) or via an HTTP resolution service (such as PURL). I'm more familiar with the latter scenario than the former. Assuming you have a static PURL address

Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-10 Thread Mark Wilkinson
H... sounds like a job for LSID's... oops! Said a dirty word! ;-) Cheers all! M On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:53:49 -0800, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One comment on versioning issues (question2) . The matter is more complex than the answer suggests. If a clinical system ever refers to a URI

RE: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-10 Thread Xiaoshu Wang
>> Yes, a URI mechanism will be made available soon. Ontologies will have their own namespaces defined by >> the authors, or if none is provided, we will create one based on our bioontology.org namespace. If the authors have their own namespace URI, that means they have to maintain a copy of

Re: Answers to questions about BioPortal

2007-01-10 Thread dirk . colaert
One comment on versioning issues (question2) . The matter is more complex than the answer suggests. If a clinical system ever refers to a URI in BioPortal this URI should stay forever. Even if a new version of the ontology is deployed the original URI should still point to the old term or conce