From: Nicolas Le N. <n.l...@gm...> - 2013-12-18 11:19:17
|
On 18/12/13 11:07, Neil Swainston wrote: > If you pass the following through the validator… > > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:sbmlNamespace="http://identifiers.org/" > xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" > xmlns:vCard="http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0#"> <rdf:Description > rdf:about="http://www.sbml.org/#mi"> > <dcterms:created>2013-02-22T00:00:00Z</dcterms:created> > <vCard:EMAIL>mic...@mc... > <mailto:mic...@mc...></vCard:EMAIL> > <sbmlNamespace:inchi>1/p+1/fH/q+1</sbmlNamespace:inchi> > <sbmlNamespace:is > rdf:resource="http://identifiers.org/obo.chebi/CHEBI:15378"> > </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> > > It validates fine. Note that I’m including a couple of existing RDF > schemas that we use in SBML for example purposes. These are Dublin > Core and vcard. > > This gives us the triples… > > http://www.sbml.org/#mi http://purl.org/dc/terms/created > "2013-02-22T00:00:00Z" http://www.sbml.org/#mi > http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0#EMAIL > "mic...@mc..." http://www.sbml.org/#mi > http://identifiers.org/inchi "1/p+1/fH/q+1” http://www.sbml.org/#mi > http://identifiers.org/is > http://identifiers.org/obo.chebi/CHEBI:15378 > And finally, http://identifiers.org/inchi and > http://identifiers.org/is doesn’t resolve to anything, which is > unsurprising, given that you just made it up this morning. Not true. http://identifiers.org/inchi absolutely resolves. Not only does it resolve in an HTML page through your browser, but you can have it as RDF/XML and Turtle too. We have a strong pressure from the Semantic Web community, which make most of Identifiers.org advisory board, to be spotless on that front. As for the "is", it should bot be identifiers.org. You should use the bqbiol in that case. I know "http://biomodels.net/biology-qualifiers/is" does not resolve at the moment. We are working on it. > And while this may seem difficult initially, it would buy us some > freedom. Currently, our “schema” is hardcoded in libSBML - there are > enumerated types for IS, HAS_PART, etc. By defining our schema > externally, we’d be able to decouple the annotation part of libSBML > from our schema. libSBML (or an extended annotation package) would > just parse RDF associated with a given element, check the validity of > (our) annotations against our schema document, an return a bunch of > key value pairs, such as… I completely agree. The first step is to make the qualifiers a real ontology, with all qualifiers resolvable. We genuinely started to work on that, but you know ... too many things to do. Now the pressure is on again :-) -- Nicolas LE NOVERE, Babraham Institute, Babraham Campus Cambridge, CB22 3AT Tel: +441223496433 Mob:+447833147074 n.l...@gm... orcid.org//0000-0002-6309-7327 http://lenoverelab.org/perso/lenov/ Skype:n.lenovere twitter:@lenovere http://nlenov.wordpress.com/ |