Changes between Version 48 and Version 49 of ImplementationBootcamp

Show
Ignore:
Timestamp:
2010/02/11 22:40:22 (13 years ago)
Author:
RutgerVos
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • ImplementationBootcamp

    v48 v49  
    101101=== How granular should my returned RDF be? === 
    102102 
    103 > MDW:  There was a VERY brief discussion of this issue on Thursday... the answer was "be pragmatic".  Highly granular data (like absolute expression-level changes for microarrays) might not be appropriate for conversion into RDF because it explodes the size of the dataset in a circumstance where (a) the dataset is generally going to be used as a whole anyway, and (b) there are completely adequate parsers for existing file-formats, and (c) the benefit of being able to reason over an RDF representation of the data is limited, or absent.   
     103There was a very brief discussion of this issue on Thursday, the answer was "be pragmatic".  Highly granular data (like absolute expression-level changes for microarrays) might not be appropriate for conversion into RDF because it explodes the size of the dataset in a circumstance where (a) the dataset is generally going to be used as a whole anyway, and (b) there are completely adequate parsers for existing file-formats, and (c) the benefit of being able to reason over an RDF representation of the data is limited, or absent. On the other hand, there is no reason (in Rutger Vos's opinion) why an atomic datum (such as a single site in a sequence) that is considered a resource under the used data model shouldn't return a brief description of itself upon resolving that resource, provided that the context within that resource has meaning can be located (e.g. by referring to the defining resource using rdfs:isDefinedBy). 
    104104 
    105105=== Where do I validate my RDF/XML? ===