Hi Christoph and all,

Christoph Helma wrote:
> For the format I would prefer YAML (lightweight, human readable, easy
> (de)serialisation of datastructures), but I think we will have to
> provide XML too.
> 
> As datastructure I would suggest a hash with compound_uris as keys and
> arrays of feature_uris as values. In YAML this would look like:
> 
> compound1_uri:
> 	- feature1_uri
> 	- feature2_uri
> 	- ...
> compound2_uri:
> 	- feature1_uri
> 	- feature3_uri
> 	- ...
> ...

I wonder if the data interchange format could be based on existing work 
in order to make it compatible to existing standards.

For example, the blue obelisk descriptor ontology that is used by CDK 
and OB could be a start, as pointed out by Egon Willighagen in an 
earlier post to this list.

The question IMHO is, what niveau we choose to start from: a completely 
customized lightweight protocol entirely defined by ourselves, or a 
(subset of an) existing  format/ontology.

Andreas