Dear Christoph, All,

I would suggest to start with an example.  Before Friday meeting it will
be good if we have specific idea how to represent features in RDF .  We
can consider BO ontology for descriptors and preliminary ontology for
carcinogenicity Olga Tcheremenskaia showed yesterday during the online
meeting.

So far we have identified the following information is necessary to
describe a feature

1)Name
2)Units
3)Data type (numeric, string, etc.)
4)Where the feature originates from: - this can be an algorithm used to
calculate,a model, measurement protocol, literature reference,or another
data source.

RDF suggestions to represent this information are welcome. 

Best regards,
Nina

Christoph Helma wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> If we decide to switch to RDF for data exchange we will have to provide
> valid URIs for feature(-definition)s (i.e. the predicates of the
> Compound-Feature-Value Triples). At present we have separate APIs for
> feature and algorithm ontologies, but I would suggest to abandon them in
> favor of a single service for OpenTox ontologies.
>
> >From a developers point of view, OpenTox ontologies should 
>
> - provide a glue (or meta) layer between existing ontologies (e.g. tell us that
>   entries in different ontologies mean the same thing)
>
> - provide a mechanism for extending/correcting existing ontologies,
>   before the extensions find their way into an official ontology (e.g.
> 	if we develop a new feature calculation algorithm)
>
> Of course we would need to access ontologies in RDF/OWL - maybe through
> a separate ontology webservice.
>
> Maybe we can discuss this during our Friday meeting.
>
> Best regards,
> Christoph
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at opentox.org
> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>