Dear all,
 When talking about rdf, do we refer to xml-rdf or turtle? [Does anyone
have in mind some java library for parsing rdf-turtle data?]. We can
support both as well... I also noticed that the Data Mining Ontology
(DMO) does not contain regression algorithms whatsoever. Is there an
alternative solution for that?

Best regards,
Pantelis

On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 16:58 +0100, Christoph Helma wrote:
> Excerpts from Nina Jeliazkova's message of Mon Nov 16 12:10:52 +0100 2009:
> > Hi Tobias,
> > 
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 13:49 +0200, Nina Jeliazkova wrote: 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2)  Does the proposal means we abandon the API that allows to retrieve
> > >> feature values, given a compound and feature identifiers ?
> > >
> > > Another question: Does the proposal imply that features are coupled now
> > > to datasets? That would mean, that we cannot have a compound with
> > > features stored, that is not in a dataset? Or am I missing something? 
> > >
> > 
> > This is what was left without discussion (IMHO). I am not sure this is a good
> > option, there are lot of compound properties which are independent of any
> > dataset.
> > 
> > >
> > > If I calculate a descriptors with the new API...do I update the dataset
> > > or do I create a new one? The latter might lead to a huge number of
> > > datasets and maybe even redundancy. 
> > 
> > Exactly.  In addition, it will make more difficult combining features for the
> > same compounds from different datasets, which is crucial for some use cases as
> > read across.
> > 
> > 
> > From my point of view compounds are separare entities, compounds have features
> > and datasets are purely for denoting subsets of compounds and features.  Thus
> > my disagreement with the proposal to abandon feature API.
> > 
> 
> Maybe I got it wrong, but my understanding from our Munich discussion
> was, that compounds and their features are generally accessed through a
> dataset service.
> 
> It seems that your intention was to access the features of compounds
> through the compounds service and compounds of features the feature
> service and use the dataset service merely for subsetting data. Is that
> correct?
> 
> I would like to have a single service for accessing compounds and
> features. This does not necessarily mean, that every
> compound-feature-value triple has to belong to a dataset_id.  We can
> provide e.g. the same methods for /dataset as for /dataset/{id} or move
> the dataset API to the compound service and make dataset_uri a query
> parameter. 
> 
> I would however opt against replicating more or less similar methods in
> the compound, feature and dataset APIs.
> 
> Best regards,
> Christoph
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at opentox.org
> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>