chung wrote:
> 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?
>
>   
Actually, it seems there is a RegressionTask (subclass of
PredictiveModelling class)  at
http://www.e-lico.eu/sites/all/public/trunk/WorkPackages/WP10/web-materials/dmo-20090731-generic-dm-task.png.

However, I can't find the entire DMO .owl file on this site - did you?

Best regards,
Nina
> 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
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at opentox.org
> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>