chung wrote:
> Dear All,
>  According to the current API, the objects of all
> "values" ( http://opentox.org/api/1.1/#values ) are Resources that have
> a "value" ( http://opentox.org/api/1.1/#value ) and a
> "feature" ( http://opentox.org/api/1.1/#feature ) which is a Literal.
> Wouldn't it be more convenient to consider of features as Resources.
> This way we establish the counterparts of the "feature definitions" of
> API 1.0. 
>   
In the opentox.owl Feature is a Class, i.e. a Resource.   I support
bringing back to API 1.1 the Feature object , in place of API 1.0
feature_definition. 

http://opentox.org/api/1.1/#feature  is a Property, in fact it should be better named "hasFeature".


Best regards,
Nina
>   What is more, we're working on an RDF parser for RDF representations
> of datasets using Jena (a Java Library for editing and Parsing RDFs).
> Should we consider the current specifications as final or we're
> expecting for other changes? Regardless of the abstraction level of our
> source code, its important to know what input we should expect (in terms
> of Dataset RDF representations).
>
> Best Regards,
> Pantelis
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at opentox.org
> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>