Dear Nina, All,

On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 19:21 +0200, Nina Jeliazkova wrote:
> 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".

No its not about its name. All in all, its not made to be human readable
so it doesn't really matter. The issue is that we use Literals to
describe the Features in a dataset and not Resources. A Literal cannot
have an RDF description, while a Resource can! [Think of Literals as
termination points of the RDF...] 

For example consider of the following triple:

S: <SomeValue> 
P: <http://opentox.org/api/1.1/#feature> 
O: "FeatureName"^^xsd:string

I just say to change this into the following triple:

S: <SomeValue> 
P: <http://opentox.org/api/1.1/#feature>
O: <http://someOntologyForFeatures.com/feature/myFavoriteFeature> 

What do you say? 

** I attach an image of the graph of a dataset which complies with the
specifications of the current API. 

> 
> 
> 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).

Well, that was my main question... Should we consider of the current API
as final or not? Of course I don't ask for any changes in the interface.
I simply want to make some points more clear to avoid changes in the
specifications.

Best Regards,
Pantelis

> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Pantelis
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>