Hello Nina,

On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 14:21 +0200, Nina Jeliazkova wrote:
[...] 
> > RDF representations, structurally, contain much more (meta)information
> > about the objects they describe than ARFFs, so this piece of
> > information in the text/x-arff (the datatype of each feature) IMHO has
> > to be included in the RDF or at least - in order not to modify the RDF
> > standards we adopted in API 1.1 - we should use proper XSD datatypes
> > for every value. After all, its not 1^^double, 1^^string and
> > 1^^nominal is not the same and won't (shouldn't) be handled the same
> > way by a training algorithm.
> Yes, especially for nominals, it would be better to introduce subclass
> of Feature, rather than using XSD types for denoting the types.  I might
> try to extend opentox.owl next days.

This would be great. At the moment, classification is not possible as it
relies on a nominal target feature. Will this be reflected in the
text/x-arff, too?

Best Regards,
Tobias

-- 
Dipl.-Bioinf. Tobias Girschick

Technische Universität München
Institut für Informatik
Lehrstuhl I12 - Bioinformatik
Bolzmannstr. 3
85748 Garching b. München, Germany

Room: MI 01.09.042
Phone: +49 (89) 289-18002
Email: tobias.girschick at in.tum.de
Web: http://wwwkramer.in.tum.de/girschick