Excerpts from Nina Jeliazkova's message of Tue Oct 12 14:05:14 +0200 2010:
> On 12 October 2010 14:57, Christoph Helma <helma at in-silico.ch> wrote:
> 
> > Excerpts from Nina Jeliazkova's message of Tue Oct 12 13:44:07 +0200 2010:
> > >
> > > Fine for me  - should we stick to literals or go for more complex
> > constructs
> > > ?
> >
> > I think that string literals should be suffficient.
> >
> > > BTW, in opentox.owl there should already be objects of type ot:Error, as
> > > defined in the errors proposal by NTUA.
> > >
> > > Also, API - wise ,  how these should be accessed ?  I can think of two
> > > options:
> > >
> > > 1) via /object/id/metadata   , then we need to invent metadata resources
> > for
> > > objects other than datasets;
> >
> > /object/{id} could return also ot:Info/Earning/Error (with exception of
> > dataset, where we can use also /dataset/{id}/metadata, if we do not want to
> > download the complete dataset).
> >
> > > 2)  via specific links /object/{id}/info , /object/{id}/warning ,
> > > /object/{id}/error
> >
> > Loks nicer from a REST point of view, but I am not sure if it is worth
> > to imlemement 3 additional methods for each service.
> >
> 
> 
> OK, let's go for the first option, including the three additional data
> properties in the representation of the object.
> In case of datasets could be accessible via both /dataset/{id} and
> /dataset/{id}/metadata .
> 
> Should we document it under API 1.2 wiki page?

Yes, but where?

	http://opentox.org/dev/apis/api-1.2/interfaces
	http://opentox.org/dev/apis/api-1.2/OpentToxResources/view
	http://opentox.org/dev/apis/api-1.2/RDFrepresentation

And opentox.owl would need an update.

Best regards,
Christoph