[#TAV-92] BioMOBY/mygrid ontology convergence - myGrid

Details

Type: Improvement
Status: Closed
Priority: Major
Resolution: Fixed
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 1.5
Component/s: None
Labels:
None

Description

T2 requirement s7 - merge the ontologies in some way.

Activity

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order

Hide

Permalink

June Finch added a comment - 2006-08-17 10:38

Katy - can you add to the description to explain what work this might involve and what the benefits are to help me prioritise please. Thanks. June.

Show

June Finch added a comment - 2006-08-17 10:38 Katy - can you add to the description to explain what work this might involve and what the benefits are to help me prioritise please. Thanks. June.

Hide

Permalink

Katy Wolstencroft added a comment - 2006-08-17 16:42

This is mostly at the level of the ontology model. Pinar has been working on merging the two so that both projects can use the same service model (now in OWL and at this address http://www.mygrid.org.uk/mygrid-moby-service/). We still have slightly different domain models because there is a fundamental difference in the way we construct our descriptions. The biomoby people like to chose a namespace and a resource database name seperately. We think this adds extra complexity for bio users - eg for mygrid, genbank is a type of DNA sequence database so it is just a subclass of DNA sequence database. In biomoby, you would chose the namespace genbank and the database type DNA sequence database. Both work, but we were worried people could select namespace/resource combinations that were invalid if we followed their way of doing things.
The work left to do is really within feta - if we want to search a registry of biomoby services and a registry of mygrid services, the queries a slightly different. I think Pinar has already written the code, we just need to populate the descriptions to test it properly.
The connection between the two things is important, but most of the hard work has already been done by Pinar.

Show

Katy Wolstencroft added a comment - 2006-08-17 16:42 This is mostly at the level of the ontology model. Pinar has been working on merging the two so that both projects can use the same service model (now in OWL and at this address http://www.mygrid.org.uk/mygrid-moby-service/). We still have slightly different domain models because there is a fundamental difference in the way we construct our descriptions. The biomoby people like to chose a namespace and a resource database name seperately. We think this adds extra complexity for bio users - eg for mygrid, genbank is a type of DNA sequence database so it is just a subclass of DNA sequence database. In biomoby, you would chose the namespace genbank and the database type DNA sequence database. Both work, but we were worried people could select namespace/resource combinations that were invalid if we followed their way of doing things. The work left to do is really within feta - if we want to search a registry of biomoby services and a registry of mygrid services, the queries a slightly different. I think Pinar has already written the code, we just need to populate the descriptions to test it properly. The connection between the two things is important, but most of the hard work has already been done by Pinar.

Hide

Permalink

Pinar Alper added a comment - 2006-09-11 17:19

As Katy has pointed out we are now using a common single "Service Ontology". so this task is completed. Having a common ontology allows us to share our service descriptions and also share any tooling that operates over this OWL (essentially RDFS ) model.

For example myGrid could use parts of the Biomoby dashboard or biomoby could use the Feta Engine backend to search over services.
Pedro does not operate over RDF(S) hence it is not sharable in this context.

The predicates in the service ontology are combined with terms from the domain ontology to generate service descriptions. Biomoby and myGrid have different domain ontologies.

Show

Pinar Alper added a comment - 2006-09-11 17:19 As Katy has pointed out we are now using a common single "Service Ontology". so this task is completed. Having a common ontology allows us to share our service descriptions and also share any tooling that operates over this OWL (essentially RDFS ) model. For example myGrid could use parts of the Biomoby dashboard or biomoby could use the Feta Engine backend to search over services. Pedro does not operate over RDF(S) hence it is not sharable in this context. The predicates in the service ontology are combined with terms from the domain ontology to generate service descriptions. Biomoby and myGrid have different domain ontologies.

myGrid

BioMOBY/mygrid ontology convergence

Details

Description

Activity

People

Dates