In What Ways Can The Owl Format Be Preferrable To Tab-Delimited Files?
2
0
Entering edit mode
11.5 years ago
rolyata47 ▴ 40

I am reading up on Pathways Commons as well as their BioPax java tool. The first question that comes to mind when reading this is - why come up with a new data format (the OWL format), when tab-delimited files work fine?

It seems to me that the simplest way to exchange data is in a set of tab-delimited files from a reliable database, and an ER diagram that explains the relations between these files (soon to be tables). DBSNP did a good job with this, for instance, as they provide a vast set of tables that allow you, if you are interested, to create a partial local copy from a limited set.

So if we are to complicate the exchange of data with a new format, requiring a Java tool to extract data, what new advantages does it bring to justify the loss of straightforwardness?

And seeing how PathwayCommons provides both OWL files and tab-delimited files, what is the best way to create a local copy in a relational database? They advocate the OWL format in their README file, but it would seem a bit simpler to use the tab-delimited files.

Keep in mind I'm a programmer and not a biologist! Thanks for any feedback.

ontology • 3.1k views
ADD COMMENT
1
Entering edit mode

Did you read about the OWL format and the rationale behind it? http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s1.2 and http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/ OWL wasn't just something Pathway Commons came up with but it is a standard format for ontologies recommended by the w3c

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

Ah, I see, thanks.

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

Did you try to recreate the OWL file from the TSV file and macthing ER diagram using a program you wrote. Did that work?

ADD REPLY
1
Entering edit mode
11.5 years ago

OWL is a language to describe the data. It is based on RDF but, as far as I know, nothing is said that RDF/OWL should/must be described using XML.

(example via wikipedia)

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="&lt;a href=" http:="" www.w3.org="" 1999="" 02="" 22-rdf-syntax-ns#"="" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="&lt;a href=" http:="" en.wikipedia.org="" wiki="" Tony_Benn"="" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Benn">
    <dc:title>Tony Benn</dc:title>
    <dc:publisher>Wikipedia</dc:publisher>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

is the very same as:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Benn> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title> "Tony Benn";
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Benn> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/publisher> "Wikipedia".

BUT using one of those format make it already available for any RDF-based tool (parser,reasoner, etc...)

ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
11.5 years ago

OWL is not a data format. It is a Knowledge Representation language that can be used to build ontologies that represent a domain of knowledge with precise semantics and therefore in a computer friendly fashion, for automated reasoning, querying, consistency checking, etc. In this case, OWL is used to build a concrete ontology, namley BioPax, that unambigiosuly describes the meaning of Pathway data. Also, OWL is (Semantic) Web oriented: URIs, etc.

ADD COMMENT

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 713 users visited in the last hour
Help About
FAQ
Access RSS
API
Stats

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Powered by the version 2.3.6