[DAS2] [DAS] [Fwd: Re: Writeback implementation]

[Gregg Helt]

Using the DAS/2.0 specification, this idea of "annotations of annotations"
is easy to do.  That's because every feature in DAS/2.0 has a unique URI and
is therefore addressable by _any_ other system that uses URIs -- including
another DAS/2.0 server:

<FEATURE uri="http://somewhere.else/feat123" ... >
     <PROP key="my_thoughts_on_feat123" value="overexpressed in tissue XYZ"
/>
</FEATURE>

Or if you prefer allowing your meta-annotation to have it's own URI:

<FEATURE uri="http//my.server/feat123" ... >
      <PROP key="my_thoughts" value="overexpressed in tissue XYZ" />
      <LINK href="http://somewhere.else/feat123" rev="meta-annotation" />
</FEATURE>

Used in this way DAS/2.0 becomes very RDF-like..

This is not just a happy accident but the result of a central tenet of DAS/2
-- addressability of all important DAS/2 entities outside the local system
via URIs.  The DAS/2 writeback spec is built on top of the DAS/2 retrieval
spec, so if you're fully implementing the writeback spec you should be able
to use this ability to do meta-annotations.

      Gregg

P.S. It's great to see development starting up again on DAS writeback!

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Andy Jenkinson <andy.jenkinson at ebi.ac.uk>wrote:

> Forgot to send this to the list...
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [DAS] Writeback implementation
> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:56:53 +0000
> From: Andy Jenkinson <andy.jenkinson at ebi.ac.uk>
> Organisation: European Bioinformatics Institute
> To: Gustavo Salazar <gustavo at nbn.ac.za>
> References: <49058C89.7050301 at nbn.ac.za>
>
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> The decentralised 'annotations of annotations' approach is a direction
> that is likely to see most adoption in my opinion because it doesn't
> require the original data provider to modify their source.
>
> Were you planning on using the existing "features" command in order to
> retrieve the annotations, or something else? I ask because it's feasible
> to imagine a DAS source that does not support writeback but still
> annotates another source's annotations. In fact the DASMI architecture
> already does this with it's scoring servers.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> Gustavo Salazar wrote:
>
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> This is my first post in this list, therefore I'm going to start to
>> introduce myself. I'm Gustavo Salazar, I'm currently busy doing my  MSc
>> degree in computer science in the University of Cape Town - South Africa.
>> The project that I'm working on is about the implementation of the
>> writeback capabilities in the DAS client Dasty.
>> My original Idea was to use as a server the writeback implementation
>> created by Asia and Andreas. However i've been notice that this
>> implementation works as an extra server and Dazzle is kind of middleman
>> between the clients and the writeback (am I wrong?) which sound like a good
>> idea in terms of independence, but it looks to me that it will be hard for a
>> client to identify if a  feature is original or has been edited.
>> That's why I decided to explore others alternatives and now I started to
>> work reimplementing the server DAS writeback capabilities not in Dazzle but
>> in MyDas.
>> I thing the writeback server should works as a meta-annotation server,
>> which means that none of the modifications, additions or deletions will be
>> actually changing the original server. in such a way a DAS client should see
>> the information of the writeback as an extra layer, therefore it should
>> first query regular DAS servers, built in memory the graphic, and at the end
>> it will query the writeback server to modify this graphic with the community
>> information.
>> In this way the user can choose to use the wb information or not.
>> I will use the protocol as in
>> http://biodas.org/documents/das2/das2_writeback.html with the
>> modifications that appears in the Asia's Theses. which implies the use of
>> OpenId as the authorization system, I agree with the pros and and cons of
>> OpenId that Andy posted, therefore if the consensus is to use another
>> authorization system I will adapt my implementation.
>> I will appreciate any comment or suggestions or if anybody wants more
>> details of my ideas please no hesitate in ask me.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Gustavo Salazar
>> _______________________________________________
>> DAS mailing list
>> DAS at lists.open-bio.org
>> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/das
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DAS mailing list
> DAS at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/das
>