[MOBY-l] SADI and CardioSHARE relative to Re: BioXSD... 8 years later...

[Mark]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:59:09 -0700, Dmitry Repchevsky  
<dmitry.repchevski at bsc.es> wrote:

>> We cannot get interoperability without semantics.
> Wrong... we can not do reasoning without semantics...

we cannot get (automated) interoperability without reasoning :-) (Unless  
we have universal agreement on data-types... which I guess is what BioXSD  
is trying to achieve... good luck to them!)


>> Moving from moby to XML Schema is simply a step backwards...
> I disagree... The only semantics Moby has is orthogonal to Moby format
> itself, so in this case using Schema is to standardize the serialization
> and fix web-services' part, keeping the ontology intact.


In some ways I agree with you, but in others not...  In MOBY we do allow  
inheritence of has and has-a objects within a Moby object.  This situation  
cannot (sensibly) be represented in XML Schema; however, having said that,  
I don't think that anyone has ever USED this "feature" of Moby, so... it  
likely doesn't matter :-)  My understanding from Eddie is that there are a  
couple of Moby objects that cannot be represented in XML Schema without  
breaking the rules of Schema, so there is a bit of a limitation there.

Does your XML Schema mapping allow me to send more complex objects into a  
service that claims to consume only parent-type objects?  It seems that  
this schema-mapping would be extremely difficult to do, since you cannot  
predict the structure of the incoming XML...


>> I seldom agree on our world-view
> ...  :-)   I agree with your disagreement  ;-)  . There is no perfect
> solution and in many cases I disagree with myself... :-D


Then we do agree!  LOL!  There is no perfect solution :-D


>> Personally, i think the sooner we stop using XML schema and start using
>> OWL/RDF, the better!
> This is one of the possibility, but in this case what to do with SOAP?
> There is no way Web-services move to OWL anytime soon, SAWSDL is the
> reasonable compromise (IMHO). Another possibility could be the REST, but
> this means to reinvent the wheel in many senses. OWL itself yet to have
> the formal description based on Schema (owl2).


Have a look at what we're doing with SADI and CardioSHARE:

http://sadiframework.org

and a presentation that explains it at:

http://bioontology.org/videos/semanticwebservices.html

I think we are starting to get close to a VERY simple solution to OWL/RDF  
based Web Services, and a registry model (if you can call it a  
"registry"...) that behaves in a manner we think is quite intuitive for  
biologists...  This is what I hope we will replace MOBY with in the next  
year or two.


Mark